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, 02:28 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 02:14 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'd say that's begging the question since artists have routinely started making their dino depictions appear more bird-like. Pretty flimsy evidence. An atheist I know on FaceBook periodically posts a picture of a modern human who happens to look a bit brutish and Neanderthal-like as "proof" for evolution. Also very flimsy evidence.

You think it's the ARTISTS doing it?! Wow, dude, just wow.

[Image: 10-relief-gif-302.gif]

The evidence is found in our DNA; some of us (mostly Europeans) have genetic markers--the kind used in criminal cases and paternity tests--that show Neandertal ancestry. There's no question about this. They are our cousins, as their line split off from ours almost half a million years before our ancestors left Africa, but they hadn't diverged enough to prevent interbreeding. But the literally hundreds of fossils we've found of Neanderthals universally share the lack of a prominent chin, broad nasal cavities, heavy brow ridges and jawbone, sloped-back forehead, and long rear of the skull with a prominent occipital bun (the "bump" on the very back of your skull").

As for what the artists draw/paint, it's dictated to them by the scientists, and changes based on the most recent evidence we have. We found feathers on the dinosaur fossils, and it turned out they could reconstruct the color by looking at the density and shape of the tiny hairlike structures preserved in the stone, and the chemical traces of the pigments they produced.


[Image: Feathers1.jpg?itok=EmoJnefZ]

They're called melanosomes:

[Image: melanosomes.jpg]

You can read about it here, at Brown University's website:

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2015/08/feathers

Brown University, an Ivy League school, is also where Kenneth Miller, a Christian, teaches evolutionary biology and makes absolute hash of your Creationist nonsense as a fun side-hobby.

"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, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 02:48 PM by kim.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
This is my favorite one. Shy
[Image: birdie_zpsy0jadtrp.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
17-09-2016, 02:38 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 02:43 PM by Randy Ruggles.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 02:25 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 09:51 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"Randy! Our Georgia Tech yellowjacket has returned... boy, I've missed you!"

I have no idea what that means. Please explain.

On one of the two main atheist forums which I frequent (I forget which, but I think it was TTA), we had a well-educated but highly abrasive and somewhat disingenuous Christian theist whose name was Randy. He used the symbol of the Georgia Tech mascot as his avatar. His smarmy "let's talk about this using only science" assertions would usually butcher science to such a heinous degree that I still remember him for having such an impressive degree of chutzpah-- he's the person who inspired me to start using the phrase "Lying for Jesus is still lying."

Thankfully, he no longer comes to whichever board it was he frequented.

Your entire manner of argumentation reminds me of him. The fact that you also were named Randy made me think you were the same guy-- but he was definitely a Son of the South, and you're a Canadian, so I am mistaken about your identity.

(12-09-2016 09:51 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"People did not kill in the name of atheism"

And I did not ever say they did. In fact, I said they didn't.

Then why mention it at all, unless your intent is to imply that godlessness equates to a propensity for mass murder (and/or other evils) in the name of Empire?

You have made it clear that you consider people who don't feel "spiritual" are broken, somehow, from the "normal" development of brains that sense external agency in otherwise mundane occurrences. That's why you invented the term atheopathy, to suggest they are deficient in a sensory perception that everyone else is fortunate enough to have.

Except it's not an "either/or" switch because that's not how genetics or neurological/psychological trait expression works, even if your research showed what you think it does, which others have shown you it doesn't.

It's also not true that there's any demonstrable connection between religious belief and moral behavior (or vice-versa), despite studies that have looked for such a connection... in fact, the few studies that have turned up any discrepancy have been against religious people, showing them to tend to be less kind to others and more judgmental, to appear more frequently in prison per capita, and to have children who are less likely to share and be kind to other children. If you are not yet aware of these studies and actually want to read them for yourself, I can happily find you links.

Your premises are flawed on nearly every single level. We have shown you the gaping errors in your premises, methodology, and conclusions... and yet you continue to speak in the exact same tone, as if you have discovered something amazing about the universe which you now get to show everyone.

I strongly suspect you are the Creationist they've highlighted, and are just pretending to agree with evolution because you know that to state otherwise in a room full of people with science degrees would just get you laughed at, and not responded to, in order to quote-mine us for your book. That's the best-case scenario: you really believe what you say... because the option is worse, that you really do know that your ideas are unfounded, but seek to exploit religious fanatics for their credulity-equals-cash gold mine by publishing an anti-atheist book in the same way you published an anti-science book.

You are either a dogmatist or a demagogue, and frankly I'm not sure which option would be worse.

You said:

"we had a well-educated but highly abrasive and somewhat disingenuous Christian theist whose name was Randy. He used the symbol of the Georgia Tech mascot as his avatar."

Nope. Wasn't me.

You said:

"You have made it clear that you consider people who don't feel "spiritual" are broken, somehow, from the "normal" development of brains that sense external agency in otherwise mundane occurrences."

Actually I didn't. I wouldn't call myself at all spiritual.

You said:

"That's why you invented the term atheopathy, to suggest they are deficient in a sensory perception that everyone else is fortunate enough to have."

Not quite. I invented the term to distinguish an atheist who was born that way from one who made a conscious decision based on logic and reason. I look at it as a deficiency only in the way that a sociopath born without empathy is deficient. We don't know whether empathy is advantageous and some scientists - Paul Bloom being one of them - are arguing that it isn't. (See link below.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ1SuKOchps

You said:

"If you are not yet aware of these studies and actually want to read them for yourself, I can happily find you links."

Thanks. I have read all those studies. In general you are correct - although they don't always claim what you think they claim.

For example, one study which says atheists are more motivated by compassion than theists initially seems bad for believers. But when you look at what the study really says, it is saying that atheists must feel an emotional connection in order to give. (That is one of the reasons why religious people consistently donate more time and money to charity than do atheists.) The faithful will often give because they think it is the right thing to do or because they believe it is what God wants from them. I am often motivated to do things for people that I wouldn't normally do specifically for those same reasons.

You said:

"and yet you continue to speak in the exact same tone, as if you have discovered something amazing about the universe which you now get to show everyone."

Well, yes, my tone is on the verge of becoming condescending because some people are denying well-established scientific facts. I'm actually more shocked and surprised that some of you are not more scientifically literate in this area and choose to hold on tightly to atheistic dogma rather than to follow the evidence where it leads.

You said:

"That's the best-case scenario: you really believe what you say... because the option is worse, that you really do know that your ideas are unfounded, but seek to exploit religious fanatics for their credulity-equals-cash gold mine . . ."

Nope. That's a false dichotomy. The truth is that if I went straight by my religious views, I wouldn't believe my hypothesis because the Bible says everyone really knows God exists. But I am intellectually honest enough to be able to admit that I might be wrong. And I have the ability to step out of my own worldview and see what would happen if another worldview were true.

So, as I said elsewhere, if God truly does not exist then there must be a natural explanation for why some people are born without said belief. Evolution is the most likely candidate due to its extraordinary explanatory power.

You said:

"by publishing an anti-atheist book in the same way you published an anti-science book."

This book is not anti-atheist and that book was not anti-science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 02:46 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 02:14 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  ...
An atheist I know on FaceBook periodically posts a picture of a modern human who happens to look a bit brutish and Neanderthal-like as "proof" for evolution. Also very flimsy evidence.

Flimsy to zero evidence, I'd say.

I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that we didn't evolve like animals do.











Anyone with a full brain, however ...

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
17-09-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 01:11 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  If anyone ever doubts the dinosaur-bird relationship, all they have to do is look at baby birds.

[Image: YdOcNG3_zpshan1dbes.jpg]

Oh it's so cute! I want one!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
17-09-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:25 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  On one of the two main atheist forums which I frequent (I forget which, but I think it was TTA), we had a well-educated but highly abrasive and somewhat disingenuous Christian theist whose name was Randy. He used the symbol of the Georgia Tech mascot as his avatar. His smarmy "let's talk about this using only science" assertions would usually butcher science to such a heinous degree that I still remember him for having such an impressive degree of chutzpah-- he's the person who inspired me to start using the phrase "Lying for Jesus is still lying."

Thankfully, he no longer comes to whichever board it was he frequented.

Your entire manner of argumentation reminds me of him. The fact that you also were named Randy made me think you were the same guy-- but he was definitely a Son of the South, and you're a Canadian, so I am mistaken about your identity.


Then why mention it at all, unless your intent is to imply that godlessness equates to a propensity for mass murder (and/or other evils) in the name of Empire?

You have made it clear that you consider people who don't feel "spiritual" are broken, somehow, from the "normal" development of brains that sense external agency in otherwise mundane occurrences. That's why you invented the term atheopathy, to suggest they are deficient in a sensory perception that everyone else is fortunate enough to have.

Except it's not an "either/or" switch because that's not how genetics or neurological/psychological trait expression works, even if your research showed what you think it does, which others have shown you it doesn't.

It's also not true that there's any demonstrable connection between religious belief and moral behavior (or vice-versa), despite studies that have looked for such a connection... in fact, the few studies that have turned up any discrepancy have been against religious people, showing them to tend to be less kind to others and more judgmental, to appear more frequently in prison per capita, and to have children who are less likely to share and be kind to other children. If you are not yet aware of these studies and actually want to read them for yourself, I can happily find you links.

Your premises are flawed on nearly every single level. We have shown you the gaping errors in your premises, methodology, and conclusions... and yet you continue to speak in the exact same tone, as if you have discovered something amazing about the universe which you now get to show everyone.

I strongly suspect you are the Creationist they've highlighted, and are just pretending to agree with evolution because you know that to state otherwise in a room full of people with science degrees would just get you laughed at, and not responded to, in order to quote-mine us for your book. That's the best-case scenario: you really believe what you say... because the option is worse, that you really do know that your ideas are unfounded, but seek to exploit religious fanatics for their credulity-equals-cash gold mine by publishing an anti-atheist book in the same way you published an anti-science book.

You are either a dogmatist or a demagogue, and frankly I'm not sure which option would be worse.

You said:

"we had a well-educated but highly abrasive and somewhat disingenuous Christian theist whose name was Randy. He used the symbol of the Georgia Tech mascot as his avatar."

Nope. Wasn't me.

You said:

"You have made it clear that you consider people who don't feel "spiritual" are broken, somehow, from the "normal" development of brains that sense external agency in otherwise mundane occurrences."

Actually I didn't. I wouldn't call myself at all spiritual.

You said:

"That's why you invented the term atheopathy, to suggest they are deficient in a sensory perception that everyone else is fortunate enough to have."

Not quite. I invented the term to distinguish an atheist who was born that way from one who made a conscious decision based on logic and reason. I look at it as a deficiency only in the way that a sociopath born without empathy is deficient. We don't know whether empathy is advantageous and some scientists - Paul Bloom being one of them - are arguing that it isn't. (See link below.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ1SuKOchps

You said:

"If you are not yet aware of these studies and actually want to read them for yourself, I can happily find you links."

Thanks. I have read all those studies. In general you are correct - although they don't always claim what you think they claim.

For example, one study which says atheists are more motivated by compassion than theists initially seems bad for believers. But when you look at what the study really says, it is saying that atheists must feel an emotional connection in order to give. (That is one of the reasons why religious people consistently donate more time and money to charity than do atheists.) The faithful will often give because they think it is the right thing to do or because they believe it is what God wants from them. I am often motivated to do things for people that I wouldn't normally do specifically for those same reasons.

You said:

"and yet you continue to speak in the exact same tone, as if you have discovered something amazing about the universe which you now get to show everyone."

Well, yes, my tone is on the verge of becoming condescending because some people are denying well-established scientific facts. I'm actually more shocked and surprised that some of you are not more scientifically literate in this area and choose to hold on tightly to atheistic dogma rather than to follow the evidence where it leads.

You said:

"That's the best-case scenario: you really believe what you say... because the option is worse, that you really do know that your ideas are unfounded, but seek to exploit religious fanatics for their credulity-equals-cash gold mine . . ."

Nope. That's a false dichotomy. The truth is that if I went straight by my religious views, I wouldn't believe my hypothesis because the Bible says everyone really knows God exists. But I am intellectually honest enough to be able to admit that I might be wrong. And I have the ability to step out of my own worldview and see what would happen if another worldview were true.

So, as I said elsewhere, if God truly does not exist then there must be a natural explanation for why some people are born without said belief. Evolution is the most likely candidate due to its extraordinary explanatory power.

You said:

"by publishing an anti-atheist book in the same way you published an anti-science book."

This book is not anti-atheist and that book was not anti-science.

How are you even able to look in the mirror every morning? Earning a living by writing books to spread disinformation, being either scientifically illiterate, or trying to spread illiteracy like a virus spreads disease, then accusing your adversaries of what you just have done. This kind of utter dishonesty, quote mining, lying, and deceiving, you are utterly worthless to human society, completely non-productive but rather being a burden and like a virus just preying on the rest of us to exploit for your personal gain.

I hope there is a god, and he will reward you for your deeds.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
17-09-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"we had a well-educated but highly abrasive and somewhat disingenuous Christian theist whose name was Randy. He used the symbol of the Georgia Tech mascot as his avatar."

Nope. Wasn't me.

Yeah, I said that, too.


(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"You have made it clear that you consider people who don't feel "spiritual" are broken, somehow, from the "normal" development of brains that sense external agency in otherwise mundane occurrences."

Actually I didn't. I wouldn't call myself at all spiritual.

Paraphrase. I used the quotes to indicate irony, since the citations you were given indicated a sense of agency, which most people describe as "spirituality", which may or may not include a specific set of religious beliefs.

But I was also raised Baptist, so I know your claim is that you "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ". Rolleyes

(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"That's why you invented the term atheopathy, to suggest they are deficient in a sensory perception that everyone else is fortunate enough to have."

Not quite. I invented the term to distinguish an atheist who was born that way from one who made a conscious decision based on logic and reason. I look at as a deficiency only in the way that a sociopath born without empathy is deficient.

You didn't invent the term. You borrowed it, and from people who very much did mean it in the most hostile way possible, people whose ideas you cite to almost endlessly in your other works. As for your sociopaths reference, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're using it in the sense that Steinbeck used it, and not take offense. I've hidden his description of sociopathy (before there was such a term) under spoiler tags for brevity of my post:

“Just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?

Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. To a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous.”

However, you're assuming in your "evaluation" (again, quotes to indicate ironic use of the term) of the missing sense that this sense is supposed to be there. A person who is a schizophrenic hallucinates voices and sometimes images. It's not supposed to be there, and we do not descripe non-schizophrenics as "aschizopaths".

Likewise, we have found in research with "the God Helmet" that a sense of presence of the divine is connected to temporal lobe epilepsy, which can be induced magnetically (by the helmet) or by intense prayer or meditation, as well as a few psychological conditions. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the "ability" to sense things that are not there is related to this type of brain misfiring.

(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"If you are not yet aware of these studies and actually want to read them for yourself, I can happily find you links."

Thanks. I have read all those studies. In general you are correct - although they don't always claim what you think they claim.

For example, one study which says atheists are more motivated by compassion than theists initially seems bad for believers. But when you look at what the study really says, it is saying that atheist must feel an emotional connection in order to give. (That is one of the reasons why religious people consistently donate more time and money to charity than do atheists.) The faithful will often give because they think it is the right thing to do or because they believe it is what God wants from them. I am often motivated to do things for people that I wouldn't normally do specifically for those same reasons.

Fair enough. We do tend to be driven by empathy, as well as our sense of "the right thing to do", with all the limitations that implies. I am glad of the church, to the degree it motivates Christians to be more humane to their fellow man; my beliefs are that of a Secular Humanist, and though we are much maligned by preachers, I think if you look closely you'll find that most of our beliefs line up with the teachings of Jesus, with regard to how to treat others.

But the study does say what I claim... it's just that there are additional studies I did not mention (nor did you, at the time) that show Christians tend to donate more to charity. I would surmise that this is simply because they are in a social situation that prompts more opportunities to be involved in charitable action, while atheists tend to not have atheist social groups beyond small groups of friends. If there was such a thing as "atheist church communities", I'm sure we'd match the average numbers of religionists.


(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"and yet you continue to speak in the exact same tone, as if you have discovered something amazing about the universe which you now get to show everyone."

Well, yes, my tone is on the verge of becoming condescending because some people are denying well-established scientific facts. I actually more shocked and surprised that some of you are not more scientifically literate in this area and choose to hold on tightly to atheistic dogma rather than follow the evidence where it leads.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?

What part of "I have a degree in evolutionary biology and so does my Christian wife" is unclear to you? We did follow the evidence wherever it leads... it led me to realize that despite my childhood indoctrination, evolution was in fact a reality, and it led me away from my church because I realized the things you're saying here are based on numerous errors and outright lies, which we've been trying to point out to you. (My wife's Methodist church has no problem with evolution, so it hasn't been an issue for her.) To say we are not "scientifically literate" is to reveal your own personal biases, and nothing more. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians who are evolutionary biologists, and despite your protestations of them being forced to claim evolution is real in order to keep their jobs, they'll be the first to tell you that this is not so, that they accept it as simple reality because it is.

(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"That's the best-case scenario: you really believe what you say... because the option is worse, that you really do know that your ideas are unfounded, but seek to exploit religious fanatics for their credulity-equals-cash gold mine . . ."

Nope. That's a false dichotomy. The truth is that if I went straight by my religious views, I wouldn't believe my hypothesis because the Bible says everyone really knows God exists. But I am intellectually honest enough to be able to admit that I might be wrong. And I have the ability to step out of my own worldview and see what would happen if another worldview were true.

Yeah I'm gonna leave this one alone before I make a really, really harsh retort.

I'll just politely ask that you look up the term "confirmation bias" before you continue with your hypothesis-forming.


(17-09-2016 02:38 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  So, as I said elsewhere, if God truly does not exist then there must be a natural explanation for why some people are born without said belief. Evolution is the most likely candidate due to its extraordinary explanatory power.

You said:

"by publishing an anti-atheist book in the same way you published an anti-science book."

This book is not anti-atheist and that book was not anti-science.

That book was astoundingly anti-science. You misquoted scientists out-of-context, you distorted the things they were saying in order to make them mean what they would never have said, and you brought up obscure old things from a century ago and phrased it in a way that suggests science has not progressed, learned, and self-corrected since then... on the few things you got right (that were wrong, I mean).

You have suggested a scientific conspiracy to push an anti-Bible agenda by forcing people to accept evolution. You have since then accused scientists of just making up drawings of things they do not know, with regard to the feathered dinosaurs.

I cannot think of a way you could be more anti-science, and I have no reason to believe you'd be any more fair with the (actual) beliefs of the "atheopaths" you're describing to an audience of believers.

"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
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-09-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 06:06 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 10:31 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Yes, but what is a word for atheists who specifically were born that way and did not arrive at their views through logic and reason?

Intellectually gifted.

(12-09-2016 10:27 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Nope. I coined it before I realized they use it in a derogatory sense. I made it clear that I am not using it that way.

YOU used it in a derogatory sense as well. Multiple posters, including myself, explained how and why it was derogatory. The fact that you ignore this reflects poorly on either your integrity or your intelligence. Or both.

(12-09-2016 10:27 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'm sorry if you are butt-hurt at the term "atheopath" but if you understand the way I am using it, you won't be. Would you like to suggest another term I could use?

Genius.

(12-09-2016 10:43 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I did no such thing. I said that atheopathy - not atheism - might be the result of one or more genetic mutations. And I no where implied that all genetic mutations are bad. Maybe, due to your own bias, you are reading into my words something that is not there.

You used words like "corrupted", "broken" and "mutation" in a negative way. If you cannot understand the way your words and phrasing could be offensive or negative, then you have no business writing any books.

(12-09-2016 10:51 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Now, it's probably best if you go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Awfully full of ourselves, aren't we? Drinking Beverage

(13-09-2016 12:05 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Actually they do. I've seen it done with with the words evolution, faith, religion, vestigial, species, atheism, belief, and nothing to name just a few. Matt Dillahunty even made up his own definition for "knowledge" which, since Aristotle, has been justified true belief.

Considering the lies you have posted already, and the lack of supportive citations in your post, I see no reason to believe this.

As a matter of fact I've heard Dillahunty (in his debate with STB) use the Aristotelian definition of knowledge.

(13-09-2016 12:17 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Agree with him all you want and you'll still be wrong. I specifically said, "science arose and prospered in the West . . ." The WEST.

You have been shown links to credible resources that completely repudiate your claims. You can capitalize it all you want. You're still wrong.

(13-09-2016 12:11 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You really should inform yourself about the Galileo affair. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was convicted and placed under house arrest more because he insulted the Pope that for his science. It was a clash of egos and it was wrong. But it wasn't really about science as historians acknowledge. And unfortunately the Catholic Church had bought into the cosmology of Aristotle. Galileo was a devout Christian.

It was about science. He insulted the pope by disagreeing with him on the Copernican theory. You really should quit lying about this stuff. It's very easy to prove you wrong.

Link

(13-09-2016 12:27 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The quote by Darwin ... I wouldn't trust a scientist - or anyone for that matter - who didn't have doubts.

Darwin even said...

Citations? When and where did he say it?

You said:

"Intellectually gifted."

"Genius."

LOL! Cute but that's REALLY begging the question - not to mention patently untrue. I'll assume you were kidding. Thanks for the laugh though. Smile

You said:

"Considering the lies you have posted already, and the lack of supportive citations in your post, I see no reason to believe this.

"As a matter of fact I've heard Dillahunty (in his debate with STB) use the Aristotelian definition of knowledge."

He used to but he's changed it now. See the link below at 01:41:00. (I'll accept your humble apology when you see I was right. Know this: I never make claims I can't support):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qs3oWZl95Q

You said:

"He insulted the pope by disagreeing with him on the Copernican theory.[/i] You really should quit lying about this stuff. It's very easy to prove you wrong."

Wrong. He insulted the Pope by writing a book called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" and putting the views of the Pope in the mouth of a fictional character he named Simplicio.

You said:

"Citations? When and where did he say it?"

Darwin said it in a letter to William Graham dated July 3rd, 1881.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 06:22 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 10:00 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  [Gloucester] said:

"But are we also born with a faculty for belief? I think we are, but it is an empty vessel that may, or may not, be filled with some specific system. That system will mostly come from external influence, which may or may not include a deity of some form."

Yes, I totally agree. And this is something of value for me that I can say has come out of this thread so far: to make clear the distinction between "pattern recognition" (ie. agency detection, theism) and religion. I see how people can all too easily conflate them.

Which directly contradicts your contention that theism is the default position. A capacity for belief or even a predisposition to belief is not theism. Until the belief forms (whatever that belief is) the individual is not a theist.

I'm still waiting to hear how you can demonstrate that having little or no predisposition to believe unsupported claims is the "damaged" position and not that nature is repairing a flaw that led to theopathy...

Even if you could show your premises to be true, your conclusion seems to be based on an appeal to nature fallacy.

Appeal to nature fallacy. That's great, thanks. I'll use that one the next time someone argues that homosexuality must be okay because it is found in the animals kingdom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Ugh, no one says homosexuality is okay because it's found in the animal kingdom; they say it's natural because it's found in the animal kingdom, as opposed to the claims of religionists who claim it is unnatural. [Edit to Add: Murder, rape, and bullying are common in the animal kingdom, as well... no one says those are "okay" because we have figured out that harming other people for your own gratification is Not Okay.]

We say homosexuality is okay because it harms no one except the delicate sensibilities of people who've been conditioned to think it's a sinful act and/or perversion.

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: