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, 03:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You claim that babies lack a belief in God, and I'm seeking clarification. Do babies have any beliefs, or are they a blank slate absent of all beliefs, such as a belief that they exist, have a mind, etc....

It's entirely relevant to your claim that they lack a belief in God, if you don't understand why, then answering my questions would help to show you why.

"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, 03:21 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
What are the dividing lines of instinct and belief? There's the whole jtb contrast of believe and knowledge but of what an instinctual response to stimuli, does that relate to belief?

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
13-09-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:04 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(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
Hmm, same as me. Atheist and nihilist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
13-09-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 03:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

You claim that babies lack a belief in God, and I'm seeking clarification. Do babies have any beliefs, or are they a blank slate absent of all beliefs, such as a belief that they exist, have a mind, etc....

It's entirely relevant to your claim that they lack a belief in God, if you don't understand why, then answering my questions would help to show you why.
I presume a newborn baby has little to no beliefs, certainly no god beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
13-09-2016, 05:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
If you think of atheism as not wearing really dark sunglasses, then new born babies are atheists. They don't wear really dark sunglasses, nor do they have the capability to even know what they are.

They can squint instinctively when there is a bright light, but it's not the same as wearing really dark sunglasses as theists do.

Religious ideas can be added to a mind, just like really dark sunglasses are added to a face.

Babies lack beliefs in all things and by default they lack a belief in a god.

Adults who identify as atheists may arrive at that title through a different process, but the lack of belief is still the defining factor.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
13-09-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:44 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  And using the word "theory" for simplicity on the cover and then explaining inside what a scientific theory really is and that this is a hypothesis is not dishonest in any sense.

It is dishonest in every sense. You hypothesis has been tested and has failed. To state that your failed hypothesis is a theory is the opposite of true. It's like referring to that stranger in the bar who just slapped you as your wife.

(13-09-2016 12:28 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "As much fun as I'm sure it will be insulting Randy for his numerous and deliberate falsehoods . . ."

I have made none.

Quote:2. Theism is the default position. We are all born believers. Evolution has caused us to be this way due to its survival advantage.

Kindly reconcile your support for evolution as the cause for theism with your patent and obvious disbelief in evolution.

And if this is your best rebuttal to the dissection of your twaddle then it isn't simply your hypothesis that is failed.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
13-09-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:35 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  But still no proof this is our Randy and/or the author.

Read to the bottom of his proposed cover design

[Image: Dishonesty_zpszolaf8i6.png]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
13-09-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 02:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  ...
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.

In fairness, that's a generalisation (which is just typical of all Jewish women Tongue).

The guys who interviewed me (Andy and Doug) have their comments enabled and also politely asked for comments on their Soundcloud or iTunes output.

Obviously, that's to boost their ratings so no one should feel any obligation so do to.

Meanwhile, The Atheist Experience have comments disabled on their YouTube output ... which is disappoint, but understandable.

(13-09-2016 02:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
[i]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.
...

And to add further evidence...

I was born in Birmingham (with "a light-coloured body") and we often took family holidays in Dorset, a cleaner environment more highly suited to my camouflage.

According to that Fox News pundit, Birmingham is now a no-go area of Britain and I don't live there any more.

QED.

... and if anyone was unsure, yes, that was a racist joke.

(13-09-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
You claim that babies lack a belief in God, and I'm seeking clarification. Do babies have any beliefs, or are they a blank slate absent of all beliefs, such as a belief that they exist, have a mind, etc....
...

Already asked and answered pages ago. Please keep up.

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
13-09-2016, 10:23 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 08:50 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 08:39 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  If you fully understand my hypothesis and Premise #3 of my argument in the original post, then I suppose I am saying that "atheopathy" IS a condition, not a position. A position must be held volitionally. Atheopathy would be like a sexual orientation. It is not something you choose It is something you are born with.

"You also may want to look at it from the obvious perspective of what causes (using your own term) theism and the belief in the unseen, untestable and un-evidenced."

I addressed this briefly in the original post (see the rabbit example) but there would be at least one full chapter about it in the book. Thanks for your input.

I'm starting to see what you're saying.

Some people are born with a natural gift of intelligence. If exposed to a nurturing environment, these people can become very educated or at the least very clever or street smart. Then again, some people are just worthless morons and there's nothing you can do for them. It's not their fault that they're so stupid, it's more like a condition that they suffer from.

I think maybe you fall into the latter category. It's not your fault, though.

You're giving him too much credit Aliza. If he had merely been born with the handicap of having had his brain scooped out we could forgive that. Annoyingly stoopid but hardly his fault. It's pretty clear though that not only is Randy not an irretrevable imbecile, his dishonesty is quite systematic.

From his very first words where he speaks of his many black atheist friends, Randy has been flying the false flag of a reasonable theist™ just looking for some honest™ debate on how theism/atheism evolved. A closer examination shows that he doesn't believe in evolution in the slightest and holds atheists in contempt. It's pretty clear that he's just trying to paint atheists as diseased mutants with mental disorders that keep them from finding gawd. You really have to love how people like him can't even keep the simplest of their god's commandments.

Given that he is almost certain to find a hostile audience here one wonders what his real motivation is. Could it be to run up the Google hits for his next book? If so then I suggest we all do our best to thank him accordingly by derailing this thread into

The Top 10 Least Ethical Uses for a Gerbil

It will almost certainly be more meaningful. I'll start off light.

[Image: hqdefault.jpg][/size]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
13-09-2016, 10:34 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:23 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  ...

The Top 10 Least Ethical Uses for a Gerbil

It will almost certainly be more meaningful. I'll start off light.

[Image: hqdefault.jpg][/size]

Given that I'm likened to Richard Gere at least once a week ... I'm staying out of this one.

Blush

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: