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, 04:49 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 12:25 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  As long as they are atheists when they enter the lab, there can be no conflict.

Thank you for making the point and reducing your claim to total irrelevance.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
17-09-2016, 05:17 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
EK you'd better hurry... I'm itching to have a go at the bullshit in this article (almost all of which is recycled from previous Creationist literature that has been so heavily debunked, I wonder if Rando even has Google).

This is exactly the sort of misrepresentation that led me to leave the Baptist church. Nearly every one of these examples was presented to us during an evangelism conference that was held at my church, in which a fellow of the Institute for Creation Research laid out most of these "issues" with evolution. I just happened to be reading The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel, at the time, which despite being a fiction book contained a great number of links to scholarly articles on the subject of Neadertals that she had used for her research on the story, so I immediately spotted the errors in what they were claiming about the "just another type of Homo sapiens" element, and started looking up the references she had provided.

Most of what he claims is so bad, I wonder if he really thinks any of that is reality, or if he's just plagiarizing from other Creationist writers in order to try to get a piece of the "I don't want to believe in reality" crowd financial pie.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-09-2016, 05:41 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
[Image: b3fc96e813bfb7d38126ba5e51d0948d20e050dc...ad5f69.jpg]

"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
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-09-2016, 05:42 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 05:53 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 05:17 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  EK you'd better hurry... I'm itching to have a go at the bullshit in this article (almost all of which is recycled from previous Creationist literature that has been so heavily debunked, I wonder if Rando even has Google).

This is exactly the sort of misrepresentation that led me to leave the Baptist church. Nearly every one of these examples was presented to us during an evangelism conference that was held at my church, in which a fellow of the Institute for Creation Research laid out most of these "issues" with evolution. I just happened to be reading The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel, at the time, which despite being a fiction book contained a great number of links to scholarly articles on the subject of Neadertals that she had used for her research on the story, so I immediately spotted the errors in what they were claiming about the "just another type of Homo sapiens" element, and started looking up the references she had provided.

Most of what he claims is so bad, I wonder if he really thinks any of that is reality, or if he's just plagiarizing from other Creationist writers in order to try to get a piece of the "I don't want to believe in reality" crowd financial pie.
This is just what blind faith does to the epitome of mental evolution, reduces it to a set of concepts the faithful simply cannot understand are utter bullshit.

There is not enough rationality in the entire history of the world to shake the faith of a single person so afflicted. Randy seems to be a fine example of this.

Luckily you had enough smarts to spot the lies, RS!

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
17-09-2016, 05:45 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Got home, working on it...

Plus, you all know I'm a real stickler for proper grammar and formatting. Big Grin

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 06:35 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
By the way, to anyone here who's not already a fan of MST3K, I'm calling him "Rando" in reference to Mystery Science Theatre 3000: The Movie, at the very end, when there's a guy named Rando who keeps appearing in the credits, so the robots keep commenting on how AMAZING Rando is:

http://movie-sounds.org/sci-fi-movie-sam...-very-mind

http://movie-sounds.org/sci-fi-movie-sam...zing-rando

I can't find a video of the ending credits, and the full movie costs $10 to download, so I linked y'all to a page that has one of the sound clips, in case anyone wants to know how to say "THE AMAZING RANDO!"

"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
17-09-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(16-09-2016 11:11 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"Again, the most you can claim is that a predisposition for belief is present but that is not the same as being a theist. The way you continually conflate the two . . ."

If I'm conflating them, then so are the rest of the scholars who do the research because that's what they are saying.

No, that seems to be your interpretation based on desperately wanting it to be true. You can't get from a predisposition for believing to being born a believer without making an unjustified leap. They are not the same thing and I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Quote:You said:

"I'm still trying to figure out what it would mean if this turned out to be true. If would not be a justification for theism, only an explanation for it."

I agree. But the theism part has already been explained. This hypothesis is attempting to explain atheism. See this article from New Scientist. The authors say, "What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not "get" the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten - and under what conditions?"

Your whole approach to this looks to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. If it is true that most people have a strong innate predisposition to believe then the real question depends on why that predisposition exists.

If there is something supernatural then it would make it reasonable but you aren't even considering the need to demonstrate the truth of the belief. If there is no good empirical reason to believe that the supernatural exists then the question is why so many people have a condition that leads them to unjustifiable beliefs and not why some people are able to escape that. (agency detection may be part of that but that doesn't require haad and other factors may be involved)

In the end, if you could show the believing provided an advantage that non-believers don't have it might show a utility in believing things for bad reasons. It would not demonstrate the truth of any of it and I think that may illustrate the different approach we take. I want to know what is actually true while you appear to be looking for what is comforting.

Your conjecture that atheists have a broken system fails from the start because you have not defined what the system is. You ignore the fact that you don't distinguish between people who never believed vs people who change beliefs vs people to stop believing vs people to start believing. You lump all believers in the supernatural as theists but ignore the wide spectrum of theistic and deistic beliefs and the people who do not believe in gods but have other supernatural beliefs. You dismiss the possibility that believers are the ones with a broken system.

In short, there is nothing scientific about your conjecture. It's just faith dressed up in a lab coat with no substance behind it. It will probably resonate well with others who do not understand how science works but an ill-defined problem scope and presupposed conclusion of what is normal and what is abnormal is just a joke.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
17-09-2016, 07:17 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Taking longer than I expected.

Spoiler Alert: He's a quote mining sonofabitch.

[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, 07:25 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 07:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Taking longer than I expected.

Spoiler Alert: He's a quote mining sonofabitch.

That's not a spoiler; that's a given.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 07:26 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:Spoiler Alert: He's a quote mining sonofabitch.

Just like our dear Randy then?

Or any other cretin creationist for that matter.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: