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, 11:03 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:49 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I assume you know that's not my book, right? Same title though. Can't copyright a title.

That's cool, part of your book is readable on Amazon. That's all I need. Laugh out load

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:05 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.

Oh you are correct. I did make that mistake. I also said in another video that the universe was 13.72 years old. Forgot to say billion. LOL! This was before they changed it to 13.8 billion years a couple of years ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:07 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 01:16 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:51 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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.
Hmm, the email address could be an old one, "Quest4Truth" seems to be a separate org that now only accepts messages via their Fb wall.That Randy may have had a post box there for filtering the hundreds of responses the video almost certainly invoked.The video was made 5 years ago.

Never had an e-mail address for Quest4Truth. A ministry I intended to set up but never did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:09 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does a new born baby have a belief in anything? Have any beliefs at all? Do they believe they exist, have a mind, etc..?

Or are they a blank slate in this regard? Lacking a belief even in themselves.

Do non-human animals have beliefs? Or are beliefs a uniquely human thing?
How are these questions relevant to anything?

To be labelled "Atheist" the only requirement is "lack of belief in god(s)"
A rock is an atheist and so is a new born baby.

Yes, new born babies come into the world with beliefs. I've already proved that to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:11 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 03:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How are these questions relevant to anything?

To be labelled "Atheist" the only requirement is "lack of belief in god(s)"
A rock is an atheist and so is a new born baby.

You claim that babies lack a belief in God, and I'm seeking clarification. Do babies have any beliefs, or are they a blank slate absent of all beliefs, such as a belief that they exist, have a mind, etc....

It's entirely relevant to your claim that they lack a belief in God, if you don't understand why, then answering my questions would help to show you why.

I've personally already demonstrated days ago that the blank theory is dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 05:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If you think of atheism as not wearing really dark sunglasses, then new born babies are atheists. They don't wear really dark sunglasses, nor do they have the capability to even know what they are.

They can squint instinctively when there is a bright light, but it's not the same as wearing really dark sunglasses as theists do.

Religious ideas can be added to a mind, just like really dark sunglasses are added to a face.

Babies lack beliefs in all things and by default they lack a belief in a god.

Adults who identify as atheists may arrive at that title through a different process, but the lack of belief is still the defining factor.

Looks like somebody needs to read the previous posts since I have discredited pretty much everything you just said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Randy Ruggles's post
17-09-2016, 11:24 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 09:37 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:44 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  And using the word "theory" for simplicity on the cover and then explaining inside what a scientific theory really is and that this is a hypothesis is not dishonest in any sense.

It is dishonest in every sense. You hypothesis has been tested and has failed. To state that your failed hypothesis is a theory is the opposite of true. It's like referring to that stranger in the bar who just slapped you as your wife.

(13-09-2016 12:28 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "As much fun as I'm sure it will be insulting Randy for his numerous and deliberate falsehoods . . ."

I have made none.

Quote:2. Theism is the default position. We are all born believers. Evolution has caused us to be this way due to its survival advantage.

Kindly reconcile your support for evolution as the cause for theism with your patent and obvious disbelief in evolution.

And if this is your best rebuttal to the dissection of your twaddle then it isn't simply your hypothesis that is failed.

Duh! I explained that already. I am skeptical about molecules-to-man evolution and I know exactly what it would take me to believe it again. But natural selection, speciation, microevolution: those are all scientific facts that no one on the planet denies because they are observable and repeatable. I don't reject all of evolution - and neither do even the most ardent creationists. I reject Neo-Darwinism for the same reasons biologist (and ex-wife of Carl Sagan) Lynn Margulis did. See what she says in her own words:

"But neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence."

"What you’d like to see is a good case for gradual change from one species to another in the field, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record—and preferably in all three."

"What they found was lots of back-and-forth variation in the population and then—whoop—a whole new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record."

"They saw lots of variation within a species, changes over time. But they never found any new species—ever. They would say that if they waited long enough they’d find a new species."

"The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or “God did it.” They have no alternatives that are scientific."

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-...sial-right
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:28 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 09:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 12:35 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  But still no proof this is our Randy and/or the author.

Read to the bottom of his proposed cover design

[Image: Dishonesty_zpszolaf8i6.png]

Exactly! Give the man a prize. I've been making that point for days now. I guess nobody actually reads my responses. That was posted BEFORE anyone even asked if I wrote the book and as soon as I saw the question, I answered it. And again. And again.

It still has no relevance to this book as I have explained, I think, 3 times now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:30 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 11:03 AM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

You're a pretty dumb piece of shit yourself, Randy.

We didn't catch onto your post when you indicated that you were the author, and you responded to the question days later. My post was made before you clarified. Go through your posts more quickly. Being moral people, we wanted to make sure that you were the actual author and not some troll making bad press for the real author. It was important to us to know for sure.

And fix your video. You sound like a jackass.

You stupid piece of shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Aliza's post
17-09-2016, 11:35 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:07 PM)Aliza Wrote:  ...
Christians can't stand it when people disagree with them and they'd rather bury their heads in the sand than face the fact that their ideas don't convince people who don't already believe.

In fairness, that's a generalisation (which is just typical of all Jewish women Tongue).

The guys who interviewed me (Andy and Doug) have their comments enabled and also politely asked for comments on their Soundcloud or iTunes output.

Obviously, that's to boost their ratings so no one should feel any obligation so do to.

Meanwhile, The Atheist Experience have comments disabled on their YouTube output ... which is disappoint, but understandable.

(13-09-2016 02:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
[i]Bernard Kettlewell was the first to investigate the evolutionary mechanism behind peppered moth adaptation, between 1953 and 1956. He found that a light-coloured body was an effective camouflage in a clean environment, such as in Dorset, while the dark colour was beneficial in a polluted environment like in Birmingham. This selective survival was due to birds which easily caught dark moths on clean trees, and white moths on trees darkened with soot. The story, supported by Kettlewell's experiment, became an example of Darwinian evolution used in standard textbooks.
...

And to add further evidence...

I was born in Birmingham (with "a light-coloured body") and we often took family holidays in Dorset, a cleaner environment more highly suited to my camouflage.

According to that Fox News pundit, Birmingham is now a no-go area of Britain and I don't live there any more.

QED.

... and if anyone was unsure, yes, that was a racist joke.

(13-09-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
You claim that babies lack a belief in God, and I'm seeking clarification. Do babies have any beliefs, or are they a blank slate absent of all beliefs, such as a belief that they exist, have a mind, etc....
...

Already asked and answered pages ago. Please keep up.

Rolleyes

It's been disproved that the cause of the change in population from light moths to dark moths was predation by birds because the moths don't rest on tree trunks during the day and because birds see more of the light spectrum than we do. What seems camouflaged to us is not to them.

We started with light and dark moths and ended with light and dark moths. The light moths were not "evolving" into dark moths. There was merely a shift in the population size. Peppered moths are a good example of natural selection but have little or nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. And it is dishonest for textbooks to portray the story as if it is evolution in action. Natural selection, yes. Evolution, no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Randy Ruggles's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: