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, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2016 05:05 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 04:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Are you this dense, or just dishonest. Irreducible complexity is an argument for purpose. The claim is that some particular biological feature is irreducibly complex, therefore it was designed, created for the function it serves. Hence the reason irreducible complexity is an argument proposed by folks who subscribe to intelligent design, an argument endorsed by creationist.

Quote: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).

Irreducible complexity may be a stupid argument, but that's beside the point. The point is that it's an argument for teleology, for design, regardless if it's a bad argument or not. A teacher who peddles irreducible complexity in his class room as if it is true, is not merely peddling a stupid argument, but violating church and state, peddling religious belief in the class room. Folks at the Discovery Institute have tried to argue that isn't, and it's fun watching an idiot atheist arguing in favor of their position. Luckily our judges aren't as stupid.

Quote: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.

No it's not fine, wings do not exist so that birds can fly, anymore so than my nose exists so that it can hold my glasses. And you should perhaps explain that to the Ostrich as well

Quote:Wings do suit the purpose of supporting flight.

:Facepalm: And my nose exists for the purpose of holding up my glasses.

Quote:It is true that many people tend towards "teleological" thinking. There is nothing wrong in teaching that.

Yes, apparently you don't understand the difference between teaching students about different religions, and teaching them that a particular religion is true. Or the difference between teaching them about irreducible complexity as a view held by some people, and teaching irreducible complexity as if it were true.

Again are you this dense, or just dishonest?

"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, 05:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Are you really this much of a dick, or just pretending to be for emphasis?

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-09-2016, 05:46 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 05:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you really this much of a dick, or just pretending to be for emphasis?

Is that a rhetorical question?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-09-2016, 05:49 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 05:13 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you really this much of a dick, or just pretending to be for emphasis?


Emphasis, Felecia.


Sent from my iPad 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, 06:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is an argument for purpose.
Claiming that something has a purpose (such as, wings are for flying). Does not imply "Irreducible complexity".
If a teacher is teaching "Irreducible complexity" then they ought to be fired.
If they are teaching that "wings are for flying" then yeah, sure some snotty nosed young adolescent "know-it-all" may claim, yeah but Ostriches have wings. And if the teacher were any good they would highlight why Ostriches have wings and cannot fly. That in their evolutionary history their ancestors once could fly and then later their ancestors had no need for flight and hence the species lost that ability. Much like the Kiwi, the Moa, the Emu etc. As an alternate example, much like a Whale or dolphin, their ancestors once walked the Earth as land bound mammals and then returned to the sea and became ocean bound mammals.
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A teacher who peddles irreducible complexity in his class room as if it is true, is not merely peddling a stupid argument, but violating church and state, peddling religious belief in the class room.
Sure, but we aren't talking about "irreducible complexity" we are talking about purpose. These are different things.
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No it's not fine, wings do not exist so that birds can fly, anymore so than my nose exists so that it can hold my glasses.
Are you saying that your nosed evolved because it gave your lineage an evolutionary advantage, due to its ability to support glasses?
When we are loose with talking, it depends on the speaker's subjective opinion. They get to decide what "purpose" means.
If they term pupose to mean that a structure naturally provides a certain capability e.g. wings for flying, heart for pumping blood, kidneys for filtering blood etc then that is a reasonable context. They could then easily elaborate and suggest although these structures fit these purposes, there was no need for a design, no need for an end goal. According to evolution it was merely a step-wise progression over multiple generations, providing survival and procreational benefit on each step.
This is different to a theist preaching that the heart has a purpose and it was designed by a magical invisible unobserved intelligent being.
Theists don't get to own the definition of "purpose".
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  :Facepalm: And my nose exists for the purpose of holding up my glasses.
What is your back story on that one? I've explained how wings provide animals the ability to fly and how these structures have evolved in a stepwise fashion.
How do you explain why we have noses with regards to your purpose of supporting glasses?
How do our two explanations look, side by side?
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:It is true that many people tend towards "teleological" thinking. There is nothing wrong in teaching that.
Yes, apparently you don't understand the difference between teaching students about different religions, and teaching them that a particular religion is true.
Where did this come from?
We were talking about tendency towards "teleological" thinking, why did you bring up different religions vs one "True" religion?

Anyways, you are a troll, proved by your stating you went to "prestigious" Patriot University.
Waste of time talking to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
14-09-2016, 09:15 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Sorry I haven't had time to catch up on all the recent posts. I will - but not tonight. I just wanted to point out that, although some were offended by my example of comparing a sociopath and his lack of empathy to an atheopath and his lack of belief, there actually might be a correlation. A major study shows that atheists lack empathy and exhibit many of the traits of sociopaths (or, as they call them here, psychopaths).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...study.html

And another one from Big Think:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/new-stud...chopaths-5

One quotation from the first article supporting my hypothesis is this from the sidebar:

"Scientists have yet to discover a 'God gene' but said differences at a genetic level appeared to play a big role."

Other quotations of interest are:

"However, they point out research that shows between 1901 and 2000, 90 per cent of Nobel Prize winners in science were religious, while the rest were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers."

and

"'Far from always conflicting with science, under the right circumstances religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and insight,' Dr Jack said."

And while I acknowledge that atheists typically score higher on I.Q. tests, the truth is not quite so simple. First, I.Q. is only one measure of intelligence. And some would argue not necessarily the best one. Second, if you actually look at the data, the difference in I.Q. between believers and unbelievers was about 4 points with believers on average scoring 92 and atheists scoring 96. An I.Q. between 90 and 110 is considered average so these are both well within that range. Atheists will twist this data to say that believers are stupid when the truth is that they are average and atheists are simply MORE average. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 02:11 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Bongo?
[Image: kia%20bongo%20k2700%20%C3%A7%C4%B1kma%20....37.59.jpg]

Bongo?
[Image: bongo_and_raven_8982.png]

Nope, still not related.

Still makes more sense that Randy's drivel.

On a side note, my cat's name is Bongo and he's my bro. So I guess I'm related to a Bongo. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2016, 09:37 PM
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 06:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is an argument for purpose.
Claiming that something has a purpose (such as, wings are for flying). Does not imply "Irreducible complexity".
If a teacher is teaching "Irreducible complexity" then they ought to be fired.
If they are teaching that "wings are for flying" then yeah, sure some snotty nosed young adolescent "know-it-all" may claim, yeah but Ostriches have wings. And if the teacher were any good they would highlight why Ostriches have wings and cannot fly. That in their evolutionary history their ancestors once could fly and then later their ancestors had no need for flight and hence the species lost that ability. Much like the Kiwi, the Moa, the Emu etc. As an alternate example, much like a Whale or dolphin, their ancestors once walked the Earth as land bound mammals and then returned to the sea and became ocean bound mammals.
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A teacher who peddles irreducible complexity in his class room as if it is true, is not merely peddling a stupid argument, but violating church and state, peddling religious belief in the class room.
Sure, but we aren't talking about "irreducible complexity" we are talking about purpose. These are different things.
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No it's not fine, wings do not exist so that birds can fly, anymore so than my nose exists so that it can hold my glasses.
Are you saying that your nosed evolved because it gave your lineage an evolutionary advantage, due to its ability to support glasses?
When we are loose with talking, it depends on the speaker's subjective opinion. They get to decide what "purpose" means.
If they term pupose to mean that a structure naturally provides a certain capability e.g. wings for flying, heart for pumping blood, kidneys for filtering blood etc then that is a reasonable context. They could then easily elaborate and suggest although these structures fit these purposes, there was no need for a design, no need for an end goal. According to evolution it was merely a step-wise progression over multiple generations, providing survival and procreational benefit on each step.
This is different to a theist preaching that the heart has a purpose and it was designed by a magical invisible unobserved intelligent being.
Theists don't get to own the definition of "purpose".
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  :Facepalm: And my nose exists for the purpose of holding up my glasses.
What is your back story on that one? I've explained how wings provide animals the ability to fly and how these structures have evolved in a stepwise fashion.
How do you explain why we have noses with regards to your purpose of supporting glasses?
How do our two explanations look, side by side?
(14-09-2016 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, apparently you don't understand the difference between teaching students about different religions, and teaching them that a particular religion is true.
Where did this come from?
We were talking about tendency towards "teleological" thinking, why did you bring up different religions vs one "True" religion?

Anyways, you are a troll, proved by your stating you went to "prestigious" Patriot University.
Waste of time talking to you.

Waste of time talking to me? You're the guy sitting here talking about teleology, when you clearly don't have a clue as to what it means, what it means for an object to have an end purpose, a "telos".

Here's a hint though, if I find a pointy rock, and scratch my ass with it, pointing out that it served my purposes just fine, that's not assigning teleology to the rock. We're as if I were to claim that the pointy rock exists for me to scratch my ass on, I am.

Secondly, irreducible complexity, is an argument for purpose. Just one example of such an argument. All arguments for purpose are not arguments for irreducible complexity.

Thirdly no competent intro to bio teacher, would be caught dead suggesting that wings exists for the purpose of flying, fully aware of how misleading such language would be here.

And fourthly just because I lack patience for your nonsense, doesn't mean I'm trolling you.


Sent from my iPad 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, 09:48 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 03:34 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I'm going to read threw the rest I sure someone already covered this already or at least better then I ever could. But my initial thoughts are.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  2. Theism is the default position. We are all born believers. Evolution has caused us to be this way due to its survival advantage.

Belief is accepting that a statement is true or that something exists. But doesn't necessary mean that that statement is true. As a baby information is coming at you a million miles an hour. You have no understanding of the way things are and are constantly learning.

I think about those baby videos you can find online. When the parent gives the baby a lemon for the first time. They don't know what it will be sour, they don't even know what sour is. But they basic understanding is that when these big people give me something I should put it in my mouth. Babys put just about everything in their mouths because their learning the world around them. They don't have a concept if something is dangerous, poisonous, or even gross. At least until they learn it eather threw teaching or experince.

So when Mom or Dad give baby a lemon, and makes the yummy sound. Baby believes it to be yummy. Until they put it in their mouths then the get a big surprise.

[Image: baby-eat-lemon.gif]

Now this also dosn't mean that they wont eventually like it. or not learn from the first go about. But i'm sure you man even accept that just because someone believes something doesn't mean it's right or true.

Now how you can make a claim that babies automatically believe in a being that creates all of existence and wants to diktat their lives, I have no idea. Let alone the one that is inscribed in the bible. That has to to be learned.

How else would it happen that just about every child believes in the same god their parents do? Maybe not in the same exsat way as just about every believer (including my former self) that I've meet has different defintion and perspective on what God or gods are.

One of my earlist memories was the first time I went into a church for the first time. I remember it because it was traumatic. I was maybe 4 or 5, and my Sunday school class and myself were being lead into the main chapel I was the last one threw the door and they closed on my figures because I was in awh of the size and not paying attention. I screamed bloody murder and the teacher told me to be quiet because I was in Gods house. I looked around for the guy to see if he had a band-aid to make my hand feel better. But didn't see anyone. I didn't know what they were talking about when I was going to those classes. I was just having fun with other kids my age. But days turned to months months into years. Church on Sunday, CCD on Tuesdays, prayer at the dinner table, prayer before going to bed. Eventually it because routine and with out any insight from a different perspective you're stuck with the information you're given.

So let's pretend that your hypothesis is correct. that babies and some tapped information about "god/s" How could we ever know they are being untaught the truth? That religions are poisoning the well of this all natural information.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  3. Atheopaths lack a belief in God. They are "born that way." Their "agency detector" is broken. Studies have, in fact, demonstrated that theists see patterns that don't exist and atheists miss patterns that do exist. Their "pattern recognition software," so to speak, has been corrupted.

I've taken the point to underline something you glanced over.

I would like to see this study that you found this infromation from if you could please supply a link.

But from the foot note you presented they didn't say that the theists saw all the patterns ether. Just that they added one's that weren't there.

What can we gather from that?

You said:

"I would like to see this study that you found this infromation from if you could please supply a link."

I read it somewhere other than this. It might be Phil Zuckerman but I can't find it right now. The following link says this:

"In Rorschach ink-blot studies, for instance, believers tended to see images that weren't there and non-believers tended to miss images that were present."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technolog...le4313359/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 08:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Actually the Bible, in the New Testament, says we are all born believers. But I realize you are Jewish and are referring to the Torah - or what Christians call the Old Testament. (Hope that does not offend you. Most Christians I know have a strong affection for Jewish people - me included.)

To me, that’s a huge problem.

Okay, so I’m not especially familiar with the NT, but if I were a Christian, I’d be highly suspicious of things that are contradictory to my source document.

BTW, the term “old testament” is indeed offensive to a Jewish audience. The term was given to the Hebrew Bible to make it seem… well… “old” and outdated. You may, of course, continue to call it whatever you wish. I will know what you’re referring to, but it’s akin to me referring to the NT as the “fraudulent testament”.

(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You mention a "requirement to worship G-d." But is that not different from an awareness of God's existence? Satan (I understand some Jews don't believe in Satan) knows God exists but does not worship him. And I know of many atheists (Matt Dillahunty for example) who say that even if God existed they would never worship him. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure if biblically - whether Old Testament or New - we can say atheism was ever a valid position to take. That won't mean much to atheists who don't accept the authority of the Bible but that is the Christian position and, as far as I can see, should be the Jewish one as well.

We can certainly say that according to the Torah, the foundation upon which Christianity claims to have been built, worshiping G-d is not a requirement given to non-Jews. These are the seven laws of Noah, which we arrive at through reading the Torah.

1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not worship false gods.
4. Do not be sexually immoral.
5. Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
6. Do not curse God.
7. Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

The atheists may not accept the authority of my book, but I’m not the one attempting to compel them to believe in G-d. This is not required of them to believe in the first place and for that reason, it’s kind of problematic that you’re basing your argument on the Hebrew Bible (which you are).

Further, they really shouldn’t accept the authority of the Hebrew Bible because it’s not their book (if the atheists in question are Jews, then it is their book, and you can leave that up to the Jewish community to address.) The Torah wasn’t given to the gentile’s ancestors… it’s not their legacy. Why should they accept the word of something that they have no tradition of accepting? It’s really not their business and no, the Jewish people are not willing to share the Torah with the general public. It was taken from us and misused (as is evidenced by the existence of Christianity).

And for the record, no Jews studying and adhering to any form of Judaism accept the Christian explanation for Satan. In Judaism, Satan is an angel who is completely under the authority of G-d. To suggest otherwise is the same as saying that G-d is somehow limited and capable of losing control and authority; a concept which is totally against Jewish thinking.

I don't think any Christians believe that Satan is beyond God's control. God is allowing Satan to have his way temporarily but he will ultimately be brought to justice. Do you believe that? And do Orthodox Jews take the story of Job to be history or allegory? What about the creation account(s)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: