Poll: I accept the premise that we are born believers because of evolution.
Yes.
No.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2016, 01:16 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:35 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Yup, looks like the same RR as in the creationist videos on YouTube




Seems he is also the Canadian marketting consultant I found before. And he may be on the White pages with a telephone number.

But still no proof this is our Randy and/or the author. There are several others of the same name in the States

Sorry, Randy, we are talking as though you were not around, terrible manners I agree. The answer to the pertinent question would make this totally unecessary. It does seem to have become a bit of a bete noir.

We can just email the guy from the video at the email address at the end of the video. Smile Oh, and if you email him, tell him to fix his video. Unless I heard it wrong, he's got a little oopsie in there.

Randy if you did that video, you can still fix it! You can either re-record it, or add an annotation to point out that Bernard Kettelwell must have done his research in the 1950's, not the 1850's. It kind of decreases your credibility when you don't pay attention to these little details.
Hmm, the email address could be an old one, "Quest4Truth" seems to be a separate org that now only accepts messages via their Fb wall.That Randy may have had a post box there for filtering the hundreds of responses the video almost certainly invoked.The video was made 5 years ago.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:24 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If all theists could be categorized as agnostic (not knowing) and they are 99.9% atheist (not believing in the existence of a 1000 or more gods, except for 1), then it would seem to me that everyone is atheist Smile

I would put it the other way. Everyone is agnostic. At least in so far as it is impossible to rule out 100% the existence of god. Or that of the invisible laughing heifer in my kitchen for that matter.

It might have been said elsewhere already, but the idea of the supernatural or paranormal seems, to me, like a deliberate arbitrary attempt to introduce a non-verifiable realm where god can find refuge from proper scientific interrogation.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
13-09-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:44 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I would put it the other way. Everyone is agnostic. At least in so far as it is impossible to rule out 100% the existence of god.

Maybe, but there is no reason to even entertain the notion of nebulous something calleg god existing. No need to rulling out something for which no evidence exist.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
13-09-2016, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2016 02:01 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:06 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  According to Randys "theory" there are 2 sorts of atheists. And the -paths would need to be sorted out (and probably scientifically investigated, like lab rats, hehe) if he is correct. Would you as sceptics like to have soemone like Randy who believes in things he really has no good reason for, to figure out if you are part of a group of "genetically challenged" people?

The more i think about this, the more i have to laugh.


P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not? Consider
It's not much book material. Perhaps a paragraph.

His problem is that he tried to redefine what the "atheist" label means.
The label means "lacking belief in god(s)"

A new born baby clearly lacks a belief in god(s), hence a new born baby is an atheist.

The real question is, "Is it natural for uneducated people to come to the conclusion of a higher, intelligent, supernatural being?"

I think a proper study might show that since people have a natural tendency towards pattern matching as well as "Anthropomorphism" then perhaps this is the case, especially for young children who can have a fascination/delight for magic and fantasy and young children and the uneducated, who don't know the boundaries of natural reality.

Children that have been brainwashed early enough will retain (into adulthood) their beliefs in a magical god despite learning how the natural world actually works.
In contrast, perhaps a child believing in ghosts, witches and fairies may lose that belief into adulthood due to the lack of brainwashing, or like minded community members.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A new born baby clearly lacks a belief in god(s), hence a new born baby is an atheist.

Does a new born baby have a belief in anything? Have any beliefs at all? Do they believe they exist, have a mind, etc..?

Or are they a blank slate in this regard? Lacking a belief even in themselves.

Do non-human animals have beliefs? Or are beliefs a uniquely human thing?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:16 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  We can just email the guy from the video at the email address at the end of the video. Smile Oh, and if you email him, tell him to fix his video. Unless I heard it wrong, he's got a little oopsie in there.

Randy if you did that video, you can still fix it! You can either re-record it, or add an annotation to point out that Bernard Kettelwell must have done his research in the 1950's, not the 1850's. It kind of decreases your credibility when you don't pay attention to these little details.
Hmm, the email address could be an old one, "Quest4Truth" seems to be a separate org that now only accepts messages via their Fb wall.That Randy may have had a post box there for filtering the hundreds of responses the video almost certainly invoked.The video was made 5 years ago.

Hundreds of responses! That video had 93 views and zero comments. Tongue

Well, maybe his other videos have had a greater impact. Let's see!

467 views, 29 views, 133 views.... 61, 290, 40, 108.

Comments are disabled on the other videos. I can't stand when people shut down the conversation like that. I remember when Bill Nye had his debate with Ken Ham, Nye's site was flooded with comments and Ham's site had comments disabled. Christians can't stand it when people disagree with them and they'd rather bury their heads in the sand than face the fact that their ideas don't convince people who don't already believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 02:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 01:16 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Hmm, the email address could be an old one, "Quest4Truth" seems to be a separate org that now only accepts messages via their Fb wall.That Randy may have had a post box there for filtering the hundreds of responses the video almost certainly invoked.The video was made 5 years ago.

Hundreds of responses! That video had 93 views and zero comments. Tongue

Well, maybe his other videos have had a greater impact. Let's see!

467 views, 29 views, 133 views.... 61, 290, 40, 108.

Comments are disabled on the other videos. I can't stand when people shut down the conversation like that. I remember when Bill Nye had his debate with Ken Ham, Nye's site was flooded with comments and Ham's site had comments disabled. Christians can't stand it when people disagree with them and they'd rather bury their heads in the sand than face the fact that their ideas don't convince people who don't already believe.
Oops Blush should have checked the stats! I have heard of such vidros getting inundated. Do the posters have control over the comments? If so perhaps they got crapped on and shut the door! Or knew from experience what could happen.

Glad so few viewed it.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Oh, wow, that video. I love that he says "It's an example of Natural Selection but it's not evolution."

Facepalm

That's like saying "Well it's an example of two masses being attracted to one another proportionally to the distance between them but it's not gravity."

The funny part is that, whatever the deal was with the original moths research, it does turn out that the peppered moths are an excellent example of evolution (via Natural Selection) in action. From the WikiPedia entry on it:

Bernard Kettlewell was the first to investigate the evolutionary mechanism behind peppered moth adaptation, between 1953 and 1956. He found that a light-coloured body was an effective camouflage in a clean environment, such as in Dorset, while the dark colour was beneficial in a polluted environment like in Birmingham. This selective survival was due to birds which easily caught dark moths on clean trees, and white moths on trees darkened with soot. The story, supported by Kettlewell's experiment, became an example of Darwinian evolution used in standard textbooks.

However, failure to replicate the experiment and criticism of Kettlewell's methods by Theodore David Sargent in the late 1960s led to general skepticism. When Judith Hooper's
Of Moths and Men was published in 2002, Kettlewell's story was more sternly attacked, accused of fraud, and became widely disregarded. The criticism became a major argument for creationists. Michael Majerus was the principal defender. His seven-year experiment beginning in 2001, the most elaborate of its kind in population biology, the results of which were published posthumously in 2012, vindicated Kettlewell's work in great detail. This restored peppered moth evolution as "the most direct evidence", and "one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action"

(Emphasis mine.)

What do you know? Another lie from the Creationists. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-09-2016, 03:03 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 02:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A new born baby clearly lacks a belief in god(s), hence a new born baby is an atheist.

Does a new born baby have a belief in anything? Have any beliefs at all? Do they believe they exist, have a mind, etc..?

Or are they a blank slate in this regard? Lacking a belief even in themselves.

Do non-human animals have beliefs? Or are beliefs a uniquely human thing?
How are these questions relevant to anything?

To be labelled "Atheist" the only requirement is "lack of belief in god(s)"
A rock is an atheist and so is a new born baby.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 03:04 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A rock is an atheist

I think technically a rock is a nihilist. Tongue Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: