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, 05:23 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's a wonder this message board is called "The Thinking Atheist." I don't see much thinking going on from most of you.

Irony and ad hominem all in one. How very efficient of you.

Please explain how not swallowing your tripe because it doesn't pass the sniff test constitutes a lack of thinking.

Quote: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.

Sorry Randy, but you've been called on this one. Your cover design clearly decribes a theory of why atheists exist. What you have is a failed hypothesis that might describe a small subset of atheists. I have no idea how small that sub-population might be and neither do you since you haven't actually done any science. All you have is baseless conjecture.

FYI, The Daily Planet doesn't count as science.

Sorry. I'll stop thinking now so you can get back to spewing your bilge water.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-09-2016, 05:28 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
So, I've invested about 10 hours or so into this message board and, although I've appreciated much of the constructive feedback, much of it has been - to put it nicely - valueless. Here are some of the issues I will no longer respond to:

1. Theological questions: This thread is about science, not why God would do this or that?

2. The word "atheopathy": The arguments against it are petty and childish. If, and only if, it turns out to be inaccurate, I will change it. But not just because it hurts your feelings. Truth does not care about your feelings.

3.The notion of whether we are natural-born theists: This is a well-established scientific fact for which there is little dispute in the literature. If you disagree, I strongly suggest you minimize your bias and educate yourself.

4. Anything about my previous book on evolution: It is irrelevant to the thesis of this book.

5. Anything about my personal religious views: They are also irrelevant to this thread. However, I'd be happy to entertain honest questions elsewhere.

The main thing I'm interested in is why some people - although it appears very few - are born without a belief in God. If you have alternate theories to the one I propose, I would like to hear them. But I assure you that others are already beginning to work on this and when my, or a similar hypothesis is vindicated, you will look very foolish and you will be forced to accept what you once rejected out of ignorance, pettiness and unbridled bias.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Ooh, that'll show us. 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
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
17-09-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The main thing I'm interested in is why some people - although it appears very few - are born without a belief in God.

You've already wasted 10 hours here. Are you a glutton for punishment?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-09-2016, 06:04 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  So, I've invested about 10 hours or so into this message board and, although I've appreciated much of the constructive feedback, much of it has been - to put it nicely - valueless.

Yeah, we got the valueless bit.

Quote:2. The word "atheopathy": The arguments against it are petty and childish. If, and only if, it turns out to be inaccurate, I will change it. But not just because it hurts your feelings. Truth does not care about your feelings.

Can you demonstrate that a single "atheopath" has ever existed?

Truth is that the "-pathy" suffix is reerved for pathological dysfunctions. Sociopathy, psychopathy, encephalopathy, etc. Note how we describe humanitarians, not benevelopaths. Failure to demonstrate pathology means that you're simply abusing words to tar a large number of people with a broad and inaccurate brush. Truth has bugger all to do with it.

Quote:3.The notion of whether we are natural-born theists: This is a well-established scientific fact for which there is little dispute in the literature. If you disagree, I strongly suggest you minimize your bias and educate yourself.





Once again Randy, what you have is a predisposition for superstition at best. You have not made the logical connection from that to belief in god (theism).

Quote:4. Anything about my previous book on evolution: It is irrelevant to the thesis of this book.

How else are we to evaluate the author's credibility than by his prior words and deeds? You say that you want to describe the evolution of belief/disbelief but your record clearly shows that you don't believe in evolution at all. You've cut yourself off at the knees so quit whining that we noticed the limp. You have half the credibility of a doctor who doesn't believe in patients.

Quote:5. Anything about my personal religious views: They are also irrelevant to this thread. However, I'd be happy to entertain honest questions elsewhere.

I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to examine the broader theological impact of your thesis. Do you really think that atheopathy has no implications for the injustice of damnation of the afflicted?

Quote:The main thing I'm interested in is why some people - although it appears very few - are born without a belief in God.

Are you going to put that on the cover of your book? "A theory of why some athesists, apparently very few, and possibly none of them, exist." Title needs work.

Quote:If you have alternate theories to the one I propose, I would like to hear them.

Start with object permanence. Without that you aren't born believing in anything that you can't see right here and now.

Quote:But I assure you that others are already beginning to work on this and when my, or a similar hypothesis is vindicated, you will look very foolish and you will be forced to accept what you once rejected out of ignorance, pettiness and unbridled bias.

I have no doubt that others are working on similarly flawed and failed material. Look how long it took science to get rid of phlogiston and the aether.

Name one respected researcher in genetics, psychology or sociology working on this.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-09-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  So, I've invested about 10 hours or so into this message board and, although I've appreciated much of the constructive feedback, much of it has been - to put it nicely - valueless.

Valueless? Or too truthful for you to handle?

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Here are some of the issues I will no longer respond to:

To paraphrase: "I was wrong and I can't win so I won't talk about it anymore."

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  1. Theological questions: This thread is about science, not why God would do this or that?

No, this thread is about your complete lack of understanding of science.

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  2. The word "atheopathy": The arguments against it are petty and childish. If, and only if, it turns out to be inaccurate, I will change it. But not just because it hurts your feelings. Truth does not care about your feelings.

Yes, we should avoid being petty and childish. Like, throwing in the jab about linking atheism to homosexuality, for instance.

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  3.The notion of whether we are natural-born theists: This is a well-established scientific fact for which there is little dispute in the literature. If you disagree, I strongly suggest you minimize your bias and educate yourself.

Exactly how many times do you have to repeat a falsehood for it to become truth? Well, for the delusion of truth to take hold?

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  4. Anything about my previous book on evolution: It is irrelevant to the thesis of this book.

It would be relevant in regards to your writing ability, research skills, accuracy, scientific knowledge, etc. In general, if you fuck up one book, you are more likely to fuck up the next.

In your case, you're just fucked up.

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  5. Anything about my personal religious views: They are also irrelevant to this thread. However, I'd be happy to entertain honest questions elsewhere.

Indicative of bias.

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The main thing I'm interested in is why some people - although it appears very few - are born without a belief in God. If you have alternate theories to the one I propose, I would like to hear them.

blah, blah, blah...

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  But I assure you that others are already beginning to work on this and when my, or a similar hypothesis is vindicated, you will look very foolish and you will be forced to accept what you once rejected out of ignorance, pettiness and unbridled bias.

I read this in a mad-scientist/evil villain gloating voice.

[Image: tumblr_lyqumnxB4g1rozv8oo1_500_zpsb7c6bwid.gif]

What a complete, fucking tool.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
17-09-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
[Image: Fools_1__71093.1429551936.800.800.jpg]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-09-2016, 06:12 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Is theism correlated with paranoid schizophrenia?

Look, I can make shit up too!

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-09-2016, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 06:21 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I am honestly a little curious to hear ONE of these Creationists explain why 99.99% of Christians in the field of biological sciences accept evolution completely, and why the head of the Human Genome Project and director of the National Institutes of Health (chief publisher of papers on evolutionary research) is a Christian who wrote a book about why evolution is unquestionably true.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
17-09-2016, 06:18 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 06:12 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Is theism correlated with paranoid schizophrenia?

Look, I can make shit up too!

Okay, I have to say it... that virtual bubble wrap program is awesome!

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: