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, 10:25 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
-called us broken, corrupted mutants.

We're all broken corrupted mutants according to evolution. Evolution is based on mutations. They aren't necessarily a bad thing.

-linked atheism to a mental illness.

No I didn't.

-linked atheism to autism.

That one is a fact. I proved it.

-lied about links between atheism and war/genocide

No lies. I said they were anti-theists. Atheism is a necessary but not sufficient cause for the genocide of the 20th century.

-shown a complete lack of understanding regarding infant mental development

Nope. Wrong again.

-used cheap tabloids as reliable sources to back up science subjects

No I didn't,. They were quoting peer-reviewed journals. The articles are just more reader-friendly. And "tabloid" in journalism is merely the form of the paper as opposed to "broadsheet." There is no rule which says a newspaper in the form of tabloid cannot be reputable and trustworthy.

-lied about Galileo and his arrest

Nope. I was accurate.

-lied about Christianity inventing all sciences

Nope. I said most of the founders of modern science in the West were theists. That's a fact with which historians and even atheists like Dawkins and Krauss agree.

-repeatedly lied about science backing up your false claims

Nope. And I proved it each and very time.

-repeatedly linked pattern-seeking behaviors to religious belief

No. I said the opposite. I even called people out for conflating pattern-seeking with religion. Go back and look. I did it a few times. I did say that pattern-seeking amounted to a belief in an agent or a God. That is controversial but I believe it it true. And it's different from a particular religion.

-misquoted Darwin

No I didn't.

-linked atheism to homosexuality.

No I didn't. But there is evidence that more homosexuals are atheists according to Pew research:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lgbt-...gs.oQ_V6As
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 10:36 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -linked atheism to a mental illness.

No I didn't.

Yes, actually you did. If your background is in journalism, you might want to consider how the message you tried to convey convinced an entire forum to think the opposite thing.

Effective communication should have been a fundamental lesson in your degree program.

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -linked atheism to autism.

That one is a fact. I proved it.

Randy, you should probably strive to understand this if you mean to have productive conversations with the forum. You did not prove this. You only pointed out that some other guy said it. Saying things is not the same as proving them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Aliza's post
19-09-2016, 11:18 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Rugbeater, what is your understanding of the scientific method? You seem to love answering questions in exhaustive detail, except when they're inconvenient. So I'll repeat. Please state
a. Your understanding of the scientific method.
b. Why we use it to acquire knowledge in preference to praying to God.

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
20-09-2016, 01:58 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 08:18 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 12:29 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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.

Wow, just, wow. Gasp

While this is really not my strongest discipline, you are still lacking far behind me in this part of philosophy thats called epistemology. Things arent true because we believe them to be true. The truth value is attached to a thing, not to our claim about the thing. Things either are true or not, and we are able to discover the truth value or not. "Absolute truths" dont exist. There is nothing "truer than true". You assigned " true" to "we believe its true", and you assigned "absolute true" to "being factually true" (i am ignoring your tautology mess up here). No wonder you have problems with finding out what is factually true (like adaption by random mutation and natural selection) or not, because you dont even have a proper definition of what is "true". Considering you being a theist, its not very surprising. Its a hallmark of theists who believe in things they have no good reason for, to think that what they believe in is true/real because they have a strong belief. Again: Just becaue you think something to be true doesnt make it true (or real for that matter), not tentatively or otherwise. Belief and the factual truth value of a thing are completely separate.

And here the dissection of your statements where you completely messed up categories:

- science: its not a limitation of the scientific method of not being able to prove anything, its part of its definition to look for things to disprove theories/hypotheses.

- "no married bachelors" is not an "absolute truth" its a tautology a "redundancy of words"

-"two plus two equals four" has ab-so-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the bachelor tautology. Its true, but not by definition (like being a bachelor) or because we believe it to be true, but because mathematicians can demonstrate it to be true.

- "all swans are white" never was a "truth". It was a claim about something being true, and it was thought to be correct (aka match reality). But it never was. It was never true, we just didnt find out for some time.

- "*evolution is a fact* is a scientific truth" Facepalm
Jesus f. Christ. You are messing around with baisc terms here, its incredible. But i already explained in previous examples and wont go into details here. I think we already have worked out your misundersandings of the very basic terms at hand.
Adaption by Random mutation and natural selection is a fact, its observable. The theory of Evolution is currently the best we have to describe the observable. The claim "evolution is a fact" can not be be a "truth". Its either correct or wrong, not "true". Its only true in the sense that someone made the claim.

Calling things "true" (scietific truths) because we think they are, and calling things that are factually true "absolute truths", shows that you dont know much about rational thinking. You need to educate yourself in this department, seriously.

For a journalist and someone who intends to criticize scientists (for example the ones supporting the theory of evolution), particularly by writing books you have a pretty poor command of rational thinking and language. You definitely need to educate yourself in this department. Seriously, if i was you i wouldnt dare to write a book having such a lack of of knowledge, not only because of this lack of knowledge but because you dont understand how to define and gain knowledge at all.

You know, it would be better for you to sometimes admit to "i have no clue", and stop talking about the subject then! We all have no clue about many things, thats why we educate ourselves. By demonstrating your cluelessness because (perhaps your ego or belief forbids to admit you dont know?) you just embarass yoursef.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
20-09-2016, 02:02 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 03:06 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Well, Randy, having woken to see so many posts saying, "No I didn't, I am not", and, "Yes you did and you are", it is my opinion, on the balance of evidence, the "Yes you did/are"s have it.

Taking a carefully selected part of what another says or writes and presenting that as evidence that the quotation supports your argument, when in fact it does nothing of the kind if taken in complete context, amounts to an intellectual "crime" and an insult to the author so abused.

To then claim, or imply, that this either did not happen or that it is an unfair accusation or is a acceptable technique seems to be evidence of a mindset in that is in need of some kind of education or treatment..

Added to that you seem to contradict yourself, if those who offer evidence are doing so honestly, not a positive indicator of your claimed journalistic skills.

Your whole attitude seems to be either indicative of a person with no real personal insight or understanding of others. Either that or one so convinced if his own righteousness that he feels he cannot be wrong.

I am not sure if there us a medical term for your behaviour and I am not qualified to diagnose it. However, I sincerely hope you are not still practicing in the social work area. Perhaps you should have stuck with architecture.

But, this, as I say, is just personal opinion - if based on 50 or more years of observation reading and education. I would not presume to present it as any kind of authorative "document".

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
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
20-09-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 01:58 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Seriously, if i was you i wouldnt dare to write a book having such a lack of of knowledge, not only because of this lack of knowledge but because you dont understand how to define and gain knowledge at all.

But then, you wouldn't make money by being a scummy charlatan either, would you?

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
20-09-2016, 02:06 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 08:41 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  But that's a classic atheist tactic. Always accusing someone of lying, quote-mining or misrepresentation.

- Did you or did you not quote mine as demonstrated at the beginning of this tread?
- Did you or did you not first state that there are different categories of atheists and then hold up a link that stated "all atheists are psychopaths without the killing"?

Yes/no
and
Yes/no
please


Its that simple.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
20-09-2016, 02:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 02:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 01:58 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Seriously, if i was you i wouldnt dare to write a book having such a lack of of knowledge, not only because of this lack of knowledge but because you dont understand how to define and gain knowledge at all.

But then, you wouldn't make money by being a scummy charlatan either, would you?

Yeah, silly me, i am sitting here, making a few bucks by trying to do some actual science/engineering in order to make your car safe®.

Thats why i am disgusted by people like him. Seemingly has no real talents, and if he has some, he misuses them to be nothing more than a leech to society. Preying on the gullible to make a buck and then shitting on the very society he is preying on. Hes not even useless, he is a net negative.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
20-09-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Randy wrote:
Quote:But that's a classic atheist tactic. Always accusing someone of lying, quote-mining or misrepresentation.
Not a tactic, Randy, a statement of reality and, in your case, largely true.

QUOTE MINING

Quote: Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution":

Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

This has been compared to the Christian theological method of prooftexting:

Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation.

— Radner and Radner, Science and Unreason, ISBN 0-534-01153-5

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) described the use of "[a]n evolutionist's quote mistakenly used out of context" to "negate the entirety of [an] article and creationist claims regarding the lack of transitional forms" as "a smoke screen".[18]

Both Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Henry M. Morris (founder of ICR) have been accused of producing books of mined quotes. TalkOrigins Archive (TOA) states that "entire books of these quotes have been published" and lists prominent creationist Henry M. Morris' That Their Words May Be Used Against Them and The Revised Quote Book as examples, in addition to a number of online creationist lists of quote-mines.[19] Both AiG and ICR use the following quote from Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.[20]

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

— Stephen Jay Gould[20][21]
[non-primary source needed]

Context shows that Gould rejected the gradualists' explanation for the lack of support for gradual change in favor of his own interpretation. He continues:

... Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.[21]

Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were saying there were no transitional forms, Gould responded:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.[22]

Recognise the techniques and your use of them, Randy? Understand the explicit dishonesty in their use? Do you not see it as a form of lying?

If not . . . Seek treatment at your earliest opportunity, you may need 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
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
20-09-2016, 03:06 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 03:01 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  If not . . . Seek treatment at your earliest opportunity, you may need it.

I think stupidity of the Randyopathy type is incurable, but I guess it can't hurt to try.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: