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, 03:19 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 06:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote: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.

If someone uses the term "-path" or "-pathy" to describe a medical term, then he is either incredibly ignorant not to know about pathology which is (quote wiki).

Quote:Pathology (from the Greek roots of pathos (πάθος), meaning "experience" or "suffering", and -logia (-λογία), "study of") is a significant component of the causal study of disease and a major field in modern medicine and diagnosis.

or

he deliberately chose this word but is backpedaling now.


Again it makes no sense to me that someone claims to be educated enough on a scientific topic to write a complete book about this on one hand, but on the other hand he pretends to be not informed enough to give a proper -as in unbiased- name for the condition he is trying to discuss in his book. Thats borderline ridiculous.

Or

He is backpedaling

You can view it as backpedaling. But it could be genuine error on my part. I'm willing to change the term if it does not convey my intended meaning. But as Matt Dillahunty continually points out, words don't have meanings, they have usages. If I use it this way, there will be no problem as long as I define it. Still much better and more honest than what Krauss did with the word "nothing."

What's interesting is that everyone takes offense at the thought of atheism being an -opathy but have no problem calling theism an -opathy, a delusion or a mental illness. Don't you think that since about 95 percent of the world of over 7 billion people currently believes in some sort of god, it's a little arrogant for the other 5 percent to claim they are all deluded?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:26 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 09:46 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  His basic claim was apparently that the fossil gaps were too large to show human ancestry. I'm sure that was an arguable case, in 1925. Why a Creationist would mention it, today, I'm not really sure. Consider

Because they:
  • don't understand what they are reading;
  • can't judge what is relevant;
  • don't understand that scientific knowledge increases;
  • don't know how to connect the dots correctly.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-09-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 06:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I did some digging, and it turns out the term "atheopath" was invented in 2008 by Creation.com, as a way of striking back in reaction to an article by New Scientist about the dishonest [tactics] and distortions of the Creationist movement. Their article, titled (I kid you not), Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions, The Darwin–Hitler connection referred to the entire magazine (presumably its editorial and writing departments) as suffering from "atheopathy", and goes on at quite some length to commit the biggest Godwin's Law violation I've ever seen.

I think it gained more momentum in Creationist circles, however, from a 2009 reaction to Richard Dawkins' claim that religion was a memetic virus (implying that it is a pathology). Their footnote on the use of the word is as follows:

"Leading misotheist Richard Dawkins often calls theistic religion a ‘virus of the mind’, which would make it a kind of disease or pathology, and parents who teach it to their kids are, in Dawkins’ view, supposedly practising mental child abuse. But the sorts of criteria Dawkins applies makes one wonder whether his own fanatical antitheism itself could be a mental pathology—hence, 'atheopath'."

In 2010, the Creation Ministries f**ks (folks?) used the term to describe Stephen Hawking, by way of explaining what's wrong with him for rejecting religion. The term has gained momentum in Creationist circles, and they have continued to use the term aggressively to describe their idea that anti-theists suffer from a mental condition, such as in this article, titled "What do Atheopaths Have to Hide?".

Starting around 2012, the term began to appear more frequently in Christian forums and hyper-conservative discussion boards, largely after citing to the Creation.com article.

The fact that this guy is even using it as if it is a real thing shows his hidden agenda and inherent dishonesty. He's exactly like the other Creationists we've seen in here so often: they pretend to be intellectually honest and interested in reasoned debate, but the truth is that they have a powerful agenda that drives the secret hatred in their black little hearts... that's why they're so willing to Lie For Jesus™. Anything is justified when you're dealing with those damned atheists... er, I mean "atheopaths".

I'm also surprised no one here pointed out that we have only a handful of members who were never religious. Most of us were brought up under religious indoctrination and finally managed to figure out that we were being lied to by theopaths.

Yes, by the way, you read that right: while atheopathy is not a real word, except as a slur made up by Creationists, theopathy is a real one.

You said:

"I did some digging, and it turns out the term "atheopath" was invented in 2008 by Creation.com . . ."

It appears to be only Jonathan Sarfati who uses the term. I was unaware of his usage of it and I clearly do not use it they way he does. He would likely not believe that atheists are born that way.

You said:

"The fact that this guy is even using it as if it is a real thing shows his hidden agenda and inherent dishonesty."

I explained earlier that I coined the term so of course I don't think it's a "real thing." Of course, if atheists are born that way it IS a real thing.

You said:

"I'm also surprised no one here pointed out that we have only a handful of members who were never religious."

So you're admitting that most of you were not born that way? Fits my thesis nicely then.

You said:

"Yes, by the way, you read that right: while atheopathy is not a real word"

Of course not. Not yet. I just coined it about six months ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:40 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:38 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  [Image: anchiornis-illustration_opt.jpg]

Yes, when you eat a chicken sandwich, you're eating dinosaur. Smile

So now I have to say "tastes just like dinosaur"? 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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-09-2016, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 03:53 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:But as Matt Dillahunty continually points out, words don't have meanings, they have usages.
With due respect to Mr Dillahunity he is talking bunkum. If words literally had no meaning there would be no communication. It is only the mutually accepted meaning of words that conveys meaning in our speech and writings. It's why we have dictionaries, so there is a common standard.

Yes, usage can change aspects of the meaning of a word, as in calling someone "me old bastard" can be an affectionate greeting because there is usually a mutual affection that allows such "reverse insults". In this case "bastard" is pseudo-synomynous with "mate", "buddy" or "pal".

But, referring to a group expected to be aggressive to your ideas, and if you expected open arms here after your OP then you truly are stupid, using a suffix with the connotations -pathy has is bound to cause friction. Only a stupid, unworldly, disingenuous, or malicious person would do such.

Which are you?

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, 03:46 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 02:14 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(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]

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.

It's a photograph, you dumbass. Facepalm

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
17-09-2016, 03:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I don't think he's referring to FBH's photo, but to the drawings of feathered dinosaurs.

"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, 03:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 07:58 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 06:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  If someone uses the term "-path" or "-pathy" to describe a medical term, then he is either incredibly ignorant not to know about pathology which is (quote wiki).


or

he deliberately chose this word but is backpedaling now.


Again it makes no sense to me that someone claims to be educated enough on a scientific topic to write a complete book about this on one hand, but on the other hand he pretends to be not informed enough to give a proper -as in unbiased- name for the condition he is trying to discuss in his book. Thats borderline ridiculous.

Or

He is backpedaling
Yes, Randy seems to have at least at many reverse gears as forward ones.


And the twisty path of his word-wriggling is quite hard to navigate.

-----------------------

Going back to the origin of science:

Randy wrote:
Quote:Except that it is a well-established fact that science arose and prospered in the West because nearly all the major branches of science were founded by Christian theists.

Since this is in contention, despite my offering pre-Christian dates for much of the basis of scientific knowledge and, almost certainly, method, Randy could you please offer fully independent citations, not those from declared theist literature, nor declared athiest for that matter, to support your statement?

One might sayvthst until the 17thC Christianity was the main enemy of scientific advance. Except for weapon development if course, you were s
Allowed make better ways of slaying the non-believers.

Had you said "theists", with no specific brand name, were behind science my argument would have been harder, most people in the then "developed" world would have belonged to some theistic belief or other. For many it was possibly "believe or die".

If you cannot or will not please excuse me if I consider it a made up load of cobblers.
Rhyming Cockney slang, "cobbler's awls" = "balls"

Still waiting for your word on the authorship of that book.

You said:

"Since this is in contention, despite my offering pre-Christian dates for much of the basis of scientific knowledge and, almost certainly, method, Randy could you please offer fully independent citations, not those from declared theist literature, nor declared athiest for that matter, to support your statement?"

Here are a few:

- Newton - Physics
- Galileo - Physics, astronomy
- Kepler - Physics, astronomy
- Boyle - Chemistry
- Bacon - Scientific method
- Linnaeus - Taxonomy
- Maury - Oceanography
- Pasteur - Biochemistry
- Mendel - Genetics
- Burnet - Geology

All were committed Christians whose faith drove their scientific research. You won't likely find one source naming all the scientists who were Christians that isn't a Christian source because, I mean, why would you? But Dawkins has acknowledged in at least one debate - I forget which one - that most of the founders of modern science were Christians. He just disputes the claim that they were motivated to do science because of their faith. But Dawkins is wrong. And, as we all saw in the God Delusion, Dawkins is not known for his historical scholarship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:54 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't think he's referring to FBH's photo, but to the drawings of feathered dinosaurs.

I don't think so. He directly responded to that post. 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
17-09-2016, 03:57 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
It's a wonder this message board is called "The Thinking Atheist." I don't see much thinking going on from most of you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: