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, 03:08 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Tomasia wrote:
Quote:A child who believes that pointy rocks exist so porcupines can scratch their back is expressing a teleological view here, that the rock exists for a particular aim and purpose.

No problem with a child making making an innocent mistake based on insufficient knowledge. One hopes that child will be given an education that enables them to observe the world around it and come to more informed conclusions.

I am sure that 99% of us, with no formal indoctrination in the scientific method, still make such mistakes, in minor things at keast, in adulthood. In more important things we may take time, if available, to observe, consider and compare (if relevant) before forming to a conclusion.

Form and function are critically important in all studies of life, of any form - but I believe that the current forms and functions were arrived at via a very long iterative process where the unsuccessful forms died out. Less successful forms are still dying out - not entirely by the hand of man.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
14-09-2016, 03:14 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 03:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So newborns babies certainly have no beliefs whatsoever, they certainly have no belief that they exist, that others exist, that reality exist, that their minds exists etc.

Do non-human animals have beliefs? Or are beliefs a uniquely human thing?
Your questions are bizzare and seemingly pointless.

I don't know what beliefs non human animals have. Perhaps some chimpanzees or dolphins or dogs have some beliefs, who knows?

But certainly, babies do not have a belief in gods, nor do they have a belief in fairies or leprechauns.

One could take popular nursery rhymes and insert "god" into them and use that as a brainwashing tool, or perhaps just talk to them about god all the time as if god is a real thing even though it is invisible and non interactive, or perhaps send them to a religious school, or perhaps force them to go to church every week, force them to do bible study, force then to go to religious holiday camp.

Oh the joys of keeping the dream alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2016, 03:17 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 03:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 01:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Teleological views have to do with ascribing design/intentionality/purpose to nature.

A public school teacher teaching a teleological view of nature, would rightly be accused of violating the separation of church and state.
Not quite. But they certainly would rightly be accused of not understanding evolution.


No they'd be accused of violating church and state. If some organization formed to teach teleological views in public schools, they'd be accused of the same thing the Discovery Institute and proponents of intelligent design are accused of. It be Dober part 2.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 03:18 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 02:46 AM)SYZ Wrote:  [quote='Randy Ruggles' pid='1059707' dateline='1473775847']
It's also interesting that since research shows that a higher percentage of homosexuals are atheists and that homosexuality likely happens in the womb due to a depletion of testosterone, this may further help to explain atheopathy.

It could be, perhaps, that all the hate and anti gay, spouted by religious leaders and followers, could make gay people feel rejected or picked on and then become shy of such religious nonsense and hence tend towards being a non believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
14-09-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 03:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 03:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Not quite. But they certainly would rightly be accused of not understanding evolution.


No they'd be accused of violating church and state. If some organization formed to teach teleological views in public schools, they'd be accused of the same thing the Discovery Institute and proponents of intelligent design are accused of. It be Dober part 2.
Depends if they are talking in a science class.
Science goes by evolution. Evolution isn't driven by purpose, there is no end goal or objective, just a filtering out of "designs" that don't work, because they don't survive, thrive or prolifically procreate.

If the "science" teacher started talking of purpose, e.g. "a bird has wings so that it can fly", well, that's misleading but it isn't religious. Perhaps they are talking very looselyand meant instead that "wings enable a bird to fly".

If they say "an intelligent creator designed wings for a bird" then that is religious nonsense and the "science" teacher would rightly lose their job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
14-09-2016, 03:30 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 03:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 03:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No they'd be accused of violating church and state. If some organization formed to teach teleological views in public schools, they'd be accused of the same thing the Discovery Institute and proponents of intelligent design are accused of. It be Dober part 2.
Depends if they are talking in a science class.
Science goes by evolution. Evolution isn't driven by purpose, there is no end goal or objective, just a filtering out of "designs" that don't work, because they don't survive, thrive or prolifically procreate.

If the "science" teacher started talking of purpose, e.g. "a bird has wings so that it can fly", well, that's misleading but it isn't religious. Perhaps they are talking very looselyand meant instead that "wings enable a bird to fly".

If they say "an intelligent creator designed wings for a bird" then that is religious nonsense and the "science" teacher would rightly lose their job.


If a science teacher started teaching irreducible complexity, he would not only be accused of teaching something wrong, but for violating church and state.

And teaching that something exist to serve an end purpose is teaching that it is designed.

Any teacher teaching teleology as true would rightly be accused of peddling God beliefs into school.

A creationist would love to have someone like you on the courts, for which their attempts at teaching teleology, would be merely being accused of being false, rather than religious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 03:34 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism

"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, 03:37 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism

"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, 03:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 05:50 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 05:34 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  sigh. Facepalm can't believe I missed that.

Nor me!

It was easy to miss. It's at the bottom of a pic that he attached to an obscur reply. He didn't even put it in the post like a reglar image, though a chalk that up to inexperience with BBCode. I only caught it because it was directed at me.

---
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
14-09-2016, 04:23 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 03:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If a science teacher started teaching irreducible complexity, he would not only be accused of teaching something wrong, but for violating church and state.
Irreducible complexity is something quite different to purpose.
Irreducible complexity is obviously nonsense because you can't prove that nature couldn't have created a structure in a step-wise fashion. However it does make sense to point out some complex structures and try to work out how they can have come about via step-wise fashion.
If you can't work it out, that does not mean it is "Irreducibly complex", it just means that YOU haven't been able to work it out (yet).
(14-09-2016 03:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And teaching that something exist to serve an end purpose is teaching that it is designed.
Not really. Just the loose way that we use language tends us towards these phrases.
"wings exist so that birds can fly" is fine, although very loose.
Wings do suit the purpose of supporting flight. Animals that fly have wings. Of course not all animals that have wings can fly. But, by and large the purpose of wings is to enable flight. Flight gave some animals a survival and procreation advantage, hence they evolved in that direction, not because the end goal was known, not because flight was even a concept, but because those that stayed in the air longer than others of their kind, were more likely to survive. Limbs very slowly turned into what we now term as "wings" and many wings enable flight, that is their purpose even though there was no design and no design purpose.


(14-09-2016 03:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Any teacher teaching teleology as true would rightly be accused of peddling God beliefs into school.
It is true that many people tend towards "teleological" thinking. There is nothing wrong in teaching that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: