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, 08:18 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 12:29 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 10:52 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  blah..absolute truth ... blah. No one can rationally deny absolute truth - although I meet people (many of whom are atheists) who do it all the time.

Please define the difference between "absolute truth" and all other forms of truth. Drinking Beverage

Then, please demonstrate with an example.

"There are no married bachelors" is an absolute truth because the statement is true by definition. Same with "Two plus two equals four." (We only get proofs in logic and mathematics, not science - which is fine. Not denigrating science here.Just showing its limitations. Some would say they are strengths and I would agree.)

"Evolution is a fact" is a scientific truth because it is tentative, provisional, and falsifiable. If the evolution example causes too much controversy, I'll choose a classic example. "All swans are white" was once a scientific truth. It was accepted as true because no black swans had ever been observed. Then they found one and the statement "All swans are white" stopped being a scientific truth and was proven false. That's good science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 01:28 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  So, Randy, you are still quoting sources such as a tabloid, with a reputation for misrepresentation and hyperbole, and now a film maker as sources worthy of note?

Since you are guilty of misreprentation yourself this should be no surprise I suppose.

Though the film maker seems to have done some sterling stuff, and probably researched it well, is he a fully reliable source?

Edited to add name.

Memo to self, do not indulge before breakfast!

You said:

"Since you are guilty of misreprentation yourself . . ."

I have done no such thing. Use the scientific method and prove it. If I wanted to be dishonest (Keep in mind that I believe lying is objectively wrong. Do you?) I wouldn't have used my real name. I have absolutely nothing to hide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 09:37 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 10:01 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I don't think any Christians believe that Satan is beyond God's control. God is allowing Satan to have his way temporarily but he will ultimately be brought to justice. Do you believe that? And do Orthodox Jews take the story of Job to be history or allegory? What about the creation account(s)?

About the Christian view of Satan, I’ll have to take your word for it. I’m not exactly in a position to speak with any authority on what Christianity believes. I will say, however, that when I’ve pointed out my perceived discrepancy in the past, I’ve never had anyone challenge it.

I’ve been taught that the story of Job is allegorical, but I’m sure there are some educated Jews who take it as literal. Honestly, I think its primary purpose is to explain to Christians how the Jewish view of Satan differs than the Christian view.

Regarding the Jewish view of creation, according to traditional Jewish teachings, Torah and science must equate. If the science is in and the Torah’s description of creation doesn’t match the science, then we must have misunderstood the Torah. Maimonides said that around 1,000 years ago.

Traditional Judaism teaches that the universe is +15,000,000 years old and expanded from the something the size of a mustard seed. It also teaches that Adam was the first man with a soul, but he was not the first man. There were 974 generations of man before Adam. The six days of creation are outside of the Jewish calendar, which records that we’re almost six thousand years from the life of Adam. It also teaches that the six days are really 15,000,000 years. (With that said, I have still met Jews who hold by a six day creation model, but I’m not aware of how they work their model into the above Jewish teachings.)

This article from the Huffington Post does a good job of summing the Jewish position up.

“These [1,000 – 2,0000 year old Jewish] sources depict an origin of the universe that is clearly, and uncannily, similar to that of modern cosmology and quite unlike the views of some “fundamentalist” religions out there. And when these sources have in the past conflicted with the cosmological thinking of the time, it is often the science that has evolved to an understanding closer to that of the religious.”

To our delight, modern science has shown that the universe is around 15,000,000 years old and that it expanded from a single, tiny point. We also learn that many humans lived prior to 6,000 years ago and the scientifically accepted order of “creation” matches the order accepted by Jews, as recorded 2,000 years ago in the Talmud.

Edit: I meant that the universe is 15 billion years old. Thanks, Grasshopper!

Very interesting, thanks. Do you have a source for the 15 billion year claim? (Or is that the link you provided?) I want confirm for myself that Jewish writings stated that thousands of years ago. It's cool that they came so close to the 13.8 billion claimed now. What do think of Gerald Schroeder (The Science of God) who was a Jew but because a Christian?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 08:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I also get it from New Agers who think everything is an illusion and perception is reality.

WTF?!? You aren't having enough trouble without wandering into the epistemological bog of solipsism?

Absolute truth may exist but you won't find it through religion. That can't even be arsed to explain what an axiom is.

As you have so aptly demonstrated, religion is little more than moral relativism wrapped up in defending dogma for dogma's sake.

Now go do something useful and demonstrate that a-theopaths actually exist. Otherwise it's all unicorns.

[Image: baa6c3f278a19b20e6d1b46f7cd64ac6.jpg]

---
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
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
19-09-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 10:11 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
Quote:To our delight, modern science has shown that the universe is around 15,000,000 years old and that it expanded from a single, tiny point.

As usual, Randy, you are well inaccurate again. By a factor of a thousand this time, 13, 800, 000, 000 years near enough. Our ball of rock has been around for about 4, 500, 000 000 years and has bourn life for about 3, 800, 000, 000 years.

Those weren't my words. Yes, the universe is claimed to be 13.8 billion years old (revised from 13.72 billion a few years ago). Earth is 4.54 billion and life started about 3.8 billion. I didn't even have to look those numbers up. I have them committed to memory. So I said nothing inaccurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 08:22 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You said:

"Since you are guilty of misreprentation yourself . . ."

I have done no such thing. Use the scientific method and prove it. If I wanted to be dishonest (Keep in mind that I believe lying is objectively wrong. Do you?) I wouldn't have used my real name. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

You misrepresented evolution and natural selection:

(19-09-2016 07:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Nope. The peppered moth example is natural selection but not evolution.

Quote:Natural selection
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Natural Selection IS Evolution

We don't have to break out science. Your own words are enough.

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
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
19-09-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 08:18 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "There are no married bachelors" is an absolute truth because

You have defined it to be true. Unimpressive.

There are no frinnagle plorths. This is true because plorths are defined as unfrinnagle.

Quote:Same with "Two plus two equals four."

How are you with 1+1+1=1?

---
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
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
19-09-2016, 08:40 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Randy lacks the necessary level of understanding to pass a high school freshman level biology class.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-09-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 10:20 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 09:15 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I just wanted to point out that, although some were offended by my example of comparing a sociopath and his lack of empathy to an atheopath and his lack of belief, there actually might be a correlation. A major study shows that atheists lack empathy and exhibit many of the traits of sociopaths (or, as they call them here, psychopaths).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...study.html

A classic misrepresentation of the thrust of the article. Did you not think we'd take the time to read it? A few snippets...

"It found atheists are more likely psychopaths and believers less clever... To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking... there are some similarities between atheists and psychopaths in that they both lack empathy for others... The researchers said that while having empathy does not necessarily mean a person has anti-scientific beliefs, it may 'compromise' an individual's ability to cultivate social and moral insight."

Quote:"However, they point out research that shows between 1901 and 2000, 90 per cent of Nobel Prize winners in science were religious, while the rest were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers."

Are you really silly enough to draw a meaningful correlation from this? Here's another just as meaningful one...

[Image: 2.png]

You said:

"A classic misrepresentation of the thrust of the article."

It is not. But that's a classic atheist tactic. Always accusing someone of lying, quote-mining or misrepresentation. As an example, if I were to quote Stephen Jay Gould about lack of gradualism in the fossil record, some people protest, "Stephen Jay Gould is an evolutionist!" (Actually saw that in a debate once, shouted from the audience.) Of course he is. THAT'S precisely why I'm quoting him. He's what's known as a "hostile witness." If he were a creationist, one might rightly dismiss his statement on account of bias.

You said:

Are you really silly enough to draw a meaningful correlation from this?

The point being that it refutes the common claim that real scientist can't be religious (the no true Scotsman fallacy) and the point often made by atheists that 97 percent of the members of National Academy of Science are atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(15-09-2016 10:47 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 09:48 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  [...]
"In Rorschach ink-blot studies, for instance, believers tended to see images that weren't there and non-believers tended to miss images that were present."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technolog...le4313359/

Uh... Rorschach ink-blots? Really?

Associate professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Scott O. Lilienfeld, who co-authored the book "What's Wrong with the Rorschach?" is one of many psychologists who doubts the validity of the test. Lilienfeld, James M. Wood of the University of Texas, and Howard N. Garb of the University of Pittsburgh surveyed more than 50 years of research and studies on the scientific evidence for the Rorschach, concluding that it is "weak at best and nonexistent at worst."

Lilienfeld et al pointed out that studies show that about half of the normal Rorschach test-takers will be labelled as having "distorted thinking." This staggeringly high false-positive error rate—among many other problems—suggests that the Rorschach should be relegated to the pile of once-promising but now-discredited psychological tests. It seems that the test has remained in use more out of tradition than good evidence. "Whenever possible," the authors conclude, "forensic and clinical evaluations should be based on more dependable assessment techniques, such as structured psychiatric interviews and well-validated self-report indexes."

Who cares? What's your point? The information provided is irrelevant. I'm not saying the Rorschach test is valid. The study claimed that religious people saw patterns which weren't there and atheists missed patterns that were there. That's a different matter to whether the Rorschach test is valid. Are you so quick to discredit something that you're not really thinking it through clearly before commenting? Do you see that one has nothing to do with the other?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: