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, 11:41 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. Here are some of the issues I will no longer respond to:

Ooh, now you really hurt our feelings. A dishonest douchebag wont respond to all our criticism 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?

Which webpage did you have to go to see how "science" is spelled? You talking about science sounds like a virgin talking about sex. One is tempted to suggesst to just try it out instead of talking about it constantly (this is gonna be a recurring theme somehow in this post, see below).

(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.
Nice! At least something you learned on this forum. What about your invisible friend out there? Do you still feel he is true?

(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.
Someone like you talking about education....well, see above.

(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 is very relevant regarding your credibility, honesty and your knowledge about science.

(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.
Your religious views are irrelevant, bout our lack in religious views are? Thats what your whole scenario is all about, correct?
You talking about honesty...oh well, we have been there already twice now, right?

(17-09-2016 05:28 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  you will look very foolish and you will be forced to accept what you once rejected out of ignorance, pettiness and unbridled bias.
Says the guy who wrote a book full of bullshit about Darwin and evolution.
Im not particularly impressed by these threats like your invisible friends threats of eternal damnation.

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, 11:43 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Oh Randy, please tell us you are responsible for this slide show presentation.

http://slideplayer.com/slide/6282492/

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:49 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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....

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.

Babies have "beliefs" in nothing. They LEARN things. Something you apparently forgot to do at your "prestigious" university.

You're not seeking anything. You're doing yet another lame drawn out boring set-up to preach about atheists, reverend. Isn't it time you name yourself a "bishop" ?

"Babies have "beliefs" in nothing."

Yes they do. I've shown that already. And as it turns out even scientists can't help but see design in nature.

"It is quite surprising what these studies show," says Kelemen. "Even though advanced scientific training can reduce acceptance of scientifically inaccurate teleological explanations, it cannot erase a tenacious early-emerging human tendency to find purpose in nature. It seems that our minds may be naturally more geared to religion than science."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...102451.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:51 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I'll just leave this here:

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/religion%2...rticle.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 11:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I'll just leave this here too:

"The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, showed atheists are most closely aligned with psychopaths - not killers but those classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others."

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/belief-god...story.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 12:01 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:09 PM)Randy Ruggles 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.

Yes, new born babies come into the world with beliefs. I've already proved that to you.

No, you haven't. You have utterly misunderstood the science due to your confirmation bias.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
18-09-2016, 12:02 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'll just leave this here too:

Why not just leave here? You're the one who's starting to act a little psychopathic. Not to mention a serious sense of insecurity and OCD.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-09-2016, 12:05 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:24 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 09:37 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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.



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

One opinion. Hers alone. And there is no evidence to support it.

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
18-09-2016, 12:10 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'll just leave this here too:

"The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, showed atheists are most closely aligned with psychopaths - not killers but those classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others."

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/belief-god...story.html

Go ahead, dont hold back with your real feelings. Thats what you wanted to tell us all the way, didnt ya?

[Image: jack-nicholson-colonel-nathan-r-jessep-A...od-Men.jpg]

No, wait, you are lying again, didnt ya? Werent there at least two groups of atheists.

- the ones who arrived to this conclusion with reason and logic
- the ones who are like psychopaths

Now they are both the same again?

Randy Ruggles Wrote:
Deesse23 Wrote: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.

So you are constantly conflating atheists with atheopaths, and everybody else is guilty of it?

Dude you are not in church here, and we are not a flock of stupid christeopaths. So we wont atone for your lies, you fucking dishonest pice of shit.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
18-09-2016, 12:26 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(14-09-2016 01:41 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(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.

Sorry... passive-aggressive won't work here like it does in your church.

Ha, ha. Joke's on you. I don't go to church. Rarely ever did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: