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
14-09-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 05:34 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 09:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Read to the bottom of his proposed cover design

sigh. Facepalm can't believe I missed that.

Nor me!

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
14-09-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(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.

I stand corrected! I left a comment over at God Talk a few months ago and it didn't get posted at the time or within a few days of my making it. It's since been posted, so I guess maybe they're just screening their comments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
14-09-2016, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2016 06:53 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Summat went amiss here.

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
14-09-2016, 06:28 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2016 06:33 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 05:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 05:20 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Anyone else here with that problem, folks?

In terms of the world around us, the natural world, ignoring mankind's additions and modifications, I can see it, smell it, feel or touch it, taste it, measure it, record it . . .

The "world", the "reality" we first see is neither natural or supernatural, it lacks such distinction, it's just reality. In fact not even a physical reality, but a mental one. You don't see a reality out there, you only see the reality in there, trapped in your mind. Your reality here is not occupied by matter, but by mental images.

Well, we are both merely speculating here because, unless you have superb qualifictions or the ear of some deity, much of this is metaphysical. ''Perception'', I look at a rotting tree and see the beauty of a natural process of decay and regrowth, my companion sees a mess that needs clearing up. I look at a crucifix and see a representation of a belief in the minds of some, my companion sees the promise of life everlasting. I see the growing tree as a complex organism with its systems, chemistry, physical structure etc., my companions sees a gift from his god (and maybe how many crucifixes and pews he can make out of it :rolleyesSmile

Neither of us would see the same thing in the same way in that sense, but I doubt that my companion will argue with me as to the physical structure, the components, the physical processes involved in the destruction of construction etc.

The diference is the value we put on these things in our head, their physical form, composition, chemistry etc. is not in dispute between us - we can both do the same tests and arrive at the same answers.

Quote:You're not born with knowledge of an external reality, your born with a sense of only one reality, your internal subjective one. Whatever distinction are drawn here only come in later. That initial reality, that mental one, is more akin to a spiritual view, than a physicalist, naturalist view.

We may have no ''knowledge'' of the external world but we may have experience. Is it not so that unborn, but late term, babies will react to things in their mother's environment - possibly to music? Even to loud argument? At what stage do humans actually beging to learn, if not to understand?

In college we were told that ultrasonic scens seems to indicate that twins may be in a dominant/passive pair, where one twin ensures it has greater comfort, not knowing that it is denying its sibling anything, merely a survival instinct? Does this translate into behaviour outside of the womb?

Edit, video changed not happy with first one on reflection.

In fact, maybe not so dominant/passive!




Quote:We clearly are not born naturalist. It's why human civilizations are prone to a spiritualist view of life, dualism, teleological assumptions, etc..

We are born with a huge brain capable of an incredible amount of learning in the first few days and weeks of life. Much of what we experience and learn at that stage must surely affect later development? We cannot do the obvious experiements with children brought up from birth tended only by mechanical systems.

We are born as survival systems, gathering as much data about our environment as fast as we can to fit ourselves for independence of action and thought. We are malleable but with some basic rules.

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
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
14-09-2016, 06:46 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 06:28 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Well, we are both merely speculating here because, unless you have superb qualifictions or the ear of some deity, much of this is metaphysical.

I'm drawing a variety of inferences based on variety of facts and observations, such as studies that indicate what children tend to subscribe purpose to reality as early as they can articulate this, the sheer dominance of religious spiritual beliefs among human civilizations, that would clearly indicate an evolutionary component here. And a series of obvious facts, that our perception of reality is mental first. That we're not born with a belief in the laws of physics, or that reality is fixed in operation to such laws, or that all we see in front of us is purely matter.

Perhaps we are both speculating here. Perhaps the answer is that we don't know one way or the other whether babies believe in a spiritual reality, or in a God/s of some sort, and shame on those who conclude with certainty one way or the other?

What I would say is that my speculation are a bit more reasonably produced than the alternative, are derived from a variety of studies, and readily acknowledged observations.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
14-09-2016, 07:16 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 06:28 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Well, we are both merely speculating here because, unless you have superb qualifictions or the ear of some deity, much of this is metaphysical.

I'm drawing a variety of inferences based on variety of facts and observations, such as studies that indicate what children tend to subscribe purpose to reality as early as they can articulate this, the sheer dominance of religious spiritual beliefs among human civilizations, that would clearly indicate an evolutionary component here. And a series of obvious facts, that our perception of reality is mental first. That we're not born with a belief in the laws of physics, or that reality is fixed in operation to such laws, or that all we see in front of us is purely matter.

Perhaps we are both speculating here. Perhaps the answer is that we don't know one way or the other whether babies believe in a spiritual reality, or in a God/s of some sort, and shame on those who conclude with certainty one way or the other?

What I would say is that my speculation are a bit more reasonably produced than the alternative, are derived from a variety of studies, and readily acknowledged observations.
Quote:I'm drawing a variety of inferences based on variety of facts and observations, such as studies that indicate what children tend to subscribe purpose to reality as early as they can articulate this

From where are you drawing these ''inferences''?

Are you changing the goal posts? At what age do children ''subscribe purpose to reality''? I thought we were discussion whether or not humans are born with a sense of the supernatural, in respect of some form of ''god'' here - regardless of the actual culture in which they are born presumably.

At what age does this ''subscription'' take place? How do the children ''articulate'' their understanding?

Tomasia, I am fairly new to this forum and a little confused, I infer (good word that Thumbsup ) from some of the replies of others that you are a theist. Is this correct? It is pertinent to my understanding of your posts.

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
14-09-2016, 07:30 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 07:16 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  From where are you drawing these ''inferences''?

Studies on children and teleological beliefs, predominance of religious/spiritual beliefs across human cultures, and civilizations as early as we can trace them, studies show a propensity to dualism, a near universal desire for meaning, the fact of all facts, that we're bound to a mental picture of reality, etc..

Quote:Are you changing the goal posts? At what age do children ''subscribe purpose to reality''? I thought we were discussion whether or not humans are born with a sense of the supernatural, in respect of some form of ''god'' here - regardless of the actual culture in which they are born presumably.

No, teleology has already been brought up linked to on several occasions here.

http://www.bu.edu/cdl/files/2013/08/1999...yRocks.pdf

Quote:At what age does this ''subscription'' take place? How do the children ''articulate'' their understanding?

By indicating that they believe a pointy rock exist for porcupines to scratch themselves on, and the variety of indications that allow researches to indicate teleological beliefs in young children, as early as they can express them.

Quote:Tomasia, I am fairly new to this forum and a little confused, I infer (good word that Thumbsup ) from some of the replies of others that you are a theist. Is this correct? It is pertinent to my understanding of your posts.

Yes.

"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
14-09-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:Studies on children and teleological beliefs, predominance of religious/spiritual beliefs across human cultures, and civilizations as early as we can trace them, studies show a propensity to dualism, a near universal desire for meaning, the fact of all facts, that we're bound to a mental picture of reality, etc..

Yes, but whose studies and published where?

My apologies for subjecting you to an inquisition but many years of talking to theists on forums has caused me, so often, to consider what they have not said as much, often more, than what they do say.

It is my opinion that most theists on atheist or humanist forums often have an agenda in support of their beleif ststem. Ditto most atheists on theist forums.

Pardon me agsin but my tablet is on charge thus I cannot use the big keyboard and using the OS one is tiring for me. I WILL make the appropriate adaptor one day!

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
14-09-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
One other quick question, Tamasia; are youbusing "teleological" in the pure philosophical way or in the theological manner?

Being more the pragmatist than the philosopher in my approach to everyday life I admit to having to refresh my memory.

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
14-09-2016, 08:16 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 07:55 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Yes, but whose studies and published where?

There's a variety of studies published in a variety of different peer reviewed journals, like the one previously linked to, a simple google search would help. And unless we're to conclude the researches were lying, or are not to be trusted, their observation stands, as well as the inferences drawn from them.

Quote:It is my opinion that most theists on atheist or humanist forums often have an agenda in support of their beleif ststem. Ditto most atheists on theist forums.

And in my opinion, the objection by atheists to studies supportive of teleological beliefs, or children propensity to religious and spiritual views, is exclusively opposed because of anti-religious sentiments, not because of objective, or reasonable inferences.

So consider our prejudices mutual. When folks like Stevil get defense when asked questions about their view on what infants believe, while at the same time being certain about what they don't believe, it doesn't lend itself to trustworthiness of atheists here.

When it comes to you, I have too little interaction to have much of any opinion on you, so I give you some benefit of the doubt, before lumping you in with everyone else.

It should also be said that my views here also have nothing to do with veracity of said of beliefs, but the propensity to such beliefs whether true or false. Should be taken no differently, than if one were to claim that people are inclined to believe that the earth is flat, where the question is merely whether they are inclined to or not, not whether the earth is actually flat.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: