Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The origins of religious disbelief

Expand Messages
  • Nils K.
    Dear James, dear All! This is an interesting subject: The psychology of religious disbelief. Atheist psychologists have for a couple of generations misused
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear James, dear All!

      This is an interesting subject: The psychology of religious disbelief.
      Atheist psychologists have for a couple of generations misused state
      money to research the psychology of religious belief, as if religious
      belief is someting stupid and abnormal, and atheism is something
      intelligent and normal. Today the table is starting turning.
      The 6 best known so called new atheists are now generally more and
      more discovered to be bad philosophers and partly aggressive, and
      not so fine personalities. (See my messages to this group, for example.)

      Dawkins has treated Islamic female students very bad, ridiculing
      them. See, for example, the Youtube video where Dawkins
      is extremely dull and unfair to the female students. See Hitchen,
      Dawkins, and some other new atheists smoking themselves to death
      (actively and passively) in front of TV camera. Other ingredients
      are, for examples, mass divorse and old slavery money. Yes, indeed,
      there is plenty of solid information at hand for researching the
      psychology of atheists and atheism. It's high time to have the
      atheists tasting their own medicine.

      Best,
      NKO
    • james kohl
      Thanks Nils, I think it is long past time for antagonistic atheists to address the biological facts and attempt to find support for either the random mutations
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Nils,

        I think it is long past time for antagonistic atheists to address the biological facts and attempt to find support for either the random mutations theory of adaptive evolution or any other explanation for what can be readily observed in the context of ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. Instead, here we have seen nothing but the re-telling of ridiculous stories with complaints about my use of terms (e.g., pendulous human female breasts) and no clarification of any biological basis either for Natural Selection or for Sexual Selection.

        The author's use of the phrase "comparatively weak mentalizing abilities" fits well into virtually all aspects of evolutionary theory that stay outside the context of the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization, which are required to link sensory cause to behavioral affect in species from microbes to man.
        If Dawkins, and others like him, (here we have Clarence "Sonny" Williams) are not held accountable for their
        "comparatively weak mentalizing abilities," they cannot be compared to those whose enhanced abilities enable them to see beyond ridiculous theories and examine the facts. Where is Williams, for example, when it comes time to examine facts? 
         
        James V. Kohl
        Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
        Independent researcher
        Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.




        From: Nils K. <n-oeij@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, December 29, 2012 5:22:10 PM
        Subject: [evol-psych] Re: The origins of religious disbelief

         



        Dear James, dear All!

        This is an interesting subject: The psychology of religious disbelief.
        Atheist psychologists have for a couple of generations misused state
        money to research the psychology of religious belief, as if religious
        belief is someting stupid and abnormal, and atheism is something
        intelligent and normal. Today the table is starting turning.
        The 6 best known so called new atheists are now generally more and
        more discovered to be bad philosophers and partly aggressive, and
        not so fine personalities. (See my messages to this group, for example.)

        Dawkins has treated Islamic female students very bad, ridiculing
        them. See, for example, the Youtube video where Dawkins
        is extremely dull and unfair to the female students. See Hitchen,
        Dawkins, and some other new atheists smoking themselves to death
        (actively and passively) in front of TV camera. Other ingredients
        are, for examples, mass divorse and old slavery money. Yes, indeed,
        there is plenty of solid information at hand for researching the
        psychology of atheists and atheism. It's high time to have the
        atheists tasting their own medicine.

        Best,
        NKO

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.