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
19-09-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You want some of my meds? Sounds like you could use them.

Whatcha got?

Now that's what I'm talking about. Gimme a sec ... we got Seroquel, Trazodone, Buspar, Wellbutrin, Lexapro, Xanax, Flexeril, Baclofen, Meclizine, Mirtazapine, maybe some I'm missing. I wouldn't suggest taking them all at once though.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 01:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 06:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To say that the heart serves the purpose of moving blood around the body, would be no different than saying the purpose of the puddle is to get my feet wet.
Let's focus on complex life systems and its parts.

I have suggested the purpose of wings is for flying, the purpose for the heart is for pumping blood.

Can you think of what the purpose might be for:
eyes
mouth
teeth
immune system
veins

Our bodies are made up of a variety of parts, each part has a different or specialist function with respect to our whole and our fitness (see, i'm tying it back to evolution, which is a non intelligent process)

Non-intelligent process don't have purposes. There not the result of intentional forces, or designers, or creators.

pur·pose
ˈpərpəs/Submit
noun
1.
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

verbformal
1.
have as one's intention or objective.
"God has allowed suffering, even purposed it"
synonyms: intend, mean, aim, plan, design, have the intention; More

To speak of any biological part, complex or not as having a literal purpose, would be false.

We often do speak of biological objects as serving such and such purpose, but only metaphorically, not literally. We borrow the language we use when speaking of design created things, in describing various biological parts, not because they were designed, or have any literal purpose, but for the sake of convenance.

But lets clear something up, are you of the view that there is teleology in nature?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 01:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Your wife leave you? Lost your job?

Nah, they're still here. But my parakeet died, and I've been a foul mood ever since.

Quote:Now that's what I'm talking about. Gimme a sec ... we got Seroquel, Trazodone, Buspar, Wellbutrin, Lexapro, Xanax, Flexeril, Baclofen, Meclizine, Mirtazapine, maybe some I'm missing. I wouldn't suggest taking them all at once though.

Damn dude you're a walking psyche ward, anxiety, depression, bipolar, back pain. I would take the xanax off of you, but you probably need it more than I do.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2016 02:25 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:09 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Still no comment on the functions, other than pumping blood, of the heart then, Tomasia?

Don't know? Unless you want to connect "function" and "telos" or teleology, than I'm not sure what I'm suppose to be commenting.

Ah, I got the impression from previous posts that you were implying that tbe heart had functions other than being a pump to help in the transport of blood around the body. If those other functions have to do with teleology (which is still a bit abstruse for this simple bear) then please explain thst as well.

I am only interesred in this as applied to the heart. The engineer in me understands the mechanics of the matter, the working of the heart and something of its electrics. If there is some other, er, "agency" innolved tbst would be of interest.

Since I have looked at the structure of simpler hearts to ours, and foetal hearts, I can see the "development" towards those of the larger, higher order animals. No design, just development, gradual change and improvement, towards fitness for purpose. Those animals with better than just adequate hearts , and other organs, survived to breed, those without did not. Those foetuses with well developed organs also thrive better than those without.

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
19-09-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:20 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Don't know? Unless you want to connect "function" and "telos" or teleology, than I'm not sure what I'm suppose to be commenting.

Ah, I got the impression from previous posts that you were implying that tbe heart had functions other than being a pump to help in the transport of blood around the body. If those other functions have to do with teleology (which is still a bit abstruse for this simple bear) then please explain thst as well.

I am only interesred in this as applied to the heart. The engineer in me understands the mechanics of the matter, the working of the heart and something of its electrics. If there is some other, er, "agency" innolved tbst would be of interest.

Since I have looked at the structure of simpler hearts to ours, and foetal hearts, I can see the "development" towards those of the larger, higher order animals. No design, just development, gradual change and improvement, towards fitness for purpose.


I think there's a whole lot of confusion in this thread.

Possibly because the resident theist here, myself, has argued as if there is no teleological purpose in nature, while atheists like Stevil have argued that purpose does exist, that the wings of a bird exist for the sake of flying, that eyes exist to see, and the noses exists so that glasses can be held up properly.

So in this backward forum of ours, it's the theist arguing against teleology in nature, while the atheist attempt to argue for it.

I have not assigned any purpose to the heart, folks like Stevil have.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:54 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Your wife leave you? Lost your job?

Nah, they're still here. But my parakeet died, and I've been a foul mood ever since.

Quote:Now that's what I'm talking about. Gimme a sec ... we got Seroquel, Trazodone, Buspar, Wellbutrin, Lexapro, Xanax, Flexeril, Baclofen, Meclizine, Mirtazapine, maybe some I'm missing. I wouldn't suggest taking them all at once though.

Damn dude you're a walking psyche ward,...

I spend most of my time seated.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 02:37 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 10:44 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm beginning to see a behavior pattern emerging in the aggression and/or derisive nature of our theist visitors.

(Certain notable exceptions excluded, of course.)

More chapters for my glossy-covered pop psychology book on the problems religion causes by interfering with rational thinking.

Yes, Felicia, pop psychology.

I'm curious to hear your analysis of equivalent aggression and derisiveness among atheists, what's interfering with their rational thinking?

I also didn't know that aggression/derisiveness and rational thinking are mutually exclusive.

I guess when all you know about a person is their religious beliefs, the only thing you have to blame for there character, is their religious belief, at least for the single minded.

Oh, they're not mutually exclusive; I was being sarcastic, and referring to Randy's series of books. Had you read the thread instead of just launching into an attack on the people (based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof) you hate so much, you would have easily caught that.

My position is and has always been that people are just people, and if you come in here (as Randy did) with bigoted pop-psychology that attempted to label atheists as defective, you shouldn't be surprised if the group starts telling you what a jackass you are.

Similarly, since you seem incapable of discussing something without trying to slur the people to whom you speak (a tendency of which several of our posters are guilty, as well), you should not be surprised when we are abusive to you in return. "You get what you give", as the old saying goes.

You're the little bitch, though, who keeps trying to call me a name you think is clever because you're too petty to realize that you can only get away with that in an internet forum. Doubtless, this is the draw of this place, for you... you can abuse the people you disdain to your little black heart's content, and we can't choke the air out of you until you pass out, in return... so we are left to tell you what a little bitch you are, instead.

Edit to Add: And fuck off with that "I'm the resident theist" bullshit. You're one of dozens. Several of them are quite well-liked. The fact that you fall into the same category as the fundies who can't seem to get along with others is your own fault, not ours.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-09-2016, 02:50 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 02:20 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Ah, I got the impression from previous posts that you were implying that tbe heart had functions other than being a pump to help in the transport of blood around the body. If those other functions have to do with teleology (which is still a bit abstruse for this simple bear) then please explain thst as well.

I am only interesred in this as applied to the heart. The engineer in me understands the mechanics of the matter, the working of the heart and something of its electrics. If there is some other, er, "agency" innolved tbst would be of interest.

Since I have looked at the structure of simpler hearts to ours, and foetal hearts, I can see the "development" towards those of the larger, higher order animals. No design, just development, gradual change and improvement, towards fitness for purpose.


I think there's a whole lot of confusion in this thread.

Possibly because the resident theist here, myself, has argued as if there is no teleological purpose in nature, while atheists like Stevil have argued that purpose does exist, that the wings of a bird exist for the sake of flying, that eyes exist to see, and the noses exists so that glasses can be held up properly.

So in this backward forum of ours, it's the theist arguing against teleology in nature, while the atheist attempt to argue for it.

I have not assigned any purpose to the heart, folks like Stevil have.
In this "backward forum" some seem to construct their own barriers to mutual understanding as a matter of habit.

How then, Grasshoppers, is a simple one such as I to gain knowledge?

(Sorry 'bout that, loved the "wisdom" of Kung Fu.)

I wil carry on just believing that the heart developed to pump blood, that noses developed their shapes to suit the climates they were in, ditto eyes and ears, skin and hair colour, and all other bits evovled for optimal survival characteristics in their specific environments. Useful developments won the challenge. No design, no intentions, no targets - just chance.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
19-09-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 01:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Groupthink has done a number on you folks here.

The words "you folks" or "you people" are a clear indicator that any pretence at rational discussion has been abandonned.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
19-09-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:50 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  No design, no intentions, no targets - just chance.

Chance combined with survival. Evolution is stupidly simple. Stuff that works gets preserved and tends to spread throughout the population. Of course hearts didn't start out super specialized, but over time primitive and then more complex vascular systems were developed as organisms were subjected to various environments and those that didn't happen to have the appropriate adaptations, or weren't lucky enough to acquire them died out. Certainly nowadays the heart is a specialised pump and to insist otherwise is the height of fatuousness. But then ol' Tommy's a specialised idiot so I guess he's got his place in the ecology. (Last line inserted so that no one can accuse me of *passive* aggressiveness Tongue )

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: