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
21-09-2016, 04:53 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(21-09-2016 04:19 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
Quote:I dislike you because you’re an atheists

Ah, one who prefers to judge labels rather than people then.

Since this is not the first time, but happens basically in almost each and every of his posts, i do really think its a freudian slip (since you rarely will see other spelling errors of him repeatedly), and (subconsciously or not) he doesnt view atheists as individuals but as a group or pack.

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
21-09-2016, 05:21 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(21-09-2016 02:43 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:I dislike you because you’re an atheists

If you're quoting the post I think you're quoting, I think you might be misinterpreting him. Consider

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
21-09-2016, 05:26 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 10:03 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  If you guys want a good laugh check out Randy's Facebook page.

For those of us not on facebook, could you post some screenshots?
Or quotes. Whichever is easier. 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
21-09-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(21-09-2016 05:26 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 10:03 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  If you guys want a good laugh check out Randy's Facebook page.

For those of us not on facebook, could you post some screenshots?
Or quotes. Whichever is easier. Thumbsup

Yes please

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
21-09-2016, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2016 07:09 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 03:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Teleology is not about intention, it is an explanation from purpose, it does not imply intention or design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
Quote:is the philosophical study of nature by attempting to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal.

You should have perhaps read a bit further:

"Teleology (from Greek telos, meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of nature by attempting to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal.[1] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[2] Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy but controversial today, contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.[3"

Teleology is matter of ascribing intentionality, design to nature. As the example of an acorn having intrinsic purpose to become a fully grown oak tree.

And nice job avoiding my question, so i'll repeat it again:

"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."

Quote:I can see why many people try to avoid such language, due to other people (either through ignorance or theological predispositions) coming to unfounded assumptions about there being an end goal which is intentionally worked towards.[/quote[

It would be teleological predisposition, not theological.

[quote]Trying to interpret children's explanations of things in the world using "purpose" as to mean that the child believes in divine god creators, is really a stretch and just shows the confirmation bias in the person doing the interpretation.

Yes, if a person believes that pointy rocks exists for the purpose of porcupines to scratch their back, their ascribing intentionality, design to nature.

Quote:Much like Tomasia telling me that I am a closet theist. Even though I have clearly explained my position.

I was just joking about you being a closeted theist, based on your claim that nature is teleological, which in reality is based on your misunderstanding of teleology. But I'll wait for you to answer the question I suggested earlier, because that will perhaps help to enlighten you here.


Quote:S. H. P. Madrell writes that "the proper but cumbersome way of describing change by evolutionary adaptation [may be] substituted by shorter overtly teleological statements" for the sake of saving space, but that this "should not be taken to imply that evolution proceeds by anything other than from mutations arising by chance, with those that impart an advantage being retained by natural selection

And that would be matter of using the language of design/intentionality/engineering metaphorically, for convenience.

"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
21-09-2016, 07:31 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Actually, you are wrong:

(21-09-2016 07:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"Teleology (from Greek telos, meaning end or purpose) is the philosophical study of nature by attempting to describe things in terms of their apparent purpose, directive principle, or goal. A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic. Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy but controversial today, contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree."

Teleology is matter of ascribing intentionality, design to nature. As the example of an acorn having intrinsic purpose to become a fully grown oak tree.

An intrinsic purpose is not intentional design.

In the case of your example, the purpose is intrinsic in the processes of biology, genetics, chemistry, etc.

There is no gap (or need) to squeeze in a god.

(21-09-2016 07:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

The only purpose or function that the universe has is adherence to natural processes that we understand through the sciences. Chemicals formed and reacted according to natural, consistent laws. These reactions and the compounds they formed grew in complexity until some became organic and some of those became alive. Our awareness is simply one more step in the ongoing process.

Where is there a necessity or requirement for a god?

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
21-09-2016, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2016 07:54 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
There is no purpose in the universe as such.

It exists only, in a conscious non-instinctive form, in those human minds capable of free will, of deciding, for themselves, what purpose their life will serve.

IMHO

Worked for me so far.

Later: oops, it may also exist in other sapient minds, elsewhere from Earth, if such exist.

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
21-09-2016, 08:45 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(20-09-2016 04:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I believe that we can conclude from elements in the Bible that it's more likely than not that Jesus was a real person, a person who probably bears little resemblance to the Jesus the Christ that was later invented by Christian "helpers".

Ah okay, so elements of the bible are “evidence” that Jesus was more likely than not a real person? But the writings of Tacitus, Josephus, etc.. are not.

Quote:I elected to leave the discussion when it was clear that GU wasn't interested in doing more than parroting the opinions of a single archaeologist and a number of repeater articles that said the same thing she did... except that (as I pointed out), she didn't exactly say what the articles (and GU) were saying. You're the one who decided to be a dick about it.

As I recall you also hold that Nazareth more than likely existed at the time than not as well. What evidence do you base that on? Elements of the bible again? And not any archaeological evidence?

Quote:It means I've faced as much close combat as most combat veterans face, minus the guns. When you can say you've survived an assault by three guys, one of whom had a screwdriver, and put all three of them in the infirmary, I might be impressed. Marine? Meh. Your combat training style is predictable in action, unless you've taken the time to take additional cross-training.

I recall looking you up, when you had linked to your Facebook, which had your full name, awhile back, because I was curious about the jail thing, and i remember finding your name associated with a check fraud scheme. I forgot your last name, and couldn’t find the post with your Facebook page to look it up again. So I call bullshit on your “major drug” dealer story, as well your story about fighting a bear. I would think you’d at least warrant a news paper blurb, for the conviction of a major drug dealer. Clearly the check fraud guy with your name did. What’s was your last name again, the exonerated major drug dealer Robert sounded a bit cooler.

You’re a predicable phony, with your story from an episode of OZ, and pretty curls. I’ll enjoy sharing that beer with you, lol.

Quote:As for "some dude hiding behind the internet", it's the only thing I could think of that would make a person act as you are acting. I just can't fathom another reason for a person to be so nasty as an individual except that they're blustering to cover up some deeply pathetic element in their own lives.

Ah huh, I don’t think calling someone “Felecia” requires hiding behind the internet. I’ve called people worse playing football, lol. But there’s very few things I enjoy more than watching a phony hothead, threatening violence, over being called a name from a comedy. I would love to see you trying to put your hands on me for calling you that.

Quote:On the other hand, it takes a lot to make me dislike someone, let alone loathe them. So congratulations, your shitty personality wins a prize.

Shitty personality? That’s rich coming from the guy who threatens to choke people for calling them “Felecia”. Were you such a shitty human being before you ended up in prison or after? I’m not the best human being, but compared to you I’m a saint.

Quote:But you're very lucky not to know what it's like to be rejected by family for having the courage of your convictions, in a world where people prefer to parrot the common beliefs of their culture-- Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Christians in USA, Hindus in India, etc. One nice thing about realizing what a mind-poison religion can be, when one rejected belief is enough for your birth family to treat you like shit, is that you get to choose better people to be around. And I really like my life, now.

Yep, I am lucky, not only to have a family and friends that don’t reject me, but also the sort that wouldn’t reject me if I was an atheist, homosexual, or converted to Islam. Probably the benefit of being a part of a culture and community with a multitude of religious perspectives, and one that values family and community, and friendship beyond our differences. I guess they’re evangelical religion didn’t poison them enough, like yours. That sort of rejection, being despised might be very true for the reality you occupy, not mine. I do wonder how many other’s loathe you like I do, less for what you believe, and more for who you are, particularly when your phony congenial veil of the internet is ripped off you.

"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
21-09-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(21-09-2016 05:26 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 10:03 PM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  If you guys want a good laugh check out Randy's Facebook page.

For those of us not on facebook, could you post some screenshots?
Or quotes. Whichever is easier. Thumbsup

You can't access facebook? I don't think you have to be a member to view it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(21-09-2016 09:27 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 05:26 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  For those of us not on facebook, could you post some screenshots?
Or quotes. Whichever is easier. Thumbsup

You can't access facebook? I don't think you have to be a member to view it.

Just had a quick look at the first few entries.

Jesus.fucking.christ.

He is so full of shit, you wont believe it. But i am proud to be immortal now, since he mentioned me on his page Thumbsup
He was proud of his answer to my question what the difference would be between "truth" and absolute truth". Facepalm
He actually thought i was sarcastic, didnt get it that i really wanted to know if he has a proper definition of truth, which he hasnt. Facepalm

Just a "gem" to demonstrate his intellectual...mhm..prowess
Quote:Fascinating stuff. Seven hundred years ago a Jewish Rabbi used the creation account in the book of Genesis to calculate the age of the universe at 15 billion years. Not far off from the age mainstream scientists today claim at 13.8 billion years. Divine knowledge or lucky guess?

And here we go
Btw: lots of evidence for his "honesty" when he joined TTA and proposed his "theory".

Quote:A brain-imaging study which examined the brains of 14 adults while they judged written statements to be "true" (belief), "false" (disbelief), or "undecidable" (uncertainty) in categories of: autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual.

To me, this would correspond with belief in God (religious), disbelief in God (atheistic) and undecided (agnostic). So I found their conclusion interesting:

"Belief and disbelief differ from uncertainty in that both provide information that can subsequently inform behavior and emotion."

In other words, atheists can say they merely have a lack of belief in God but that doesn't mean they are impartial or unbiased. Their disbelief still informs their behaviour and emotion.

Quote:Understand folks - belief in evolution (without God) means no ultimate meaning in life and no free will. If there is no free will, it follows logically that there is no foundation for ethics. Also, there is no ultimate justice in the world.

Atheist agenda

Quote:According to historians, only 6 percent of all the wars of history have been religious. Meanwhile, atheists/anti-theists murdered 100 million people last century alone within the span of a few decades. That's far more than all of the religious wars combined.

Quote:But when believers in God were asked if they would change their belief for money, they invariably refused. Atheists, interestingly, were just as resolute. That’s evidence of how the brain treats religious belief differently than other ideas, and just how strongly it becomes established in the brain

Bolding mine
Quote:At last . . . some good news for atheists who are usually the least-trusted, most-hated group.

Clearly, the atheist movement is in bad need of an image makeover. In my opinion, atheists should spend less time talking about what they don't believe in and more time talking about what they do believe in. Less time fighting creationists and pro-lifers and more time endorsing values we can all agree on like freedom of speech and human rights. Less time attempting to remove nativity scenes and the 10 Commandments from public spaces and more time showing what kind, generous and intelligent people they can be when they are not busy being . . . well, atheists.

Atheism, like feminism, is failing as a movement primarily because its worst supporters are often the most vocal.

Quote:Interesting. This peer-reviewed paper concludes that Darwin was actually a creationist.

Bolding mine again
Quote:Interesting point of view from New Scientist magazine that fits very well with the subject matter of a new book I'm working on: my hypothesis about the origin of atheism.

"What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not "get" the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten - and under what conditions?"


etc. pp.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: