Origin of Language

[JMT]

FYI, my main study on language origins has been B.F. Skinner's Behavioral theory and his disagreements with Noam Chomsky, and then later the work of Steven Pinker. I think Chomsky has some interesting linguistic theories. He was the one who actually got me to wonder how evolutionary theory explained language origins. I assumed, perhaps without validity, that most atheists were evolutionists.

[FatAndFaithless]

FYI, my main study on language origins has been B.F. Skinner's Behavioral theory and his disagreements with Noam Chomsky, and then later the work of Steven Pinker. I think Chomsky has some interesting linguistic theories. He was the one who actually got me to wonder how evolutionary theory explained language origins. I assumed, perhaps without validity, that most atheists were evolutionists.

"evolutionists" makes it sound like an ideology.  I accept evolution as the best current explanation because that's what all the scientific evidence points to.  If someone were to overturn the theory of evolution by natural selection (and other factors) with sufficient evidence, then I would no longer accept it as the best explanation.

Most atheists do accept evolution, simply because the more scientifically-literate and educated you are, the less likely you are to accept theism.  Plenty of theists accept evolution as well, a/theism is not the driver in the acceptance of that theory.

[JMT]

Ok,, I was under the impression that atheism was a worldview, so that it has a total way of looking at the world without a god or gods, (which is why I posted in the philosophy section). If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know. If it is a worldview, it has to have an explanation or justification for the way the world is now. Language is one of the components of the world now, and I am researching language origins from the standpoint of different worldviews, so I wanted to know.

---

Out of curiosity, how did you conclude that it was a worldview?  I doubt an atheist told you that.

I assumed that a belief in no god would point in a certain direction toward other 'attendant', as you call them, beliefs. One reason I'm here is to hear what atheists have to say. That helps me get rid of false assumptions, so thanks...

Just from the forum itself, it looks like there are many other topics discussed besides atheism. I guess that's just the nature of a forum, and you're saying they are not directly tied to atheism. E.g. philosophy, science...

[FatAndFaithless]

Out of curiosity, how did you conclude that it was a worldview?  I doubt an atheist told you that.

I assumed that a belief in no god would point in a certain direction toward other 'attendant', as you call them, beliefs. One reason I'm here is to hear what atheists have to say. That helps me get rid of false assumptions, so thanks...

Just from the forum itself, it looks like there are many other topics discussed besides atheism. I guess that's just the nature of a forum, and you're saying they are not directly tied to atheism. E.g. philosophy, science...

Fair enough.  But yeah, atheism is simply not accepting the claim that a god(s) exist.  There are several beliefs/values/political views that trend with atheism, but it's not because of atheism.  Like I said, there are atheists that believe and espouse all sorts of crazy, anti-science, bigoted shit all across the spectrum.

Like even on this forum we have atheists that have huge disagreements on objective/subjective morality, abortion rights/regulations, economic doctrines, you name it. But you'll never hear someone say something like "because I'm an atheist, my atheism informs me that X is the best economic policy"...or if they do say that, their reasoning is almost invariably unintelligible.

[drfuzzy]

FYI, my main study on language origins has been B.F. Skinner's Behavioral theory and his disagreements with Noam Chomsky, and then later the work of Steven Pinker. I think Chomsky has some interesting linguistic theories. He was the one who actually got me to wonder how evolutionary theory explained language origins. I assumed, perhaps without validity, that most atheists were evolutionists.

"evolutionists" makes it sound like an ideology.  I accept evolution as the best current explanation because that's what all the scientific evidence points to.  If someone were to overturn the theory of evolution by natural selection (and other factors) with sufficient evidence, then I would no longer accept it as the best explanation.

Most atheists do accept evolution, simply because the more scientifically-literate and educated you are, the less likely you are to accept theism.  Plenty of theists accept evolution as well, a/theism is not the driver in the acceptance of that theory.

If you want to understand language, study linguistics.  The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue, by Merritt Ruhlen, might be a good place to start.
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Language-T...0471159638

[JMT]

Thanks @drfuzzy and @FatAndFaithless. Also, maybe someone can recommend a good book on atheism, since I obviously assumed some wrong things. I found Rosenberg's "The Atheist's Guide to Reality...."

https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Re...0393344118

Is this a solid read or can you suggest something better?

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, I mean if you're looking for literally "what atheism is", then you don't need a book, it's way simpler than that.

There are tons of books written arguing against theism, why it's most likely untrue, why it's bad, etc etc.

There are books written for atheists who are just getting out of religion talking about ways to view the world now that you've gone through a huge ideological change, etc etc.

There are books about morality that refute the need for god in a philosophy of morality.

Lots and lots of different types of books written for different reasons by atheists with very different views, so it's hard to just recommend a book just "about atheism." Can't say I've read Rosenberg's book though, so I'm afraid I can't really comment on it's substance.

[JMT]

Ok, all this is being said that atheism is just that a- theism, "no god." But that means there has to be some other answer for how language began, than the theist answer, a speaking God. So, that's why I was here. I may be in the wrong place. Evolutionism is more of an ideology and so an evolution forum might be the place to be. It seems to me that it's much broader and more classifiable as a worldview.

[FatAndFaithless]

..what exactly is "evolutionism"? Evolution by natural selection is not a worldview. It's a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversity of biological life we currently see. And it has a gargantuan amount of evidence to back it up. And again billions of theists accept evolution as well, and I doubt you would call the Pope's worldview "evolutionism".

Did you check out the few origin-of-language links given earlier in this thread? Because I can just about guarantee you they don't call "a speaking God" as the origin of language. ...is that what you actually believe the origin of language is?

[Minimalist]

What is the atheist explanation for the origin of language?

How else could we tell you to blow your god out your ass?

Seriously, where do fools like you think that "atheism" which is merely the rejection of your stupid, fucking, fairy tales, has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of language, fucking, eating, or anything else.

Grow up, sonny.