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, 03:15 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:55 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(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 )

Ain't disagreeing.

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, 03:17 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2016 03:33 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:53 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(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.
Certainly looks like a "them and us" scenario...

Later: what's the difference between "groupthink" and "a concensus opinion"?

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, 03:20 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Good night Jimbobs all.

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, 03:26 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Wow. So much wrong, I don't even know where to start....

(19-09-2016 01:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I asked SYZ a question. Fatbaldbitch responds with a "i don't care to answer your question". And I tell fatbaldbitch", that I don't give a shit, I didn't ask him, I asked SYZ."

(19-09-2016 01:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I tell Fatbaldhobbit, "I didn't ask you, I asked Aliza."

You should probably get your story straight before you start casting aspersions.

(19-09-2016 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I guess when all you know about a person is their religious beliefs, the only thing you have to blame for their character, is their religious belief, at least for the single minded.

Fixed that for you.

(19-09-2016 02:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But my parakeet died, and I've been a fowl mood ever since.

Fixed that one too.

(19-09-2016 01:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Fatbaldhobbit responds, "I don't have to share my views on God with you."

Actually, I declined to discuss teleology. Bit of a difference there.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 01:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

The structure which we call a heart, the reason why this structure exists is to pump blood around the body. If blood did not need to circulate then we would not have a heart.

That is its purpose, its reason for existence. We could also say "function". The function (or purpose) of a heart is to pump blood.

Now if you think a small child is going to use your personal definition of the word "purpose" to mean that god did it, then you are making an almighty assumption based on your personal confirmation bias.

You ask an uneducated naiive young child if wings on a bird have a purpose, they most likely say, so that a bird can fly.
It is only in your and Randy and some other creotard's heads that you guys interprete that to mean "God, (the Christian god, praise be to Jesus) specifically designed wings and created birds fully formed from nothing so that they could fly. He in his infinite wisdom gave the birds the gift of flight. Halleluja.

Quote:But lets clear something up, are you of the view that there is teleology in nature?
Yes, sure I am in the context of complex living things and evolution.
Our bodies are bunch of different parts coming together in a symbiotic fashion for mutual benefit and survival and procreation benefits. Many of our parts have specialist roles, they perform a function and if they did not, they wouldn't have been produced from the unthinking evolution process.

The causes of the heart being produced is described by evolution.
Decent with modification
Survival and procreation pressure
Competition for limited resources

The reason, why the heart in particular was a result of the evolution process is because it enables large, living creatures that rely on bloodflow to exist by fulfilling the function of pumping (circulating) blood around the body. That is the purpose of the heart.

You see, two different viewpoints at looking at and explaining the same thing. The explainations work in unison. Neither requires belief in an invisible magical unobservable creature orchestrating and designing anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
19-09-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I have no issues with ignorance per se. But Randy celebrates his. He takes pride in it. He nurtures it.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 03:27 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I have no issues with ignorance per se. But Randy celebrates his. He takes pride in it. He nurtures it.

Standard practice amigo. They all think there's a magic man out there who cares about their conduct, it's not like we expect them to perform great feats of rationality. It is all the more baffling when they lose their shit, since apparently magic man doesn't like cussing, though he does forgive provided one grovels appropriately.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-09-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 02:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think there's a whole lot of confusion in this thread.

No, you are misrepresenting the situation.

(19-09-2016 02:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, they have argued that function exists. You are twisting words again.

We have traced the evolution of the organs, like eyes through their various stages. We have followed wings as they changed function over time.

No one here has argued a philosophical purpose. Saying a heart is a pump is stating a function. Saying a heart evolved into a pump is stating a function.

Quote an example if I am wrong.

ETA: Aaaargh! Stevil got it first! Thumbsup

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
19-09-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 03:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 03:27 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I have no issues with ignorance per se. But Randy celebrates his. He takes pride in it. He nurtures it.

Standard practice amigo. They all think there's a magic man out there who cares about their conduct, it's not like we expect them to perform great feats of rationality. It is all the more baffling when they lose their shit, since apparently magic man doesn't like cussing, though he does forgive provided one grovels appropriately.
Well, it doesn't actually matter what they do. They could go around incinerating an entire race of people and they would still get into heaven because they believe in Jesus.

It's only if you don't believe that you get justly tortured for eternity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-09-2016, 04:21 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Clarification

Is it atheo-path, one who is pathologically incapable of religiosity?
Or a-theopath, one who is incapable of religious pathology?

---
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
[+] 9 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: