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
15-09-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 11:46 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 10:11 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  As usual, Randy, you are well inaccurate again. By a factor of a thousand this time, 13, 800, 000, 000 years near enough. Our ball of rock has been around for about 4, 500, 000 000 years and has bourn life for about 3, 800, 000, 000 years.

Hmmm... Your quote is from Aliza, not Randy, and she's talking about the universe, not the earth. I think she just forgot the last three zeros. 15 billion years is in the right ballpark for the age of the universe. To avoid ambiguity (I believe "billion" is not interpreted the same way by Americans and Brits), I will rephrase that as 1.5 x 10^10 years.

Yes, I most certainly did forget a few zeros. Thanks for catching that!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 11:46 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 10:11 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  As usual, Randy, you are well inaccurate again. By a factor of a thousand this time, 13, 800, 000, 000 years near enough. Our ball of rock has been around for about 4, 500, 000 000 years and has bourn life for about 3, 800, 000, 000 years.

Hmmm... Your quote is from Aliza, not Randy, and she's talking about the universe, not the earth. I think she just forgot the last three zeros. 15 billion years is in the right ballpark for the age of the universe. To avoid ambiguity (I believe "billion" is not interpreted the same way by Americans and Brits), I will rephrase that as 1.5 x 10^10 years.

Oops, apologies to both Aliza and Randy if I was in error!

Just grown to expect errors from Mr Ruggles.

I billion now accepted as 1000, 000, 000 in Britland as well these days.

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
15-09-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 06:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you believe, like children often do, that a pointy rock exists so that porcupines have somewhere to scratch their backs on, you ascribing design in nature. Giving objects of nature intrinsic purpose, a telos. Indicating that they exists for the sake of some purpose or function.
Let's speak in the context of evolution and living things and their body parts.

What purpose does a heart have?
It's a pump. A biological pump. It moves blood around the body. We can define that as being its purpose. We don't mean to say that someone set out to design a pump. That is childish thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
15-09-2016, 05:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 11:34 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Christianity says you can never earn salvation by your good works. It is a free gift through a relationship with Christ.

Randy, kindly reconcile this doctrine with a god that creates people who are physically incapable of belief especially with respect to the afterlife these people can expect to suffer and the morality of said deity.

---
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
15-09-2016, 08:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 09:15 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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

Yes.... speaking of twisting the truth. Dodgy

But anyway... I don’t agree that all people are born with an innate belief in G-d. This just goes against my own personal observation of the world around me, and you have not presented a compelling argument to change my mind. I don’t believe that you have the education needed to make an argument that will be effective at convincing anyone to take your position who wasn’t already aligned with your way of thinking. I suspect all you’re doing is repackaging existing information to sell to a market that already agrees with you. Whoopie do.

With that said, I do believe that some people may have a genetic link which may incline them to believe in a god, while others do not (note I said "I believe" and not "I know for sure"). I also suspect that link can potentially override one’s environmental exposure. A good way to test this may be to interview adoptees whose adoptive families hold a different position than their biological families. Have you conducted any interviews like this for your book?

I cannot accept that people who don’t believe in G-d must have something defective in their brains. It’s really arrogant to even suggest that, especially given that atheists are more educated, more intelligent (as you pointed out) and less selfishly motivated for doing acts of charity than Christians are. They're also under represented in prisons.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
15-09-2016, 08:40 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
There's nothing "testable" and "falsifiable" unless the genes for belief (if there are any) have been identified.

They have not.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Before I get back to reading and responding to the feedback, I had a thought today. I've had an idea for a few years about writing a book of atheist de-conversions so to speak. People telling their story about why they left religion (or why they were never persuaded in the first place.)

I realize there are many videos like this on YouTube and Richard Dawkins.net has Convert's Corner but I'm not aware of any mainstream books on the subject. (Individual stories maybe - like "godless" by Dan barker.) Conversely, there are many books explaining why atheists embraced theism.

I wonder if any of you would like to participate in an interview that might become a chapter in such a book. I haven't thought about the idea for awhile but attached is a cover I made a few years ago. Of course, you would have to have a compelling story. Obviously, "I've just never seen any evidence" won't quite do it.

With a background in journalism, I am known for being unbiased. You would of course, get full approval of the chapter before it goes to press. And I'll send you a free copy. PM me if you're interested. Thanks. Smile


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 08:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 09:15 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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

Yes.... speaking of twisting the truth. Dodgy

But anyway... I don’t agree that all people are born with an innate belief in G-d. This just goes against my own personal observation of the world around me, and you have not presented a compelling argument to change my mind. I don’t believe that you have the education needed to make an argument that will be effective at convincing anyone to take your position who wasn’t already aligned with your way of thinking. I suspect all you’re doing is repackaging existing information to sell to a market that already agrees with you. Whoopie do.

With that said, I do believe that some people may have a genetic link which may incline them to believe in a god, while others do not (note I said "I believe" and not "I know for sure"). I also suspect that link can potentially override one’s environmental exposure. A good way to test this may be to interview adoptees whose adoptive families hold a different position than their biological families. Have you conducted any interviews like this for your book?

I cannot accept that people who don’t believe in G-d must have something defective in their brains. It’s really arrogant to even suggest that, especially given that atheists are more educated, more intelligent (as you pointed out) and less selfishly motivated for doing acts of charity than Christians are. They're also under represented in prisons.

Bolding mine. I think and have said this on the internet many times. You are awesome! I love your logical presentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
15-09-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
To see something similar I wrote, check out the attached interview with my friend Melody (not her real name) for a project I did 2 years ago as a student studying social work.

As you'll see, even though I am personally against abortion, the interview is unbiased. Hopefully, this might give some of you the confidence necessary to allow me to interview you about your experience with atheism.


Attached File(s)
.pdf  Appendix #1 - Melody's Choice - One woman's decision to have an abortion.pdf (Size: 85.83 KB / Downloads: 12)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 09:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 08:50 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  ... Of course, you would have to have a compelling story. Obviously, "I've just never seen any evidence" won't quite do it.
...

com·pel·ling
adjective
not able to be resisted; overwhelming.

"... the lack of evidence was overwhelming."

(15-09-2016 08:50 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  ...
With a background in journalism, I am known for being unbiased.
...

I've seen some Murikan journalism on YouTube so I know that's a non sequitur.

Tongue

But you've already determined the true answer to the book title's question ... it's an '-opathy'.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: