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
18-09-2016, 04:02 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 03:54 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yeah, I tried to float Barrett's paper here before; it didn't end well. Although I only got three responses or so - nobody wants to argue with the crazy prophet. Tongue

Well it seems Rugface has a use after all. Welcome back crazy prophet! Smile Smile Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-09-2016, 04:11 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 03:54 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yeah, I tried to float Barrett's paper here before; it didn't end well. Although I only got three responses or so - nobody wants to argue with the crazy prophet. Tongue

[Image: Where-the-fuck--Have-you-been-meme-13097.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2016, 04:13 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  My God you people are stupid.

Well, this sort of comment is certainly a good way to make friends and influence people. NOT.

And it's actually more than a little amusing to see somebody who seriously believes in supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena calling other people stupid.

—Thanks for the laugh.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
18-09-2016, 04:19 AM
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. [...]

You really are a sanctimonious, arrogant, piece of shit aren't you? You seem to truly think that your silly self-published electronic leaflets are "real" books which merit serious consideration.

Talk about self-delusional LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like SYZ's post
18-09-2016, 04:56 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 10:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  God, you are stupid.
FTFY

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 04:57 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(07-09-2016 10:47 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/are-k...ef-in-god/

[Image: SqyIU4X.png]

^evidence of the supernatural. IDK, I had a chuckle. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 05:02 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 03:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I literally cannot take any more of this right now. Just your fucking introduction is a tedious slog that does nothing but highlight your complete lack of understanding of the subject you're attempting to comment on. You are a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

I dont think the is that stupid, or lets better say "stupid alone". He is a bald faced liar. Period.

(08-09-2016 11:05 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  My book will not conclude that we are born with a belief in God because God put it there but because evolution did.

He has written a book to counter evolution, and then comes here to claim that his next book, yeah right, his next book will say "evolution did it"? Evolution, something he obviously doesnt think is true at all.

So how gullible does he think we really are?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
18-09-2016, 05:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 05:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 03:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I literally cannot take any more of this right now. Just your fucking introduction is a tedious slog that does nothing but highlight your complete lack of understanding of the subject you're attempting to comment on. You are a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

I dont think the is that stupid, or lets better say "stupid alone". He is a bald faced liar. Period.

(08-09-2016 11:05 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  My book will not conclude that we are born with a belief in God because God put it there but because evolution did.

He has written a book to counter evolution, and then comes here to claim that his next book, yeah right, his next book will say "evolution did it"? Evolution, something he obviously doesnt think is true at all.

So how gullible does he think we really are?
He is similar to politicians in thst he will change policy mid sentence if he thinks it will gain him points.

Also, like a politician, he spouts hot air and rhetoric (OK, we all use and abuse rhetoric), issues false promises, sticks slavishly to the party line (unless his name is Trump) and fears the retribution of his leader (see comment re Trump).

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 11:09 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Yes, new born babies come into the world with beliefs. I've already proved that to you.

Laughat
It's cute that you think so. It's like listening to a 4-year-old explain how Santa delivers all the presents. (a belief that they learned and were not born with despite any tendencies to seek agencies and accept parental authority)


(17-09-2016 11:49 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "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."

A tendency towards something is not that thing. How many times do you need that beaten over your head before you stop ignoring it. Here's a new author's photo for your book...
[Image: lalalalacanthear1.jpg]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
18-09-2016, 06:09 AM
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:

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

This thread is about science from the people responding to you. It is about supporting the faith by pretending to be scientific from yours.

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.

You are right that truth does not care about feelings. The problem with the word is that it describes a condition you have not demonstrated actually exists and uses a negatively charged word to do so. It is an emotional appeal to your intended audience designed to help them feel smugly superior with no basis. That seems to be your modus operandi.

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.

It is only a fact in your little delusional world. The most you have shown is a tendency for assigning agency. That does not equate to theism no matter how many times you repeat it.

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

It is relevant to your beliefs, your understanding of science, and your character. Your beliefs are strong, your understanding and character both appear to be lacking.

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.

See #4

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

First, please demonstrate that ANYBODY is "born with a belief in God". You could start by demonstrating that anybody is born with a belief in a god. You could even start by describing how you could possibly test the conjecture. A god is a fairly complicated concept that would seem to require a lot of other concepts about the world and how it works and those take time to develop.

Quote: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.

When somebody presents a solid definition and evidence to support it I will happily admit that I was wrong. You've done neither and what you propose doesn't provide either. You aren't doing science, you are playing scientist the way a five-year-old plays a cowboy.

(18-09-2016 12:26 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 01:41 AM)SYZ Wrote:  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.

So you don't understand metaphor... that is not surprising.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: