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
20-09-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 06:20 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Anyway, just goes to indicate that those with autism may have more intelligence than those who believe in the supernatural.

Yet those with autism are "unintelligent" when it comes to understanding people, recognizing social ques, reading literature that incorporates symbols and metaphors. They tend to have a handicapped theory of mind. They can exceedingly intelligent in certain areas, but clueless in others.

In fact some research suggest that the gene that allows those on the autistic spectrum to be keen in particular areas, is also the cause of what makes them less keen in other areas.
Oh how I wish there was a :toungeincheek: emoji!

I did not actually mean that statement, it was just sarcasm. And, yes, I know the old ssying about sarcasm - but bit can still be justified.

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
20-09-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

The heart exists because of random mutations, and natural selection. By chance, not purpose.


Quote:
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.

I guess you're a closeted theists then lol. Or you just don't understand teleology. Unless there's intention in nature, there is no teleology. I'm sure there's plenty of atheists here who could educate on you on why there's no teleology in nature, but will likely keep quite for the sake of groupthink.

Perhaps we should start a campaign advising biology school teachers to inform there students that teleology exists in nature. The Discovery Institute and creationist everywhere would rejoice. You seem to be in dire need of a basic education in teleological views, or risk being embarrassed.


Quote: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.

Yes, and the purpose of the universe is so that human beings can come into existence. The purpose of natural selection, evolution, was for conscious, self-aware creatures, with rational , and creative capacities, with a desire for meaning and truth, much like our own to come into existence.

Do you agree or disagree, given what you said early about the purpose of hearts, and eyes, etc..? If you disagree tell me whats wrong with what I said, compared to what you said about the heart.

"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
20-09-2016, 06:55 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Well, let's take a look, shall we? How many lies this time, I wonder...

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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.

LIE #1 (in this post anyway...)

In your very first post:
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  One mechanism that we know of which tends to break things and corrupt information is genetic mutation.

Broken, i.e. "break things" in the context of your sentence is "a bad thing".
"Corrupt" is almost always "a bad thing".

Mutations are not always negative, but when two negatives are used to refer to it, you are referring to "a bad thing".

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

No I didn't.

LIE #2

In your very first post:

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Please note, I use the term "atheopath," not in a derogatory manner, but simply for someone born without a belief in God - much the same way a sociopath is born without empathy.

The National Institute of Mental Health and the American Psychiatric Association define it as a mental illness:

Quote:Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial personality disorder is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) as “...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” People with antisocial personality disorder may disregard social norms and laws, repeatedly lie, place others at risk for their own benefit, and demonstrate a profound lack of remorse. It is sometimes referred to as sociopathic personality disorder, or sociopathy.

NIMH

Oh, and this place too:

(17-09-2016 11:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'll just leave this here too:

"The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, showed atheists are most closely aligned with psychopaths - not killers but those classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others."

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/belief-god...story.html

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

That one is a fact. I proved it.

Not quite. You linked to autismkey and Discover Magazine. Autismkey referenced a University of Boston study that showed "Correlation Between Atheism and Autism."

The Discovery Magazine author maaaay be a bit biased:
Quote:Finally, some people were angry that I seemed to suggest that atheists were antisocial weirdos. Well, there is some data to back that up.

And here's the crux: A link between atheism and autism would not be negative by itself. It is the context in which it was used, by you, that makes it negative.

Moving right along...

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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.

LIE #3

Stalin - Used the existing culture of submission to divine authority (Tsars and Russian church) to set himself up as the head of a messianic cult.

Hitler - Aided by the Catholic church, promoted a pagan, Aryan/Nordic religious cult, used fascism/totalitarianism, SS members wore belt buckles that said "god is with us".

Fascism in general - Fascism and totalitarianism were spawned by the catholic church. The word and concept of totalitarianism originated in theology.

Imperial Japan - The emperor is a god.

Communist China - Yeah, this one is atheist.

Khmer Rouge - This one's kind of borderline.

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -shown a complete lack of understanding regarding infant mental development

Nope. Wrong again.

LIE #4

Others also squashed this one, but here it is my response, again:

(12-09-2016 09:13 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 09:06 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "You appear not to understand why infants are born atheists."

You appear not to understand that I reject this premise. So does current research. Wink

No the current research does not.

Link

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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.

First, link to the source. The fewer steps the better.
Second, reader friendly? There are legitimate scientists on these forums. If we have questions, we can ask them.
Third, no. A tabloid in the modern colloquialism is defined as less than reputable and untrustworthy. While paper size might be the origin of the name, it does not figure in the current definition. Yet another misrepresentation on your part.

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -lied about Galileo and his arrest

Nope. I was accurate.

LIE #5
The Pope was a supporter of Galileo and protected him from the Inquisition, in spite of the controversy over heliocentricity. When Galileo published his Dialogue book, it alienated the pope who retracted his protection. The Inquisition pounced.
Galileo's relationship to the pope was not the reason he was arrested. He was arrested for heretical views and writings.

The book

The controversy

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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.

LIE #6

I'll let you refute your own post this time:

(17-09-2016 03:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Here are a few:

- Newton - Physics
- Galileo - Physics, astronomy
- Kepler - Physics, astronomy
- Boyle - Chemistry
- Bacon - Scientific method
- Linnaeus - Taxonomy
- Maury - Oceanography
- Pasteur - Biochemistry
- Mendel - Genetics
- Burnet - Geology

All were committed Christians whose faith drove their scientific research. You won't likely find one source naming all the scientists who were Christians that isn't a Christian source because, I mean, why would you?

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -repeatedly lied about science backing up your false claims

Nope. And I proved it each and very time.

Wow. Too many places to quote. Just reread the thread.

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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.

While this one isn't an outright lie, it's just nitpicking.

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -misquoted Darwin

No I didn't.

You used quotes by Darwin to support something they didn't originally support.

(17-09-2016 04:18 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(17-09-2016 03:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Darwin said it in a letter to William Graham dated July 3rd, 1881.

Actually, yes, the primary uses of those quotes are for that purpose exactly: Darwin's mythical deathbed conversion and fictitious doubts on evolution. That's not what he was referring to of course, but everyone skips that part. Darwin professed agnosticism and had no use for organized religion. The quotes refer to the possibility of a creative deity.

The letter in question

(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  -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

LIE #7

Yep. You did:
(13-09-2016 08:10 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's also interesting that since research shows that a higher percentage of homosexuals are atheists and that homosexuality likely happens in the womb due to a depletion of testosterone, this may further help to explain atheopathy.

Holy shit Randy! Seven outright lies!!!
Proven, in some cases, with your own words.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
20-09-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(19-09-2016 10:25 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  We're all broken corrupted mutants according to evolution. Evolution is based on mutations. They aren't necessarily a bad thing.


Thanks you for proving you don't understand ANYTHING about Evolution. There was no "perfect original".

(What a stupid god you must have, that set up a system that corrupts what he made. Doh. ) Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm all about "getting what you give", if someone's a dishonest turd, I likely loose my patience with you. Clearly we've had many exchanges were I wasn't particularly abusive to you, that changed recently particularly with your dishonest nonsense in the historicity debate. And there's a variety of posters I'm not particularly mean to. So if i'm abusive towards you, don't think it has anything to do with your lack of belief in God. If I don't like you, it would have nothing to do with the fact that you lack a belief in God.

I've seen you be abusive to a number of people on here for no reason other than your annoyance that they don't agree with you.

I was in no way dishonest in that historicity debate. I'm sorry that you feel arguments from authority mean you can make the same leaps of illogic that the person being cited was making, and for dubious reasons.

You became abusive for no reason other than you thought GoingUp constituted backup for your self-righteousness, and I wasn't having it.

(20-09-2016 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  lol, says the guy on the internet threatening to choke the air out of me, for calling him Felecia. I say a lot worse things to people in person, but surprisingly haven't gotten the air choked out of me yet. Where you from anyway? Perhaps we can grab a beer or something.

I'm in Sikeston, Missouri, for about the next week. I'm in the process of moving to Kansas City.

"Have a beer", eh? Nice veiled challenge. I like it. I'd love the opportunity to let you say that shit to my face. Haven't had such an opportunity since I was transferred out of Max/Medium Security. Let me know if you're in town; we can meet anywhere you like. Won't let you come to my home because I don't trust that you won't try to harm my family, but I'd gladly find somewhere nice and quiet for our little discussion. Missouri has many such places.


(20-09-2016 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's not hard to be liked here, you just have to preserve the status qua. Avoid being harsh, or being too critical of people's silly assertions. Sorry that's not me, I care very little if someone on the internet doesn't like me. You can be abusive, you won't see me complaining about it, but I'll likely dish it right back at you, and enjoy it.

Another way to put "avoid being harsh" is "don't be a dick". Yeah, that's a pretty good rule for having people not loathe you.

But as for "being too critical of people's silly assertions", that's kinda what we do around here. We argue with one another constantly over almost every subject imaginable. We get so mad about subjects that we call one another names and everything, and theism has nothing to do with it-- go look at some of the NRA/gun control threads, or the politics threads. And yet, we all like one another.

But I don't think anyone likes you, theist or atheist. You're a special kind of special.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
20-09-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Hey Randy, where did you even get this idea that Gerald Schroeder became a Christian? I tried Googling it to see if there was some rumor going around, but I came up blank. I'm really curious to see where this came from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I'm not sure what the autism argument is supposed to be from a god existing and desiring believe in itself existence.

Is there some social or emotional component that is what is desired in unvailing justified belief or acceptance of god's will? How a connection being unlinked in a purposeful works isn't being touched upon despite being hinted as a lack of connection to the gods.

It's a rather weakly linked claim alongside the whole questions of whst value is in belief to begin with.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

The heart exists because of random mutations, and natural selection. By chance, not purpose.
Random mutations is chance,
Natural selection is not chance.

The heart developed because of its utility, its purpose. It served a purpose that improved the survival and procreation of a lineage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
20-09-2016, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2016 10:17 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 01:54 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Random mutations is chance,
Natural selection is not chance.

---environmental challenge ----- +
---------------------------------------------------} = advantageous > survives > selected
----chance mutation------------------ +

---environmental challenge ----- +
---------------------------------------------------} = not advatageous > perishes x not selected
----chance mutation------------------ -

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
20-09-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 12:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I've seen you be abusive to a number of people on here for no reason other than your annoyance that they don't agree with you.

lol, i’m on an atheists forum, pretty much everyone here disagrees with me. You and I have hardly ever agreed on a single thing, yet it’s been mostly congenial between us, till recently. And there’s a number of posters who strongly disagree with me on a variety of positions, yet I don’t particularly attack, or deride. So no, if you’ve been treated poorly by me, it has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me.

Quote:I was in no way dishonest in that historicity debate. I'm sorry that you feel arguments from authority mean you can make the same leaps of illogic that the person being cited was making, and for dubious reasons.

Ah huh. I’ve argued with you in relationship to numerous topics, there was stark difference between the rocketsurgeon in those discussion, and the historicity when, where you’d just sprout one nonsensical thing after the other, and constantly contradict yourself. You’re the guy who believes that Jesus did exist, yet claim there’s no evidence for that, lacking even a self-reflection as to how one can reasonably infer the former without the latter.

Where in the past you might appeared a little more independent in your thought pattern, the historicity debate showed you bending to the collective thought patterns of the group, even when it comes at the price of irrationality and contradictions on your part.

Quote:I'm in Sikeston, Missouri, for about the next week. I'm in the process of moving to Kansas City.

"Have a beer", eh? Nice veiled challenge. I like it. I'd love the opportunity to let you say that shit to my face. Haven't had such an opportunity since I was transferred out of Max/Medium Security. Let me know if you're in town; we can meet anywhere you like. Won't let you come to my home because I don't trust that you won't try to harm my family, but I'd gladly find somewhere nice and quiet for our little discussion. Missouri has many such places.

lol, you’re fucking idiot. You don’t know me. I have no qualms in saying anything that I’ve said to you online, to your face. And guess mentioning you were in prison was you pulling your tough guy card? Weren’t you in prison for check fraud or some shit? And I’m a Marine Corps vet, so what.

I’m in Philadelphia, anytime you in the area you let me know, i’ll give you my address, so I can call you “Felecia” right in front of my door. Cuz clearly that’s all you need, to attempt to put your hands on my throat right? I’d love to see your chump ass pull some shit like that, acting as if I’m some dude hiding behind the internet, lol.

Quote:Another way to put "avoid being harsh" is "don't be a dick". Yeah, that's a pretty good rule for having people not loathe you.

If I loathe you, I except to be loathed back. The mistake is to assume that I dislike you because you’re an atheists, or because you disagree with me. If that was the case I would of loathed you along time ago. If we don’t like each other, just know the feeling is mutual.

Quote:But I don't think anyone likes you, theist or atheist. You're a special kind of special.

Not really. I tend to be liked/loved far more than I deserve to be. But then again I don’t hang out with folks that would call me dipshit, or threaten to choke me, for calling them a name from Friday. Surprisingly the closet thing to such friction in a relationship, of mutual loathing, is on the internet amongst strangers. I know that many of you come from places where your families have rejected you, abandoned you, have fathers and mothers, or siblings that despise you for who you are, that world is entirely foreign to me.

So that’s just another example of where your pop-psychology is wrong.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: