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, 10:44 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:06 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Take a step back and think about it guys.

In his first post he stated that
#1 there are "natural" atheists who become atheists by being rational people. He has no issue with them

#2 there are people, who allegedly have a genetic predisposition toward atheism. It is supposed to be a kind of broken agency detector. They are atheists too!

Keep in mind, he pretends not to attack atheism as a whole, but *only* atheists according to #2!

So, if you were him, how would you name the "state" or "disease" in which you want to refer to #2 only, and not #1?

Detectopaths? A-agencyopaths? Agencylackopaths? Whatever....but what would you not do if you were intellectually honest and tried to separate people from category #1 and #2? Right, you would under no fucking circumstance throw both categories into the same pot and call them "atheopaths", if you were intellectually honest that is.

Second:
You can ask everyone on the planet (at least including members of monotheistic religions), and everybody would admit that they are atheists, at least with the exception of their own god. So basically everyone does not believe in almost any god that ever existed. But those who disbelieve in one god less (have no belief in gods at all) are different from everybody else and can be described as being "suffering from a diseaed state"? Facepalm
Its becoming even more hilarious that every god that could be disproven has been disproved (Thor, Zeus, we know where thunder and lightning come from), the ones most people still believe in can not be disproved or arent even defined properly, but the people who dont accept any of that are partially the sick ones? Seriously?
Almost every god has been proven to not exist, no gods existence at all has been verified so far, but the ones that dont believe in any gods have a subgroup that is genetically challenged? What about all those who do believe in any of those gods that do not exist or havent been demonstrated to exist? They are not genetically challenged?
Sounds to me like pissing in my general direction and telling me its raining.

Third:
According to Randys "theory" there are 2 sorts of atheists. And the -paths would need to be sorted out (and probably scientifically investigated, like lab rats, hehe) if he is correct. Would you as sceptics like to have soemone like Randy who believes in things he really has no good reason for, to figure out if you are part of a group of "genetically challenged" people?

The more i think about this, the more i have to laugh.


P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not? Consider

You said:

"Right, you would under no fucking circumstance throw both categories into the same pot and call them "atheopaths", if you were intellectually honest that is."

Exactly. Thank you. That is what everyone here is trying to do: throw both categories into same pot. A different word is needed for clarification.

You said:

"and everybody would admit that they are atheists, at least with the exception of their own god."

No they wouldn't. This refutes your claim so that you can stop using it. You're welcome. Wink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50yUVi2sgE

But since Craig uses the correct definition of atheism - one you will disagree with I'm sure - I will give my own response to that charge using your incorrect definition of atheism.

If we accept that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God or gods, then, as a monotheist who believes there is only one God, I don't merely lack a belief in other gods. I have a positive belief that those other gods do not exist.

Now, personally I would separate those into weak and strong atheism but since atheists often define atheism as merely a lack of belief, I don't fit that category and, thus, I am not an atheist in any sense of the word. You can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

You said:

"Almost every god has been proven to not exist"

For me, there is at least one way to prove God does not exist. The Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible is eternal while the universe is finite. If it could be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he universe is eternal, I would become an atheist immediately. There are at least 6 other way I can think to falsify my own belief in God and Christianity but I can't speak for other Christians. Some people, theist or atheist, won't change their minds no matter the evidence. I have had many atheists tell me so and I appreciate their honesty.


You said:

"According to Randys "theory" there are 2 sorts of atheists."

No, there are more than that. I will go into the others in minor detail in the book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 05:05 PM)unfogged Wrote:  First and foremost, I nominate EK for TTA Fiskmaster General. That was above and beyond the call of duty!


(17-09-2016 10:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Original source, in all it’s credulous and ignoble glory.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html


You know, things that are factually accurate, don’t need to be worried about people learning more about them. Do you know who does fear the spread of information? Scammers, huckster, frauds, and charlatans. Guess which ones you sound more like with that kind of intellectual fear mongering? If your religion is true, why are you so afraid that it cannot stand up to closer scrutiny?

That may be one thing he actually got right, but maybe not as intended. Your response is dead on and it is amazing to me that anybody can view being educated about something is bad.

I assume you know that's not my book, right? Same title though. Can't copyright a title.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:25 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Desse says:
Quote:P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not?
Randy has avoided most mentions of this book, with the exception of attempting to defend my accusation that the out of context partial quotation about Darwin means something other than its quite obvious intention to ''prove'' even scientists are unhappy with the theory of evolution (hope they are, but in the sense of seeking to refine it.)

In my limited experience avoidance either means that he holds the question in utter contempt - but most will say that they do so - or he is unwilling to admit to authorship of a volume containing obviously dishonest strategies.

My personal conclusion is the latter. He is seeks to perpetuate a trail of terminological inexactitudes.

I've answered that question in the affirmative at least 5 times now. And it was made clear before the question was even asked when I posted a picture of the cover for the new book and it said, "Author of Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" So drop it already. You're embarrassing yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 12:02 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  From the link...

Which would lead anyone (without an agenda) to conclude that continuing to uncritically accept authority is the '-opathy'.

Yet, theists don't continue believing in fairies, Santa, etc. but only the memetically transmitted god(s)-belief.

Does this imply that the developing 'deceit-detector' (don't bother Googling that, Tomasia, I made it up) is not picking up the signals regarding the god-fairy because the meme transmitter (peer, parent, priest etc.) is not displaying the deceit micro-signals i.e. they are genuinely deluded? Meaning that this particular meme engenders cognitive ease not cognitive dissonance.

Going back to the "sucker, cheater, grudger" idea (from Dawkins, Selfish Gene) the implication is that 'gruders' have a more sensitive deceit-detector (dissonance from the 'model' pattern) but for 'suckers' this is absent or underdeveloped.

So this explains e.g. the success of Joel Osteen. Big Grin

Or is 'grudging' a learnt behaviour i.e. once bitten, twice shy? i.e. a software update following a potentially harmful incident.

But, again, note that this occurs in only one facet of life. Someone who is sucker enough to buy one of Randy's books is not necessarily a sucker in other regards e.g. they would test a used car before purchasing.

So, the 'misinformation effect' and 'confirmation bias' must have something to with it, as opposed to purely being related to childhood development.

Consider

You said:

"Which would lead anyone (without an agenda) to conclude that continuing to uncritically accept authority is the '-opathy'."

Here's your error. My hypothesis has nothing to do with accepting authority and everything to do with pattern recognition. So what non-offensive word can I use that means "born without"? I'm open to changing the word. I'm not committed to it. But I need a word to distinguish those born without a God belief from those who became atheists for other reasons such as logic and reason.

Here’s your error. You assume you can distinguish false patterns and based on everything I have read from you so far I don’t believe you can.

So what non-offensive word can I use that means “unable to differentiate reality versus fiction”? How about schizophrenic. Consider
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...ulski.html

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
17-09-2016, 10:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 11:03 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 10:25 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Desse says:
Randy has avoided most mentions of this book, with the exception of attempting to defend my accusation that the out of context partial quotation about Darwin means something other than its quite obvious intention to ''prove'' even scientists are unhappy with the theory of evolution (hope they are, but in the sense of seeking to refine it.)

In my limited experience avoidance either means that he holds the question in utter contempt - but most will say that they do so - or he is unwilling to admit to authorship of a volume containing obviously dishonest strategies.

My personal conclusion is the latter. He is seeks to perpetuate a trail of terminological inexactitudes.

Someone should just email the author to ask if he's posting on this forum. Maybe admins can remove links to the book if he's not the author.

My God you people are stupid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:54 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 10:25 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Desse says:
Randy has avoided most mentions of this book, with the exception of attempting to defend my accusation that the out of context partial quotation about Darwin means something other than its quite obvious intention to ''prove'' even scientists are unhappy with the theory of evolution (hope they are, but in the sense of seeking to refine it.)

In my limited experience avoidance either means that he holds the question in utter contempt - but most will say that they do so - or he is unwilling to admit to authorship of a volume containing obviously dishonest strategies.

My personal conclusion is the latter. He is seeks to perpetuate a trail of terminological inexactitudes.

I've answered that question in the affirmative at least 5 times now. And it was made clear before the question was even asked when I posted a picture of the cover for the new book and it said, "Author of Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" So drop it already. You're embarrassing yourself.

I thought you weren't gonna respond to shit like this anymore? Can't help yourself?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:00 PM)Full Circle 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?

Uninfected. Drinking Beverage

Ha. Good one. But the language is too biased.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Randy Ruggles's post
17-09-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:35 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 11:34 AM)Aliza Wrote:  He has a FB page and the picture on the profile matches the picture associated with some creationist debate that I saw.
Yup, looks like the same RR as in the creationist videos on YouTube




Seems he is also the Canadian marketting consultant I found before. And he may be on the White pages with a telephone number.

But still no proof this is our Randy and/or the author. There are several others of the same name in the States

Sorry, Randy, we are talking as though you were not around, terrible manners I agree. The answer to the pertinent question would make this totally unecessary. It does seem to have become a bit of a bete noir.

Hey you found me. You really should watch the entire 2 - make that 4 - shows I was on. That video is just a short clip I made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:00 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:54 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(17-09-2016 12:02 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"Which would lead anyone (without an agenda) to conclude that continuing to uncritically accept authority is the '-opathy'."

Here's your error. My hypothesis has nothing to do with accepting authority and everything to do with pattern recognition. So what non-offensive word can I use that means "born without"? I'm open to changing the word. I'm not committed to it. But I need a word to distinguish those born without a God belief from those who became atheists for other reasons such as logic and reason.

Here’s your error. You assume you can distinguish false patterns and based on everything I have read from you so far I don’t believe you can.

So what non-offensive word can I use that means “unable to differentiate reality versus fiction”? How about schizophrenic. Consider
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...ulski.html

Wow. I'm thinking it's your lucky day, Ruggles; I was going to go with narcissistic or maybe just plain goober but, sheesh - Schizophrenic is pretty sweet in the realm of disorders. Thumbsup

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, 11:02 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 12:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:35 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Yup, looks like the same RR as in the creationist videos on YouTube




Seems he is also the Canadian marketting consultant I found before. And he may be on the White pages with a telephone number.

But still no proof this is our Randy and/or the author. There are several others of the same name in the States

Sorry, Randy, we are talking as though you were not around, terrible manners I agree. The answer to the pertinent question would make this totally unecessary. It does seem to have become a bit of a bete noir.

We can just email the guy from the video at the email address at the end of the video. Smile Oh, and if you email him, tell him to fix his video. Unless I heard it wrong, he's got a little oopsie in there.

Randy if you did that video, you can still fix it! You can either re-record it, or add an annotation to point out that Bernard Kettelwell must have done his research in the 1950's, not the 1850's. It kind of decreases your credibility when you don't pay attention to these little details.

No I said the 1850s is when the lichen on the trees turned dark due to the industrial revolution. That's a fact. I can't change anything any way. That was recorded 6 years ago and is in mass circulation on satellite TV across the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: