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, 01:26 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 12:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 11:35 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  I asked my 9 month old daughter if she believes in god. She shit her diaper. Results: Inconclusive.

On the contrary. This is clearly evidence that she has an innate predisposition to crapping in her pants. Obviously she believes that a higher power will be along to change them shortly. Laughat

As soon as her mother gets home.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
18-09-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  To you, Randy, we are whichever kind fits best with your pre-conceived and immutable opinions.

That is not only not right, it is not even wrong. My preconceptions would say we are all born atheists. I was wrong.

So are you going to read the paper and answer the question? Or do YOUR biases and preconceptions prevent you from doing so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Last night, I emailed three experts, Paul Bloom, Deb Kellemen, and Justin Barrett and asked them two questions:

1. Can you confirm that your research seems to indicate that most of us are born with a propensity to believe in a God or gods? (ie. see teleology in nature.)

2. How can we account for those people who are born without this innate belief?

Atheist Paul Bloom has responded. He confirmed Number 1 but clarified that seeing teleology in nature did not necessarily equate with belief in a god. He believes the first is innate and the second is not.

He also sent me a paper which he said addressed my second question. Although the paper was marked, "Do not distribute," I found it elsewhere online. Here it is:

http://willgervais.com/journal-articles/...-disbelief

The paper outlines 4 types of atheist:

1. Mind-blind
2. Apatheist
3. InCREDulous
4. Analytic

The paper states:

"We have identified four such pathways, although
there could be others that future research may discover.
Whereas mind-blind atheism does not ‘get’ religion,
apatheism and inCREDulous atheism are indifferent to-
wards religion, and analytic atheism is skeptical of and
rejects religion. These four paths to atheism are theoreti-
cally distinct, but are often intertwined in the real world."

The mind-blind atheist would roughly correspond with my term "atheopath" and because this has some history in the literature, I think I will, in future, switch my term for theirs.

So my question to all of you is this:

Which type of atheist are you: 1, 2, 3 or 4?

I'll take all 4, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
18-09-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Which type of atheist are you?

A fat one.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-09-2016, 01:35 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:27 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 01:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  To you, Randy, we are whichever kind fits best with your pre-conceived and immutable opinions.

That is not only not right, it is not even wrong. My preconceptions would say we are all born atheists. I was wrong.

So are you going to read the paper and answer the question? Or do YOUR biases and preconceptions prevent you from doing so?
Perhaps if we could even find the paper we might be able to read it!

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, 01:36 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:29 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 01:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Last night, I emailed three experts, Paul Bloom, Deb Kellemen, and Justin Barrett and asked them two questions:

1. Can you confirm that your research seems to indicate that most of us are born with a propensity to believe in a God or gods? (ie. see teleology in nature.)

2. How can we account for those people who are born without this innate belief?

Atheist Paul Bloom has responded. He confirmed Number 1 but clarified that seeing teleology in nature did not necessarily equate with belief in a god. He believes the first is innate and the second is not.

He also sent me a paper which he said addressed my second question. Although the paper was marked, "Do not distribute," I found it elsewhere online. Here it is:

http://willgervais.com/journal-articles/...-disbelief

The paper outlines 4 types of atheist:

1. Mind-blind
2. Apatheist
3. InCREDulous
4. Analytic

The paper states:

"We have identified four such pathways, although
there could be others that future research may discover.
Whereas mind-blind atheism does not ‘get’ religion,
apatheism and inCREDulous atheism are indifferent to-
wards religion, and analytic atheism is skeptical of and
rejects religion. These four paths to atheism are theoreti-
cally distinct, but are often intertwined in the real world."

The mind-blind atheist would roughly correspond with my term "atheopath" and because this has some history in the literature, I think I will, in future, switch my term for theirs.

So my question to all of you is this:

Which type of atheist are you: 1, 2, 3 or 4?

I'll take all 4, please.

LOL! But each person would be predisposed to be one over another. You can't really be apathetic to religion and oppose it at the same time. Incidentally, if these categories were applied to theism, I would be analytic. I was raised by a Christian mother and an atheist father. My dad taught me to think critically. Religion never made much sense to me but in my formitive years I would have called myself a nominal Christian. After the age of 40, I investigated the evidence and decided Christianity was true. I've never had a spiritual or supernatural experience and I don't care to. I don't pray regularly or go to church. I believe based solely on the evidence. And my belief is falsifiable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:36 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 01:29 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  I'll take all 4, please.

LOL! But each person would be predisposed to be one over another. You can't really be apathetic to religion and oppose it at the same time. Incidentally, if these term were applied to theism, I would be analytic. I was raised by a Christian mother and an atheist father. My dad taught me to think critically. Religion never made much sense to me but in my formitive years I would have called myself a nominal Christian. After the age of 40, I investigated the evidence and decided Christianity was true. I've never had a spiritual or supernatural experience and I don't care to. I don't pray regularly or go to church. I believe based solely on the evidence. And my belief is falsifiable.

Well, see, Randy... it's your investigative process in determining the truthiness (that's a real word) of Christianity that gives us pause toward accepting your hypothesis that all people are born with an innate belief in god except for those few defective atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 01:40 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
More:

https://evolution-institute.org/article/...ligiosity/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(18-09-2016 01:29 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 01:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The paper outlines 4 types of atheist:

1. Mind-blind
2. Apatheist
3. InCREDulous
4. Analytic

I'll take all 4, please.
Yes, All 4
Although item 1 is misleading. It's not that we are blind, its that our eye's are open to the ridiculous nature of religion. I would propose that those that are religious are mind-blind. Blind to logic, common sense and to the vulgarity and absurdity of what is written in their sacred text.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
18-09-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
This talk may be of some interest to anyone who is interested, as I am, on the origins of religion from a scientific perspective. It's by one of the authors of the paper I posted earlier. Watching it now:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lq4tC09GAZk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: