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
16-09-2016, 06:25 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 09:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Honestly, I think its primary purpose is to explain to Christians how the Jewish view of Satan differs than the Christian view.

There were Christians when the Book of Job was written? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-09-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 06:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 09:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Honestly, I think its primary purpose is to explain to Christians how the Jewish view of Satan differs than the Christian view.

There were Christians when the Book of Job was written? Consider

Time travellers. Imported specially from the future to be confused, so that God could fuck Job over multiple times in order to explain things to them Thumbsup

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 08:50 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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.

"I've just never seen any evidence" is compelling. It is telling that you don't think it is. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-09-2016, 06:43 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 08:50 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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.

"I've just never seen any evidence" is compelling. It is telling that you don't think it is. Drinking Beverage

And I have never seen any evidence since I am incapable of seeing that which does not exist (except in my mind, but I am pretty careful as to what takes up residence in there!)

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
16-09-2016, 07:23 AM
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

Someone with more knowledge of statistics may want to correct me, but I don't believe your numbers. I'm pretty sure the overall average IQ is 100, by definition. I don't see how you can divide the group into two subgroups that each have a lower average than the overall. This is definitely impossible if you're talking mean averages, and I suspect it's also impossible with medians. Where are you getting those numbers?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
16-09-2016, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2016 08:05 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
[Image: n4fgnb.jpg]

You'll have to look here for the whole story.

And here

And finally one image that will not transfer @
https://philebersole.files.wordpress.com...08/619.jpg

No corroboration for this last.

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
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
16-09-2016, 08:55 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I do so enjoy the Christian focus on people who convert "from atheism", ignoring the fact that until someone joins a religion, they are all atheists. A more important question would be why people leave Christianity for Islam, or for atheism, I think. (Or from any religion they have adopted to another religion or no religion.) Christians really do seem to have an obsession with "testimonials".

But I'll bite. I was raised Southern Baptist (evangelical/fundamentalist/literalist Christians), and because of my high IQ the church leaders encouraged me to take a lot of the in-house adult courses on apologetics, in addition to regular Sunday School, for the purpose of learning why other faiths and denominations were wrong and we were right. I came to learn quite a bit about other faiths, and about the various interpretations of the Bible, reading it in two translations (KJV and NIV) and taking part in the Precept Upon Precept (a reference to Isaiah 28:10) class for a couple of years in a third translation (NASB- my favorite). I also participated actively in the youth programs, outreach, and active witnessing, including the "See You at the Pole" prayer meetings at my high school. I was about as "on fire for Jesus" as it's possible to be.

However, because my family was so fundamentalist, my mother had disconnected our TV from the cable/antenna when I was five, after an evangelist told our church that the TV was "the World" and "Satan's way of sneaking into your home", and we just watched VHS videos my mom checked out from the church library or the public one. This was fine by me, since I loved to read-- for one summer reading program competition at the public library, I won with over 200 books read and reported on! My favorite genre, besides military history and technology nonfiction, were sci-fi and fantasy books, starting with C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and everything Tolkien, when I was 7-8 years old. In the next decade of endless reading, I acquired enough knowledge from outside my church's teachings to realize that I was being misled by the church leaders about things like what evolution actually is, and what scientists actually claimed. I learned what the Scientific Method really was and how it worked (compared to the way it's presented by Creationist speakers/books), and how to learn the proofs about the old earth and the genetic interrelatedness of living creatures. Even though I didn't accept it yet, none of it matched what I had been told scientists think.

I had a big problem with this. If the scientists were just wrong (as I believed they were, at the time, since of course the Bible was literal and 100% true), that was one thing, but to misrepresent what the scientists claimed was another thing entirely. So I looked into it more, and found that almost everything in my Creationist worldview was based on lies and manipulations, or outright ignoring certain facts. Being the curious little genius kid that I was, I kept looking into it, and found that there simply was no way to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with reality. In the course of my religious studies, about the same time, I came to realize that their representations of the meaning and history of the Bible might be equally misleading, and so I started looking at scholarly papers and was shocked to learn that my sect was outright wrong about a great many basic facts-- things we KNOW cannot be true as claimed in the text and by its literalist apologists.

At that point, all my knowledge of other religions (as I had been taught them) kicked in, and I began to ask my Catholic and Jewish and Hindu and Muslim and Mormon friends to explain to me their faiths in their own words-- and sure enough, my church was misrepresenting most of what they actually believed, as well! So again, I began to read, and found that not only was I being misled about fundamental tenets of the faith, but that there were so many parallels between the tactics and claims of Christian fundamentalism and that of Islamic fundamentalism that it was laughable. I realized that I could no longer in good conscience keep believing in a literal Bible, and that whatever the truth might be, the Southern Baptists were utterly wrong.

When I went to my pastor and other church leaders to present the evidence I had discovered and make my case for certain doctrinal changes, I was met with extreme hostility, told that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about (essentially, "hush you ignorant child") and that I should "just stop thinking so much and believe"... which was the wrong thing to say to a kid who loved learning and thinking as much as I did. The church leaders told my family to put pressure on me, including apologizing to the pastor-- though I had been polite and "professional" the whole time. That did it. I realized that these people did not want to know the truth, and that I could not in good moral conscience continue to call myself a Southern Baptist. This was especially the case as I began to think about the atrocities in the Old Testament, which I had so blithely ignored before, and the ways in which--if I took the Bible as literal and historical--it made God into a monster that no one of good moral conscience could or should worship.

I went to other churches, but the seed had been sown: I could see through their bullshit as soon as it was presented to me, and I by now knew better than to question it aloud. I walked away from Christianity. It was about five years after that, when I was graduating college with a degree in evolutionary biology, that a conversation with a philosophy major (my GF at the time) led me to realize that I had effectively become an agnostic atheist, and at that point I began to apply that label to myself.

When I see people like you, Randy, misquoting Darwin and other scientists for making it seem they are saying things they did not say, I am reminded of the basic dishonesty that led me to walk away from religion altogether. I am sure that your lies will fool many people, but will also cause many more people (now that we are in the age of Google, and they can cross-check your bullshit more easily) to walk away from religion as I did.

So really, I just want to say thank you for being the lying Christian you are. You're doing the work of a hundred atheist "evangelists", so to speak. Keep on truckin'. Thumbsup

"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
[+] 12 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-09-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 08:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  told that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about (essentially, "hush you ignorant child") and that I should "just stop thinking so much and believe"


And that is essentially why I am no longer on speaking terms with my father. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-09-2016, 01:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Chicken or egg?

Is it religiosity that causes a generally low IQ or low IQ that allows religiosity to get a grip?

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
16-09-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 01:59 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Chicken or egg?

Is it religiosity that causes a generally low IQ or low IQ that allows religiosity to get a grip?

I don't think it has to do with believing in a god. I think it has has to do with whether the religion encourages independent thinking or tends to be more liberal leaning. I don't know all the nuances of all the Christian denominations, but I think the Episcopals I've met have been well educated and capable of separating their religious views from their otherwise secular lifestyles.

Too bad this sample didn't consider Hindus and Buddhists.

From Discover Magazine:
[Image: IQbyreligion.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: