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
08-09-2016, 10:24 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:02 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Thanks for your reply. As a Christian theist, I, of course, disagree with pretty much everything you said. However, my personal theological views have no bearing on this hypothesis so I'd rather not lose focus and keep this about science.

When did you plan on start presenting and discussing some science ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 11:02 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
someone Wrote:So, a "broken" agency detector may just be the next step in evolution.

Correct. I suggested that conclusion as well. There is not reason to necessarily think of atheopathy as bad thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 11:03 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
someone else (maybe the same person, I dunno) Wrote:Honestly, I think you have unjustly equalled belief that something has been designed, with belief that something has been designed by god.

Possibly. But it is not my assertion. Others in the field of neuroscience have drawn that conclusion. It is a point I could explore in the book. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:36 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 07:36 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hey OP how the hell are you gonna make a whole book outta this? I take it you'll be self-published.

Good question. And regarding self-publishing, who knows. But do you doubt that there is enough material here to comprise a few hundred pages? I am working on an outline and it appears I will need to spend several preliminary chapters just supporting, with numerous examples, my first 3 points before I even get to lay out my hypothesis. Then I will have to defend why it is a valid one worthy of study (perhaps it is not) and suggest experiments to test/falsify it.

I will also briefly go into other theories of the causes of atheism. Once such theory that I know you will all reject out of hand is the "bad dads" theory of Paul Vitz.

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-...1586176870
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:43 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 11:05 PM by DLJ.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Tommy (thanks for the clue this time) Wrote:Possibly because out default theism is built on some other sets of consideration, more to do with out innate desire for meaning, hope, purpose, a sense of life which posses some sense of meaningful order.

In this regard one does see life as a cosmic accident, but intentional, "designed" so to say.

If these sort of beliefs are our default tendencies, than it goes without saying that we're intuitive theists in this regard.

Excellent point, Tomasia. But since some people claim to have been born without this, it calls out for an explanation. One problem I might have is collecting data on is exactly what percentage of atheists are true atheopaths and what percentage are atheists for other reasons (eg. they don't see any evidence) because I think there simply hasn't been enough research done into this area. Who wants to volunteer for an MRI? LOL!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:45 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Let us save you the trouble.
The main contributor to atheism is education.
Archaeology and History have debunked the holy books of theists.
The pathology here is theism.
People who claim they believe in the unseen which they can't even define.

It's pretty funny that with the rise of science, theists feel the need to climb on the science bandwagon, and try to establish somehow that *their* (of course it's their's) religion is somehow based in science. So far, in this thread, we've not seen ONE SHRED of any real science, or even the ability to use the scientific method, (or even the knowledge of what that is). Just a bunch of unsupported assertions and conjectures that are not testable, in any way.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-09-2016, 10:47 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2016 09:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:43 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Possibly because out default theism is built on some other sets of consideration, more to do with out innate desire for meaning, hope, purpose, a sense of life which posses some sense of meaningful order.

So theism is good as it's useful, not that it's true. Utilitarianism. How quaint.
Christianity (the idea that an ancient pissed off deity needed his son to die, so he could feel better), is hardly the origin of meaning and hope and purpose and order.
I think we have a rank beginner here. I need to write a book about why theists who come to TTA are suffering from this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

See what happens when you don't use the 'reply' button?

Bucky now thinks that you wrote that quote when it was actually Tomasia.

Sad

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-09-2016, 10:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:08 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  LOL! Yes, I get that a lot from those in the U.K. - if that's in fact where you are. My full name is Randall if that works better for you. Smile

I don't claim to have a 'God detector.' But the latest scientific research seems to indicate that we all have God detectors. So the question becomes, "Why are some people born without it?" That is the question I am trying to address.

Okay... you make a claim that some where within the scientific community 'They' have a 'God detector'.

Can I see it/the link?

Can it be touched/examined?

(08-09-2016 10:08 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Interestingly, there are people who have a condition - its name escapes me at the moment - where they have trouble recognizing faces. These same people tend to be atheists. This supports my hypothesis that something is defective with their "pattern-recognition software."

*Nods* Riiight... so what do the neurons within our brains have to do with you version of an exterior deity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 08:07 AM)Anjele Wrote:  I didn't emerge from the womb believing in Santa. I was told about Santa when I was a small child. There were stories and pictures and songs and presents that caused me to believe that there really was a Santa Claus. The whole thing was a carefully crafted fiction that was perpetuated by nearly every adult and child I encountered. Everyone was in it together to keep the story alive. Even when learning the truth, part of that truth was to keep the story going for those who still believed (younger siblings for example).

In much the same way I learned the god story. It has been passed down for generations with slightly different narratives. But being born into a family that followed a certain belief system meant that I was surrounded but others that did the same. The story was perpetuated by going to church, by attending Catechism classes, by going through the rituals found within the church.

A baby's mind is pretty much a blank slate, that is the default position. It is the people around them who instill the information required to develop a belief.

A baby born into a Catholic environment will learn about and perhaps begin believing in the Catholic depiction of god. The same is true with all the other faiths and with no faith. As a child's reasoning skills and autonomy increase they may or may not continue on the same path.

The instinct to survive at birth is about the physical. It isn't until the 'need' to fit in, to follow the herd becomes apparent that believing in, or pretending to believe in, the same as the others comes into play. Belief in a god is not necessary for physical survival.


Thanks for your response. The blank slate is now considered an outdated and incorrect idea. See this TED talk by Steven Pinker:

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_...anguage=en
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 11:05 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 08:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  1. Our starting assumption is not that a god exists or doesn't exist but that its existence is outside of the purview of science. We will not consider supernatural or non-natural explanations.

I'm afraid you failed right out of the gate. Your thesis #1 is self-contradictory.

If something is not supernatural or non-natural, it is within the purview of science.

I'm guessing you don't actually understand what science is.

I'm guessing you didn't actually understand what I wrote since that's what I said. Wink

My book will not conclude that we are born with a belief in God because God put it there but because evolution did. In fact, there will be no mention of a god in the actual hypothesis part because science does not appeal to supernatural explanations. That's methodological naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: