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
17-09-2016, 12:40 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:07 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:27 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The quote by Darwin, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy [which he spelled phantasy]" is not taken out of context. He was admitting he had doubts because he was an honest scientist. I wouldn't trust a scientist - or anyone for that matter - who didn't have doubts.

Darwin even said, "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" This became known as Darwin's doubt. No one is suggesting, by this, that he repudiated his theory of evolution by natural selection or had a deathbed conversion or anything like that.

Oh, very clever Randy! In the way those quotations, and your one on this forum from Bruce Hood were used are definitely taken out of context.

They are being used to ''prove'' something that they did not support. Yes, Darwin expressed that he had his doubts, but then (the part the book missed out) said that he had resolved those doubts. Yes, Leakey quoted a friend who cracked a joke - not stated a fact.

By now claiming that the use to which the partial quotation was used was to illustate that Darwin was an ''honest'' scientist just compounds the misuse of the facts. The full quotation does not support the books contention. This is the typical and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth so often found in creationist literature and on their websites. Known as lying by most people and certainly not in the ''Christian spirit'' one might have thought.

Professor Hood, as referenced in this forum, was merely reminiscing when he exoressed his interest in the supernatural per se, it seems he now considers belief in it as merely another function of the mind, a thing to be studied - like the need for some to tell lies or inflate their weak personality by acting superior to others?

Could it be that you are tacitly admitting to be the author of ''Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know ''? Or merely defending the work of a name-sake who also happens to have a similar agenda to yourself? There are several ''Randy Ruggles'' on line in several fields, chances of two with similar aims?

So, since we do not seem able to offer you our trust or respect on this forum please give us a token, answer the question:

Yet onvce again I ask the question, did you write the book-
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know
or not?

Without a definitive answer a, simple, ''Yes'' or ''No'' I beleive that we are entitled to accept that you did and are evading something that will be embarrassing to your current stance.

Not that your stance has anything but a load of unstable rocks under its feet in what appears to be the collect opinion of the members of this forum.

PS, I have not yet read all today's posts, pardon me if you have already answered the question fully, in terms of ''Yes'' or ''No''.

Later: no, can't find anything definitive in your posts, Randy.

I think I've answered this twice already. Yes, I did write that book. You can see me on YouTube from a national television program being interviewed about it. And when I posted a picture of the potential cover for this new book, it clearly said, "Author of Evolution: Fact or Fiction." I've also written two marketing books and a novel but my other books are not relevant to this discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 12:45 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 12:52 AM by Randy Ruggles.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:44 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  [...] What is dishonest is what Lawrence Krauss did with his book "A Universe from Nothing" where he uses the word "nothing" on the cover and then redefines nothing inside so that it is not really nothing at all. That is blatant deception. But Krauss has a habit of lying as evidenced in this video I made.

What a load of absolute horseshit. You assert that Krauss has "a habit of lying" but you provide zero evidence for this absurd claim. And your pathetic YouTube video has had a mere 62 views in 6 months, with four times the thumbs down as thumbs up LOL. Shows how seriously people take—or don't take—your opinions.

It's more than obvious you're reverting to the old theist diversionary tactic of ad hominem attacks on anybody of an atheistic mindset—particularly those not in a position to respond to you. Which makes you a moral coward.

It's telling that you believe the number of views is relevant to the truth of the video. Do you accept things only based on majority opinion? Who cares how many views it has. The point is that I clearly proved he lied. If you cannot see that, I suspect you have bigger issues with the truth than Krauss has.

Further, I don't think you know what an ad hominem attack is.

Finally, I wonder how anyone could even begin to accept the truth of a scientific hypothesis or anything like the existence of God when they cannot accept something that is proven to them as plainly as I did in that video. If Krauss didn't lie to Bob Enyart, what else do you call it? Do you think he just forgot about that conference? Come on. What is your rational, scientific explanation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 01:05 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 03:41 PM)Aliza Wrote:  ...
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]

Consider

Adding up my own score...

Raised Anglican (CofE) + latent Jew(ish) + now agnostic-atheist... total = 446.07

Seems a little low.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-09-2016, 01:24 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 02:11 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 12:25 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:35 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Your conclusions re this statement are erroneous. Their religious viewpoint had absolutely no causational effect upon their scientific viewpoints. Neither one influenced the other in any practical sense. In fact, their science prospered in spite of their religion—or at the very least alongside it.

UK scientist and philosopher John W Draper (d.1882) postulated a "conflict thesis", maintaining that religion and science have been in conflict factually, methodologically, and politically throughout history. This thesis is supported by several contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and the late Carl Sagan.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. Johannes Kepler said he was "thinking God's thoughts after him."

Sure science and religion sometimes come into conflict. Especially if one takes the first chapters of Genesis literally. But there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. And scientists who are Christians do not merely say, "God did it so we don't need to investigate any further." Instead, Christians are motivated to study science to discover the brilliance of how the Designer did it. As long as they are atheists when they enter the lab, there can be no conflict.


Anyone who seriously believes in a religion, takes upon themselves certain beliefs and presuppositions. Any Christian scientist cannot question the divinity of Jesus or the existence of their god, because doing so means they are no longer Christians. Every religions has thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are sacrosanct and beyond question. You cannot be a good scientist if there are thoughts, ideas, and questions you are not allowed to explore.


So what we have is mass compartmentalization, where religious scientist have to believe in magic on weekends, and be rationalists the rest of the week. If religion and science didn't conflict, then how come nobody has won a Noble Prize for proving the existence of their god? Or souls? Or even the supernatural? Nobody is questioning that Francis Collins is a brilliant geneticist. When he helped to redefine modern biology with his work on genetics, he submitted his work for peer review; and won himself a Nobel Prize in science for the effort. But when he wanted to present evidence for his faith? He wrote a popular book for mainstream audiences, because even he knows that his three frozen waterfalls 'proof' wouldn't stand up to scientific rigor. He knows that he's applying a double standard, and that double standard can cut both ways.


How much of a better scientist would he be if he wasn't always jumping through hoops and trying to square that circle? He might be a brilliant geneticist, but he's unable to take his work or follow the evidence in such a way as to threaten his Christianity. He has certain thoughts he's not allowed to think, his religion punishes thought crime. His brilliance will be forever limited by his religiosity.


As was Newton's, who wasted unfathomable time and effort on alchemy and bible codes. If only Newton hadn't wasted so much time and effort on his faith, he might have figured out perturbation theory and relativity on his own, instead of needing other brilliant minds centuries later to fill in the shortcoming of his admittedly groundbreaking calculus.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2016, 01:33 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 01:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ---
As was Newton's, who wasted unfathomable time and effort on alchemy and bible codes. If only Newton hadn't wasted so much time and effort on his faith, he might have figured out perturbation theory and relativity on his own, instead of needing other brilliant minds centuries later to fill in the shortcoming of his admittedly groundbreaking calculus.

Relativity was first explicitly described by Galileo in 1632.

Just read a mammoth Galileo biography. He played a mean lute, too. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
17-09-2016, 01:46 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 12:40 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 01:07 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Oh, very clever Randy! In the way those quotations, and your one on this forum from Bruce Hood were used are definitely taken out of context.

They are being used to ''prove'' something that they did not support. Yes, Darwin expressed that he had his doubts, but then (the part the book missed out) said that he had resolved those doubts. Yes, Leakey quoted a friend who cracked a joke - not stated a fact.

By now claiming that the use to which the partial quotation was used was to illustate that Darwin was an ''honest'' scientist just compounds the misuse of the facts. The full quotation does not support the books contention. This is the typical and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth so often found in creationist literature and on their websites. Known as lying by most people and certainly not in the ''Christian spirit'' one might have thought.

Professor Hood, as referenced in this forum, was merely reminiscing when he exoressed his interest in the supernatural per se, it seems he now considers belief in it as merely another function of the mind, a thing to be studied - like the need for some to tell lies or inflate their weak personality by acting superior to others?

Could it be that you are tacitly admitting to be the author of ''Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know ''? Or merely defending the work of a name-sake who also happens to have a similar agenda to yourself? There are several ''Randy Ruggles'' on line in several fields, chances of two with similar aims?

So, since we do not seem able to offer you our trust or respect on this forum please give us a token, answer the question:

Yet onvce again I ask the question, did you write the book-
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know
or not?

Without a definitive answer a, simple, ''Yes'' or ''No'' I beleive that we are entitled to accept that you did and are evading something that will be embarrassing to your current stance.

Not that your stance has anything but a load of unstable rocks under its feet in what appears to be the collect opinion of the members of this forum.

PS, I have not yet read all today's posts, pardon me if you have already answered the question fully, in terms of ''Yes'' or ''No''.

Later: no, can't find anything definitive in your posts, Randy.

I think I've answered this twice already. Yes, I did write that book. You can see me on YouTube from a national television program being interviewed about it. And when I posted a picture of the potential cover for this new book, it clearly said, "Author of Evolution: Fact or Fiction." I've also written two marketing books and a novel but my other books are not relevant to this discussion.

You blatantly used the partial quotations from Darwin and at least one other to support your claim that even eminent scientists were unsure about the veracity of the theory of evolution.

Thus, as here, you are being totally dishonest as to your motives. You are stupid enough to attempt this, and to continue that attempt, with people who have evidently met such tactics in the past and can recognise them easily.

I am not yet sure whether this is malicious intent or because you are so deluded you know no better. I will be charitable and go for the latter.

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
[+] 6 users Like Gloucester's post
17-09-2016, 01:46 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 01:33 AM)kim Wrote:  
(17-09-2016 01:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ---
As was Newton's, who wasted unfathomable time and effort on alchemy and bible codes. If only Newton hadn't wasted so much time and effort on his faith, he might have figured out perturbation theory and relativity on his own, instead of needing other brilliant minds centuries later to fill in the shortcoming of his admittedly groundbreaking calculus.

Relativity was first explicitly described by Galileo in 1632.

Just read a mammoth Galileo biography. He played a mean lute, too. Shy





I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo Figaro - magnifico

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-09-2016, 01:57 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 11:33 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 09:54 PM)Banjo Wrote:  I think this entire idea presupposes belief before atheism. I was first an atheist. An atheist I remain.

No it doesn't. Atheism would have originally been the default position. Now it isn't. Let me ask you: Are you an atheist because you were born that way or did you come to the conclusion through rational thought?
Don't know about Banjo but, in my case it was the sudden realisation that I was not alone, that others did think like me - despite what they said in Sunday school and RE.

The bible stories were interesting up to about age 8, but they just seemed no more true than the stories in my comics. I knew the comics were fiction, even fantasy, but I was constantly told this bunch of stories was literally true.

Luckily I had enough brain cells to prevent me from accepting the delusions.

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
17-09-2016, 02:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 01:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-09-2016 12:25 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. Johannes Kepler said he was "thinking God's thoughts after him."

Sure science and religion sometimes come into conflict. Especially if one takes the first chapters of Genesis literally. But there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. And scientists who are Christians do not merely say, "God did it so we don't need to investigate any further." Instead, Christians are motivated to study science to discover the brilliance of how the Designer did it. As long as they are atheists when they enter the lab, there can be no conflict.


Anyone who seriously believes in a religion, takes it upon themselves certain beliefs and presuppositions. Any Christian scientist cannot question the divinity of Jesus or the existence of their god, because doing so means they are no longer Christians. Every religions has thoughts, ideas, and beliefs that are sacrosanct and beyond question. You cannot be a good scientist if there are thoughts, ideas, and questions you are not allowed to explore.


So what we have is mass compartmentalization, where religious scientist have to believe in magic on weekends, and be rationalists the rest of the week. If religion and science didn't conflict, then how come nobody has won a Noble Prize for proving the existence of their god? Or souls? Or even the supernatural? Nobody is questioning that Francis Collins is a brilliant geneticist. When he helped to redefine modern biology with his work on genetics, he submitted his work for peer review. But when he wanted to present evidence for his faith? He wrote a popular book for mainstream audiences, because even he knows that his three frozen waterfalls 'proof' wouldn't stand up to scientific rigor.


How much of a better scientist would he be if he wasn't always jumping through hoops and trying to square that circle? He might be a brilliant geneticist, but he's unable to take his work or follow the evidence in such a way as to threaten his Christianity. He has certain thoughts he's not allowed to think, his religion punishes thought crime. His brilliance will be forever limited by his religiosity.


As was Newton's, who wasted unfathomable time and effort on alchemy and bible codes. If only Newton hadn't wasted so much time and effort on his faith, he might have figured out perturbation theory and relativity on his own, instead of needing other brilliant minds centuries later to fill in the shortcoming of his admittedly groundbreaking calculus.

This reminds me of John Baumgardner, YEC but once well regarded geophysicist who, when challenged to explain why the bible and radio-dating gave such different answers as to the age of the Earth claimed that god meddled with the flow of time.

Malicious meddling to confuse science or just a whacky sense of humour?

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
17-09-2016, 02:17 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 01:46 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-09-2016 01:33 AM)kim Wrote:  Relativity was first explicitly described by Galileo in 1632.

Just read a mammoth Galileo biography. He played a mean lute, too. Shy





I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo Figaro - magnifico
Thanks, EK, just what I needed to get me fully awake!

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: