To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Origins Of Religion
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

xtrmn8r
Just a history lesson for you reading pleasure cool.gif

QUOTE
A critical awareness of religion as a peculiar
phenomenon of human behavior first appears, so far
as the extant evidence shows, in the writings of the
Greek philosopher Xenophanes (sixth century B.C.). As
the following fragments disclose, Xenophanes had
perceived the ethnic relativity of the personification
of deity, as well as its innate anthropomorphism:

"Mortals think that the gods are born, and wear clothes like
their own, and have a voice and bodies. But if oxen and
horses or lions had hands and could draw with them and
make works [of art] as men do, horses would draw the shapes
of gods like horses, oxen like oxen; each would make their
bodies according to their own forms. The Ethiopians say
that their gods are flat-nosed and black; the Thracians that
theirs are grey-eyed and have red hair" (Kirk and Raven,
pp. 168-69).


http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DH...i.cgi?id=dv4-13
deadbeat
Interesting,

Religion has existed FAR prior to 600 BCE, oh wait his statement is "A critical awareness of religion as a peculiar phenomenon of human behavior first appears, so far as the extant evidence shows,"

So the first documented Atheist I guess?

What is your point.
DuzmA
Deadbeat what is your obsession with atheism? I don't care if you founded this forum you are clearly a character. I refuse to believe that you are honestly as stupid as you seem. Sockpuppet fraud.
deadbeat
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 30 2008, 06:06 AM)
Deadbeat what is your obsession with atheism? I don't care if you founded this forum you are clearly a character. I refuse to believe that you are honestly as stupid as you seem. Sockpuppet fraud.

My obsession with Atheism is quite simple.

You Atheist or whatever you variously call yourselves, repeatedly attack all religion, and run about waving your arms about how stupid all religious people are, and how superior and smart you are. In furtherance of that objective, you fine gentlemen have created a bunch of ridiculous sockpuppets that are caricatures of real religious people. You then argue with yourselves, trying to make serious debate and discussion impossible, by flooding the forum with ridiculous obscenity.

I sicken of your ridiculous displays, and tire of your never ending bigotry and prejudice against ALL religion.

You guys are so busy making sockpuppets of fantastical weirdo religious wackos that you can easily make fun of (guess all of those "straw man" accusations were forgotten eh?) you cannot even tell when a real person with some intelligence happens by.

You post horrid things and make a sham of any real debate, then call real posters "sockpuppets", and then immediately bring YOUR OWN SOCKPUPPETS to blur the discussion even further.

You are dishonest, without honor, and completely lacking in judgement. You should hang your head in shame.

I will pray for you.
DuzmA
Some of the sockpuppets that you are talking about are harder to make fun of than you are. I don't know why you would want people of intelligence to post here anyway, there is no way in hell that they would agree with your filth.
deadbeat
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 30 2008, 06:22 AM)
Some of the sockpuppets that you are talking about are harder to make fun of than you are. I don't know why you would want people of intelligence to post here anyway, there is no way in hell that they would agree with your filth.

Bah, more baseless insinuation without merit or substantiation.

Either present this "filth" and define it, or shut up and find a sockpuppet to attack.
Evans
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 30 2008, 06:18 AM)
I will pray for you.

your so nice deadbeat!

JESUS IS THE LORD!
DuzmA
When I say filth I mean everything that you have ever posted on this forum. Goodnight socky.
deadbeat
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 30 2008, 06:28 AM)
When I say filth I mean everything that you have ever posted on this forum. Goodnight socky.

See that Evans guy? Now THAT is a real sockpuppet.

You are clueless, so, you know, go to bed, who knows you might be smarter tomorrow.
Evans
if i didnat tell yuo that im sockpupet - you wouldnat know, OH MY CHRISTIEN BROTER!!1

take a looke at this REAL TRUTHER
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=90&#entry52409

is he a sockpuppet?

NO OF COARSE NOT!!!

beehold sinners - FALL ON YOURE KNEAS AND WATCH THE GLORYNESS OF JEESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111
deadbeat
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 30 2008, 06:53 AM)
if i didn't tell you that I'm sockpupet - you wouldnat know, OH MY CHRISTIEN BROTER!!1

take a looke at this REAL TRUTHER
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=90&#entry52409

is he a sockpuppet?

NO OF COARSE NOT!!!

beehold sinners - FALL ON YOURE KNEAS AND WATCH THE GLORYNESS OF JEESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

Nice DuzMa

You whine about Sockpuppets, then log yours in.

Who knows any more if that guy you linked to was or was not a sockpuppet, he sounds for real in that post.

You are still a dishonest coward for making wild accusations and libelous statements about me.

Back them up or cease and desist.
Evans
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 30 2008, 07:13 AM)
Nice DuzMa

THOU SHALT NOT LIE, OH BROTHER!!1
duzma create sockpupet me not.

JESUS IS TEH LORD!!!
deadbeat
I tire of your nonsense, I reported you, although I do not expect it will do much good.
excaza
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 30 2008, 01:18 AM)
My obsession with Atheism is quite simple.

You Atheist or whatever you variously call yourselves, repeatedly attack all religion, and run about waving your arms about how stupid all religious people are, and how superior and smart you are.

It's because you assh*les run around and make statements like this
QUOTE
I will pray for you.


You ever notice that if someone, regardless of whether or not they are religious, posts stupid garbage on this forum, they receive the same treatment you're claiming only gets fed to religious people? See DavidD, Zarkov, Farsight, etc.

Your obsession is misguided, you'd receive the same treatment as you are now even if you had claimed you were non-religious and still posting the same stupid crap. You do have, and I have said it before, moments of intelligence, but you drown it out with your overflowing of blind anti-athiesm rants.
DuzmA
Report me all you want deadbeat, Evans is not my sockpuppet. Didn't we explain to you that I was joking? The bit in the feedback was Evans enjoying the joke. You really are an idiot. One ip check and the mods will see that you are lying. I just reported you for false accusation and rabble rousing.
TheDoc
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 30 2008, 02:09 PM)
Report me all you want deadbeat, Evans is not my sockpuppet. Didn't we explain to you that I was joking?

Unfortunately, deadbeat has a bit of a problem with comprehending other peoples' posts.
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 30 2008, 06:28 AM)
your so nice deadbeat!

JESUS IS THE LORD!

Jesus is a gay dikwadbackdoorsmoking gay fraud. laugh.gif

Like that Evans? ohmy.gif

I did... about as much as I liked your post. dry.gif

Go back to whatever religious website you meandered from, and post there. Your religious dogma is not appreciated here. mad.gif

MM
newguy
MaskedMarauder: Apparently, you haven't yet heard...

Evans is a sock puppet. Alpha is the puppeteer...not DuzmA.

DuzmA: I PM'd deadbeat earlier today and gave him an updated list of sock puppets and their puppeteers so that people like you won't get falsely accused. At the same time, MjolnirPants/BigDumbWeirdo(not that he's a trustworth witness) said that Bringer-of-Light is your sock puppet. Is this true?
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (newguy+Jun 30 2008, 05:41 PM)
MaskedMarauder: Apparently, you haven't yet heard...

Evans is a sock puppet. Alpha is the puppeteer...not DuzmA.

DuzmA: I PM'd deadbeat earlier today and gave him an updated list of sock puppets and their puppeteers so that people like you won't get falsely accused. At the same time, MjolnirPants/BigDumbWeirdo(not that he's a trustworth witness) said that Bringer-of-Light is your sock puppet. Is this true?

Sockpuppet, counter sockpuppet, and puppeteer... either way, having fun blasting whomever is claiming to be the religious freaks around here...

I respect those that live it, not preach it. wink.gif

I hammer those that preach it with a vegeance! mad.gif

So where is that BFH that I just had? blink.gif

He he laugh.gif

MM
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jun 30 2008, 06:47 AM)


I hammer those that preach it with a vegeance! mad.gif


MM, are you aware that that was post No. 666 for you? ph34r.gif







































































laugh.gif





g.
TheDoc
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 30 2008, 06:16 PM)
MM, are you aware that that was post No. 666 for you? ph34r.gif

Maybe MM is the Anti-Christ. ohmy.gif ph34r.gif
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 30 2008, 06:16 PM)
MM, are you aware that that was post No. 666 for you? ph34r.gif







































































laugh.gif





g.

OooooooOOOOOOoooooOOOOOoooooo

I am vewy scart... boogie man coming to take me to heck 666 is such a BAD number.

Be so busy sipping margaritas and shaking hands with friends, won't know where I am!

Hee HEE Hee thanks man.

MM
Gorgeous
QUOTE
boogie man coming to take me to heck 666 is such a BAD number.


John Travolta? ~ Sheesh, it's worse than I thought! biggrin.gif



g.
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (TheDoc+Jun 30 2008, 06:19 PM)
Maybe MM is the Anti-Christ. ohmy.gif ph34r.gif

BwaaHAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHAhahaha <evil laugh for those who don't comprehend>

I am beyond the antichrist.... I am Anti BRINGER OF LIGHT! AND anti DAD1 and anti EVAN... and the list goes on..

How did these morons ever get past the 1st grade?

MM
TheDoc
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jun 30 2008, 06:49 PM)
I am beyond the antichrist.... I am Anti BRINGER OF LIGHT! AND anti DAD1 and anti EVAN... and the list goes on..


Evan and Bringer-of-Light are sockpuppets. dad1 however is completely, totally serious. He's been pushing his "multi-state universe" junk for years.

QUOTE
How did these morons ever get past the 1st grade?


I think it's safe to say dad1 was homeschooled by fundies. wacko.gif
Gorgeous
Parallel Patterns of Evolution in the Genomes and Transcriptomes of Humans and Chimpanzees
Philipp Khaitovich,1* Ines Hellmann,1* Wolfgang Enard,1* Katja Nowick,1 Marcus Leinweber,1 Henriette Franz,1 Gunter Weiss,2 Michael Lachmann,1 Svante Pääbo1{dagger}

The determination of the chimpanzee genome sequence provides a means to study both structural and functional aspects of the evolution of the human genome. Here we compare humans and chimpanzees with respect to differences in expression levels and protein-coding sequences for genes active in brain, heart, liver, kidney, and testis. We find that the patterns of differences in gene expression and gene sequences are markedly similar. In particular, there is a gradation of selective constraints among the tissues so that the brain shows the least differences between the species whereas liver shows the most. Furthermore, expression levels as well as amino acid sequences of genes active in more tissues have diverged less between the species than have genes active in fewer tissues. In general, these patterns are consistent with a model of neutral evolution with negative selection. However, for X-chromosomal genes expressed in testis, patterns suggestive of positive selection on sequence changes as well as expression changes are seen. Furthermore, although genes expressed in the brain have changed less than have genes expressed in other tissues, in agreement with previous work we find that genes active in brain have accumulated more changes on the human than on the chimpanzee lineage.

1 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
2 WE Informatik, Bioinformatik, University of Düsseldorf, Universitätsstrasse 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst.../5742/1850?etoc




g.
xtrmn8r
deadbeat Posted: Yesterday at 9:02 PM

QUOTE
Interesting,

Religion has existed FAR prior to 600 BCE, oh wait his statement is "A critical awareness of religion as a peculiar phenomenon of human behavior first appears, so far as the extant evidence shows,"

So the first documented Atheist I guess?

What is your point.


First of all I had no particular point, it was an interesting article. I posted it because four of the top ten topics were heated discussions regarding religion. Since religion is a debatable subject, I thought a little history might relieve some pressure..Boy was I wrong!!
And for the record I am not an atheist, while I don't have faith in a god, I don't totally discount the possibility, I just don't know!! I am agnostic.
Secondly, this article is a history lesson, not a condemnation of god or religion. Accept it as an education or dispute it, debate it or leave it the hell alone and stay out of my threads. mad.gif
Frankly I'm appalled that it turned into a pissing match about atheism, there was no good reason for it to go this way. mad.gif
TheDoc
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+)
Frankly I'm appalled that it turned into a pissing match about atheism, there was no good reason for it to go this way.  mad.gif


For deadbeat, there is always a reason, no matter how absurd.
xtrmn8r
deadbeat,

QUOTE
Religion has existed FAR prior to 600 BCE,...


BTW, where is you citation to the assertion that religion existed pior to 600bce?
excaza
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Jun 30 2008, 07:51 PM)
BTW, where is you citation to the assertion that religion existed pior to 600bce?

Not to burst your bubble, but Mesopotamian cultures are estimated to have begun around 6000-5000 BCE. The Code of Babylon is estimated to have been formed around 1700 BCE.

There is also much evidence of religion in cave drawings and artifacts from very early humans (see the Paleolithic age), which would predate the above by a few million years, but I don't have any citations handy for that.


edit: A few hundred thousand, not a few million, I was thinking of something else.
xtrmn8r
excaza,

Fair enough, you're right. I knew this, but was pissed at deadbeat and wanted to force him into posting something of relevance instead of opinion. I'm better now cool.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
orestis
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 30 2008, 09:04 PM)
Not to burst your bubble, but Mesopotamian cultures are estimated to have begun around 6000-5000 BCE.  The Code of Babylon is estimated to have been formed around 1700 BCE. 

There is also much evidence of religion in cave drawings and artifacts from very early humans (see the Paleolithic age), which would predate the above by a few million years, but I don't have any citations handy for that.

You mean thousand don't you?


The earliest evidence of behavioral modernity first appears during the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age; undisputed evidence of behavioral modernity, however, only becomes common during the following Upper Paleolithic period.[1] Middle Paleolithic burials at sites such as Krapina, Croatia (c. 130,000 BP) and Qafzeh, Palestine (c. 100,000 BP) have led some anthropologists and archeologists, such as Philip Lieberman, to believe that Middle Paleolithic cultures may have possessed a developing religious ideology which included belief in concepts such as an afterlife; other scholars suggest the bodies were buried for secular reasons.[3][4] According to recent archeological findings from H. heidelbergensis sites in Atapuerca the practice of intentional burial may have begun much earlier during the late Lower Paleolithic but this theory is widely questioned in the scientific community. Cut marks on Neanderthal bones
excaza
QUOTE (orestis+Jun 30 2008, 08:30 PM)
You mean thousand don't you?

No, I meant to cite the middle paleolithic, which is about 300,000. I'm just going off of wiki for the moment because I'm too lazy to go ask my father.
xtrmn8r
Millions is a bit of an exaggeration. laugh.gif

QUOTE
The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity.[2] Evidence for paleolithic burials is often taken as the earliest expression of religious or mythological thought involving an afterlife. Such practice is not restricted to Homo sapiens, but also found among Homo neanderthalensis as least as early as 130,000 years ago. The emergence of religious behaviour is consequently dated to before separation of early Homo sapiens some 150,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of symbolic ritual activity besides burials may be a site in South Africa dated to 70,000 years ago.[3]


http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Or...gin+of+religion
orestis
OK. You were posting while I was editing.
buttershug
When were people first buried with flowers?
I remember reading something about caveman group doing that.
xtrmn8r
QUOTE
When were people first buried with flowers?


Neanderthals cool.gif

http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Shanidar
deadbeat
Interesting. So sacramental burials existing prior to modern man, and were demonstrated by Neanderthals.

I only go on at atheists when they attack religion. I too would much rather have reasoned debate.
orestis
How do flowers in a burial site make it "sacramental"? Or horses or swords?
excaza
QUOTE (orestis+Jun 30 2008, 10:50 PM)
How do flowers in a burial site make it "sacramental"? Or horses or swords?

Why were the Pharaohs buried with their treasures? Vikings with their weapons and armor?

QUOTE (deadbeat+June 30 2008, 10:30 PM)
I only go on at athiests when they attack religion.  I too would much rather have reasoned debate.

Athiests only attack the morons who spew idiocy and retardation in the name of their religion. Quit your ridiculous ranting.
orestis
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 30 2008, 11:30 PM)
Interesting. So sacramental burials existing prior to modern man, and were demonstrated by Neanderthals.

I only go on at atheists when they attack religion. I too would much rather have reasoned debate.

deadbeat

Reasnable debate available. How do flowers--and so on.?
orestis
D-e-a-dbeat, where A-r-e you?

Come on, we've both had enough time to look up sacramentals and sacraments and blessings bestowed.

Why do you think flowers in a Neanderthal grave indicates sacraments?

This will be a reasoned debate. No name calling. And if you are right, if I missed something, I'll bow and concede.
orestis
Again,



Why do you think flowers in a Neanderthal grave indicates sacraments?

This will be a reasoned debate. No name calling. And if you are right, if I missed something, I'll bow and concede.[/QUOTE]
excaza
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 1 2008, 06:06 AM)
Why were the Pharaohs buried with their treasures? Vikings with their weapons and armor?

uh...
deadbeat
Sorry, I am working nights right now, and fair warning will probably be gone for a couple weeks (vacation in Vegas tomorrow). But I will try to remember to check in occasional (if I am briefly sober long enough). See? Catholics are ALLOWED to drink.

QUOTE (orestis+Jul 2 2008, 01:12 AM)
Again,



Why do you think flowers in a Neanderthal grave indicates sacraments?

This will be a reasoned debate. No name calling. And if you are right, if I missed something, I'll bow and concede.


I thought it was obvious, but maybe that is a loaded word. First lets define sacraments
QUOTE (dictionary.com+)

sac·ra·ment  –noun
1. Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction. 
2. (often initial capital letter) Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. 
3. the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, esp. the bread. 
4. something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.
5. a sign, token, or symbol. 
6. an oath; solemn pledge. 


the fourth definition is what I was referring to, not necessarily a tradition or ceremony from any particular religion.

Since a dead body could not reasonably be expected to benefit from the use of Ochre or flowers after burial, it seems to imply a sacred or mysterious significance to me.

Where do I have it wrong?
orestis
From The Advent.




Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them. The ceremonial regulation of the sacraments in Apostolic times is sufficiently proved by the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians with regard to the Eucharist: "Cetera autem, cum venero, disponam" [the rest I will set in order when I come (1 Corinthians 11:34)], which St. Augustine, on what ground we know not, supposes to refer to the obligation of the Eucharistic fast (Ep. liv, "Ad Januarium", c. 6, n. 8, in P. L., XXXIII, 203). The Fathers of the Church enumerate ceremonies and rites, some of which were instituted by the Apostles, others by the early Christians (cf. Justin Martyr, "Apol. I", n. 61, 65 in P.G., VI, 419, 427; Tertullian, "De baptismo:, vii in P. L., I, 1206; St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", I, xxvii, n. 67 in P.G., XXXII, 191). The Catholic Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church. What concerns the administration of the sacraments is contained in detail in the Roman Ritual and the Episcopal Ceremoniale.

"To her and her alone..etc."

In your posts you refer to the laws of the church as the final word on any question. I assumed you would do that here.
excaza
QUOTE (orestis+Jul 1 2008, 08:47 PM)
From The Advent.




Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them. The ceremonial regulation of the sacraments in Apostolic times is sufficiently proved by the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians with regard to the Eucharist: "Cetera autem, cum venero, disponam" [the rest I will set in order when I come (1 Corinthians 11:34)], which St. Augustine, on what ground we know not, supposes to refer to the obligation of the Eucharistic fast (Ep. liv, "Ad Januarium", c. 6, n. 8, in P. L., XXXIII, 203). The Fathers of the Church enumerate ceremonies and rites, some of which were instituted by the Apostles, others by the early Christians (cf. Justin Martyr, "Apol. I", n. 61, 65 in P.G., VI, 419, 427; Tertullian, "De baptismo:, vii in P. L., I, 1206; St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", I, xxvii, n. 67 in P.G., XXXII, 191). The Catholic Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church. What concerns the administration of the sacraments is contained in detail in the Roman Ritual and the Episcopal Ceremoniale.

"To her and her alone..etc."

In your posts you refer to the laws of the church as the final word on any question. I assumed you would do that here.

So that's the first definition given by the dictionary. You're really not getting anywhere with this.
deadbeat
I understand your confusion now.

Unfortunately, the constant misrepresentations and slurs about me by some of the "mafia" members is completely untrue.

I have found a perfectly satisfactory place to divide my education and scientific pursuits from my religious life. Fortunately for me, the Catholic church is a very wide tent, and not just allows but fully accepts this. It also accepts ID and CS proponents but takes neither side nor requires either belief, even though most of the clergy does lean toward evolution.

in this discussion, I was referring to the inception, the very "genesis" of religion itself (hehe). Boy is that a loaded word.

No catholic or clergy (of any real learning or study) would try to insist that before say 1000 BCE ANYTHING like christianity or even Judaism existed. How it developed and whether or not it was "divinely inspired" need not be discussed in this remote of a past, and pure objective scientific discussion is the best way to refer to it.

I would even submit that a purely scientific discussion could be had by me or any religious person, including the life and times of biblical personalities and leave philosophy or religion ENTIRELY out of it.

So in ecumenical matters, I find that the description and tradition and "sacraments" of the church are perfectly acceptable and right to be defined by whatever church you attend.

But these things are not scientific, they are subjective, emotional and ritualistic.

I can just as easily remove my religion from consideration, and discuss the science, trying as much as possible to remove bias and focus entirely on the OBJECTIVE observable and factual evidence.

So is it problematic for me to say that NEANDERTHALS appear to have some sort of ritualistic or mystical leanings, as observed by the physical evidence we have? I do not see why that is problematic. Everything in my faith is not required to be described by or completely consistent with the Bible alone or even my religion. I would not accept a religion that required me to DENY objective scientific fact and knowledge, and fortunately the Roman Catholic church does not do that. It certainly accepts those who do, but it nether requires it nor prefers it.
deadbeat
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 02:02 AM)
So that's the first definition given by the dictionary. You're really not getting anywhere with this.

Just because it is the FIRST definition does not mean that is the context I was referring to?

I was speaking, and attempting to communicate MY thought process and rationale. Do tell me how you find it appropriate that YOUR definition of what I meant when I was speaking is somehow more authoritative than what I say I meant when I speak?
excaza
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 1 2008, 09:11 PM)
Just because it is the FIRST definition does not mean that is the context I was referring to?

I was speaking, and attempting to communicate MY thought process and rationale. Do tell me how you find it appropriate that YOUR definition of what I meant when I was speaking is somehow more authoritative than what I say I meant when I speak?

Take some time for reading comprehension before you start ranting.

I wasn't even fuc*ing talking to you, I was defending you, twerp. Last time I make that mistake.

Get off your high horse and take off the blinders. Nobody here is out to get you. You get attacked for making stupid statements, not because you are religious.
orestis
If you can "easily remove your religion from consideration" why do all of the posts I've seen by you involve religion? Are there any that don't, that are comments on science alone?
excaza
Orestis, almost all anthropologists agree that religious beliefs arose out of the middle paleolithic era due to evidence of an increase in ritual burials and various artifacts found in the sites that have been excavated. It's actually pretty fascinating stuff.
orestis
OK.


There is something wrong with the site or my computer. I have to log off to see any new posts. It is a hassle
deadbeat
QUOTE (orestis+Jul 2 2008, 02:16 AM)
If you can "easily remove your religion from consideration" why do all of the posts I've seen by you involve religion? Are there any that don't, that are comments on science alone?

(sigh) often because I am not allowed to. When we depart from objective science, and the Atheists start flogging religion, I unfortunately feel obliged to defend it and myself.

But pick a subject and I will do so if you wish. Even a very controversial one, like transubstantiation, or one completely divorced from religion. your choice, I like what we were discussing, the earliest known examples of religion, and how it evolved, but I am not averse to anything in a rational discussion.

You see, most of the communication difficulty is on that word "religion" which those who dislike a particular type or kind of philosophy narrowly define. Which I define quite broadly to include all kinds of philosophy that provide guidance in ethical and moral arenas.

I LIKE to examine my religion from a scientific view, to ensure I am not being deluded or misled. But the categorization of philosophies, just so Atheists can claim not to believe in any "religion" gets rather silly. Whatever, I am open minded and try to understand opposing points of view.
excaza
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 1 2008, 09:26 PM)
(sigh) often because I am not allowed to. When we depart from objective science, and the Atheists start flogging religion, I unfortunately feel obliged to defend it and myself.

But pick a subject and I will do so if you wish. Even a very controversial one, like transubstantiation, or one completely divorced from religion. your choice, I like what we were discussing, the earliest known examples of religion, and how it evolved, but I am not averse to anything in a rational discussion.

You see, most of the communication difficulty is on that word "religion" which those who dislike a particular type or kind of philosophy narrowly define. Which I define quite broadly to include all kinds of philosophy that provide guidance in ethical and moral arenas.

I LIKE to examine my religion from a scientific view, to ensure I am not being deluded or misled. But the categorization of philosophies, just so Atheists can claim not to believe in any "religion" gets rather silly. Whatever, I am open minded and try to understand opposing points of view.

Yes, it's those damned athiests.

They do not flog RELIGION they flog the idiots who parade around the religion and use it to further their absurd claims. If you took the time to read it instead of saying "ABUSE = ATHIEST" (paraphrase) then you'd notice that a religious person that RATIONALLY presents things instead of beating people over the head with the bible gets taken seriously. This has been pointed out to you before, yet you continue ignore it.

Get off the rants, they're pathetic and myopic.



Why do you expect to be taken seriously when the bulk of your posts whine about how the athiests are out to put you down?

And for the last time, LOOK UP PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION IN THE DICTIONARY
orestis
Can you live your religion, inside you, and not react in kind to assaults to it?

I am honestly confused why religious people come to a science site, bring up their beliefs and then complain when those beliefs are attacked.
excaza
QUOTE (orestis+Jul 1 2008, 09:32 PM)
Can you live your religion, inside you, and not react in kind to assaults to it?

I am honestly confused why religious people come to a science site, bring up their beliefs and then complain when those beliefs are attacked.

They do more than bring up their beliefs, they beat people over the head with them because the Bible is 100% truth and everything else is wrong.

THAT type of posting gets attacked, not the religious people in general. It just happens that a good portion of the religious people that post here are fundamentalists.
orestis
excaza has a point, deadbeat.

Why don't you take on the fundamental idiots who come here with the same passion you use on "atheists?" I would think that would be as an important to a rational Christian since they are the buffoons give Christianity a bad name.
deadbeat
QUOTE (orestis+Jul 2 2008, 02:47 AM)
excaza has a point, deadbeat.

Why don't you take on the fundamental idiots who come here with the same passion you use on "atheists?" I would think that would be as an important to a rational Christian since they are the buffoons give Christianity a bad name.

Really? Well let me see if I can demonstrate what I am referring to...

First, me addressing a perversion of science here...

on genetics

But for the most part, it is hard to tell the REAL wackos from the Mafia created Sockpuppets they use just to make ALL religion look stupid and loony, like Evans and JeremyFisher, who knows I even suspect Philip347 and Dad1 himself might just be extremely thorough and clever sockpuppets.

The idiots do not HAVE to be argued with to illustrate their stupidity. Anyone with 2 firing brain cells can see it. The "Mafia" just does it to show everyone how smart they is, and how dumb all religious people are. It serves no purpose other than distraction and dilution and makes real conversation impossible. The people they argue with are so far from accessability to reason and debate that it serves NO PURPOSE, other than a juvenile display of outrage and pride that belongs on a high school playground.

And here is a few select lovely Atheist comments bashing all religion in general that get my Ire up...


grumpy
QUOTE

Not only is dead a Catholic, but he must be a Priest as well!!!

Grumpy 


or this gem
Physfan

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Not only is dead a Catholic, but he must be a Priest as well!!!

Grumpy 


or this gem
Physfan


QUOTE 
How does a theist of any faith separate themselves from the violent ilk like Dad1 and DB?

They are all 'tarred with the same brush". (Australian expression to indicate that they are all the same.)
It is not the overt violence of theists that is the real concern, it is the seemingly more benign that has greater ramifications for the human race, such as, banning contraception, opposition to abortion, attempts to derail or prevent stem cell research because some sky fairy that exists only in their minds "said so".
Religion, all religions, are a blight on humanity.Physfan 

(emphasis mine)

And that is just today, it is never ending with this bunch.

Be careful who you respect here, you might just find you have been respecting a blowhard backyard bully (or group of them).
deadbeat
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 02:33 AM)
They do more than bring up their beliefs, they beat people over the head with them because the Bible is 100% truth and everything else is wrong.

THAT type of posting gets attacked, not the religious people in general.  It just happens that a good portion of the religious people that post here are fundamentalists.

Well it SOUNDS good...

You may even believe that, but look at my previous comment, they do not just attack fundies and wackos, they viciously attack ALL religion.

but after a while the attacks and terrible stereotyoping really get under your skin.

Remember in school the classes and discussions about racial and sexual stereotyping and how to promote tolerance?

Why is it right to do the same thing they loudly proclaim is so bad to religious people, that are ILLEGAL to do in a racial or sexual basis? If you were black, and they said some of these things, would you not get angry eventually?

Or a woman?

Or a Jew?

But it is okay to slam christians or catholics?

Or white people?


Come on...it is not me that needs to exercise "tolerance" really is it? I have to tolerate THEIR INTOLERANCE? hatred and bigotry? Come now, even you must admit that is not fair.
Sinister Utopia
Deadbeat,

You are making your consistent error as in one atheist speaks and you assume that is the view of all atheists.

Do you not see that an example of atheism is demonstrated by those who maintain 100% faith in one Deity.

They cannot be reasoned with by definition, they are 100% correct and all other forms of theism, agnosticism are false in their eyes.

If one believes 100% that Yahweh is true then they are just as if not more of an atheist towards Allah than most skeptical agnostic/atheists are.

Your constant negative comments regarding atheism only display your own intolerance and not the intolerance of atheists as they are individuals. There is no guiding or unifying dogma other than dis-belief in super-nature.
Physfan
dudbut,
You are an atheist too! What of all the gods you don't believe in. The difference betwen you and the "atheists" is that they believe in one less god.
Physfan
orestis
deadbeat

Just checked your posting history. I wanted to find where you were first attacked for your beliefs.

Your first post was jumping on Phil, very brave of you.

The second one you told somebody to STFU.

laugh.gif Nice attitude you came here with. I leave you to it and its consequences.
Sandra doliak
QUOTE (Evans+Jun 30 2008, 06:28 AM)
your so nice deadbeat!

JESUS IS THE LORD!

Ignorant FOOL!
excaza
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 1 2008, 11:08 PM)
Come on...it is not me that needs to exercise "tolerance" really is it? I have to tolerate THEIR INTOLERANCE? hatred and bigotry? Come now, even you must admit that is not fair.

Well that SOUNDS good. But if you truly believe that why would you come here and make the exact same intolerant and ignorant mistake of blaming ALL athiests for the words and actions of a few? Why do you commit to the same abuse you're whining about and accusing us of? Because, according to you, everyone else is doing it? Fine, be a lemming, otherwise, get off your high horse, take the blinders off, and consistently practice what you preach. There's no more powerful way to make a statement.

QUOTE
but after a while the attacks and terrible stereotyoping really get under your skin.

Yet you continue to attack and stereotype athiesm. Hypocrite.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
but after a while the attacks and terrible stereotyoping really get under your skin.

Yet you continue to attack and stereotype athiesm. Hypocrite.

But it is okay to slam christians or catholics?
If they say the stupid things like dud or you do, then yes. But for being idiotic, not for being religious. You're still not seeing the difference. It's a shame really, because occasionally you have a post of some intelligence, then mar it with 18 stupid posts about the athiests getting you down or some other nonsense.

QUOTE
The idiots do not HAVE to be argued with to illustrate their stupidity. Anyone with 2 firing brain cells can see it.

Agreed, but they presented an argument, and if they took the time to present it, they're entitled to an answer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The idiots do not HAVE to be argued with to illustrate their stupidity. Anyone with 2 firing brain cells can see it.

Agreed, but they presented an argument, and if they took the time to present it, they're entitled to an answer.

The "Mafia" just does it to show everyone how smart they is, and how dumb all religious people are.

Wrong. How dumb all the DUMB people are. RELIGION IS NOT A FACTOR

QUOTE
It serves no purpose other than distraction and dilution and makes real conversation impossible. The people they argue with are so far from accessability to reason and debate that it serves NO PURPOSE, other than a juvenile display of outrage and pride that belongs on a high school playground.

The beating over the head with the bible by the fundamentalists serves no purpose either, yet they continue to do it and you continue to condone it.
deadbeat
Okay now you are being totally hypocritical

QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 11:08 AM)

Well that SOUNDS good.  But if you truly believe that why would you come here and make the exact same intolerant and ignorant mistake of blaming ALL athiests for the words and actions of a few?  Why do you commit to the same abuse you're whining about and accusing us of?  Get off your high horse, take the blinders off, and consistently practice what you preach. 


So YOU chew ME out for painting all ATHEISTS with the same wide brushstrokes...

QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 11:08 AM)

If they say the stupid things like dud or you do, then yes.  But for being idiotic, not for being religious.  You're still not seeing the difference.  It's a shame really, because occasionally you have a post of some intelligence, then mar it with 18 stupid posts about the athiests getting you down or some other nonsense. 


And then you justify THEIR actions and say I am too sensitive. Seriously. Telling ME they are not attacking all religion but just the Fundies...

QUOTE (physfan+)

Religion, all religions, are a blight on humanity. 

QUOTE (genesplicer+)
Duzma,

Well, we have seen DB make veiled threats of xian mob rule before, and the behavior is not atypical for so many of the faith. Any faith it would seem.

Personally, I can take the threats and if it were just me, I would have no problem being more open in public. But speaking to the theistic use of fear, hatred and threats, I can attest to not only receiving some rather unfriendly emails from theists, but threats to my family due to my views, not theirs.

It is truly cowardly to attack a person’s children.

Now, with that said, there are also a few theists who have contacted me with a honest and civil disagreement with what I have posted here or stated on one of my podcasts.

I think in the end I feel more sorry for them than I do many of my fellow atheists and agnostics.

How does a theist of any faith separate themselves from the violent ilk like Dad1 and DB? 


And here he lies about me making threats, and conflates me with super-wacko Dad1

QUOTE (pucksr+)

Let me just rebut your response with the following.
Gay cocksucking Jesus....Prove it isn't true


and some REALLY foul stuff

QUOTE (puckSr+)

Why restrict it to catholics?

You are all sick fucks

Don't like my language?



QUOTE (excaza+)

It's because you assh*les run around and make statements like this

QUOTE (deadbeat+)

I will pray for you.

Like me praying for someone is an insult, I mean really. If you do not believe, then the act is a waste of MY time, if you do believe, it is a favor to you. Either way insult is a bit of a stretch.



QUOTE (excaza+Jul 2 2008, 11:08 AM)

Agreed, but they presented an argument, and if they took the time to present it, they're entitled to an answer.


Wrong.  How dumb all the DUMB people are.  RELIGION IS NOT A FACTOR


The beating over the head with the bible by the fundamentalists serves no purpose either, yet they continue to do it and you continue to condone it.


Uh, no...I have NEVER bought into that Literal Bible crap, any more than you have.

So you see, you complain about me not understanding Atheists or whatever, but you are just as guilty about understanding me, probably because many like BDW Mjolnirpants misquoye and misrepresent me. It is not what I have actually said, it is what people here SAY I have said.
excaza
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jul 2 2008, 06:59 AM)
Okay now you are being totally hypocritical

Where? If I say something stupid, I expect to be rebuked just like I have rebuked others, I do not see myself as special. I've even attempted to defend you, which you took and threw back in my face. I have said you make occasional posts of intelligence. Where am I being hypocritical here?

QUOTE
So YOU chew ME out for painting all ATHEISTS with the same wide brushstrokes...

You do. Just like the people who say idiotic things are painted as idiots. It's really a no-brainer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So YOU chew ME out for painting all ATHEISTS with the same wide brushstrokes...

You do. Just like the people who say idiotic things are painted as idiots. It's really a no-brainer.

Like me praying for someone is an insult, I mean really. If you do not believe, then the act is a waste of MY time, if you do believe, it is a favor to you. Either way insult is a bit of a stretch.

It IS an insult. Who the f*ck are you to think I need you to pray for me? How arrogant must you be to think that just because someone disagrees with you they require prayer?

QUOTE
Uh, no...I have NEVER bought into that Literal Bible crap, any more than you have.

Uh no, I NEVER accused you of literal bible crap. I accused you of saying stupid things and whining about the athiests getting you down. Learn to read, would ya?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Uh, no...I have NEVER bought into that Literal Bible crap, any more than you have.

Uh no, I NEVER accused you of literal bible crap. I accused you of saying stupid things and whining about the athiests getting you down. Learn to read, would ya?

So you see, you complain about me not understanding Atheists or whatever, but you are just as guilty about understanding me,

Understand what? That you essentially think all athiests are out to get the religious people? Am I wrong? You've pretty much stated it more than once. You accuse athiests of not affording you tolerance/respect/whatever, yet you fail to give them what you believe you deserve.

Again, practice what you preach, it makes more of a statement than ranting or whining.

I don't really see how continually posting replies from people you or some fundie has provoked in your arrogance helps your case against every single athiest, ever.
uaafanblog
I'll try here to get past all the irrelevant hooey in this thread and address the topic.

Religion is the direct result of humanity's fear of death. Secondarily, it is a result of our collective arrogance that we are "special".

Humans fear the unknown. It's a genetic predisposition (which originated in pre-reptilian brains) that protects us from danger. The fear of death is difficult to resolve rationally so a nice fairy-tale about a soul solves it for us. If we are more than we appear to be then death isn't scary. I personally don't see the satisfaction with that. I'm more than satisfied to know that when the elctro-chemical processes that provide me with self-awareness cease to be active that my "consciousness" will no longer exist. That consciousness is essentially a virtual thing. Oh well ... I die and it ends. So what? Billions have died before me and billions will die after me. I'm not special. In the words of the fictional Tyler Durden ... I'm the "all-singing all-dancing crap of the world" and you know what? ... I'm all good with that.

I believe that humanity won't progress socially beyond our current state unless and until religious beliefs are no longer part of anyone's psyche. If I were "King of the World", I'd abolish religious thinking under the threat of long-term imprisonment. Religious thinking and the result of it are harmful to progression of human society. It needs to be wiped from human culture in the most expedient way possible. Ultimately, I think science will "kill god"... (there is enough good science already to accomplish that but too many ignorant sheep to allow it). I wish it would happen in my lifetime but seeing the level of fear that exists all over the world tells me that it is probably generations away from happening.

deadbeat provides the rational thinking among us in this forum with a beautiful example of that fear. He fears rational thinking. His paranoia that Atheists want to destroy his belief system is clear (but I think I'm the only one here openly advocating it). The guy is overflowing with fear.
Physfan
QUOTE
Religion is the direct result of humanity's fear of death. Secondarily, it is a result of our collective arrogance that we are "special".

Nicely put and I agree. Your specific point about dudbut's irrational fear also seems right on the money. Many people have this notion of "dualism", that there ia a separation between the brain inside their skull and the thoughts it produces. All evidence of humanities' history show otherwise but that hasn't deterred those less attached to reality from having "faith" in the existence of duality.
Faith is one of those "funny" words like "theory". They have two completely opposite meanings which confuses many people, particularly those who profess to have "faith".
Physfan
angus
edited after actually reading the two posts above mine...
uaafanblog, i agree with you entirely of your description of religion, its spot on. as for getting rid of religion... there are way to many idiots, many more idiots then there are rationaly thinkers unfortunatley sad.gif its so stupid the beliefs when you look at them, there is one richard dawkins vid about a pidgeon who in a test belived that when it moved its head it would be rewarded with food, it seems stupid when you look at it, but think of the catholic traditions, every sunday turning up at church to drink wine that is supposed to be jesus blood, and wafery biscut things that ares supposed to be his body.
religion in generall needs to be done away with, but itd take a nazi style approach, which of course wouldnt happen, chlorine prices would go through the roof!



hahahahaha... oh... its so funny how, without fail every post about religion, on any forum will always degenerate into quoting and claims oh hypocrisy hahahaha laugh.gif

anyway i might break away from the current direction of this topic... the origins of religion. really all religion is is an alternate way of trying to explain things, things that in times passed couldn't be explained. i really don't understand how you can look and appreciate things without at all wondering why is it so?
like claimed miracles, there's a storm/earthquake/disaster in a village, the church at the end is still standing, when all the other buildings in the village are destroyed, miracle? when you look at it rationally you realise, that because the people of The village believer in this god, they built the church strong, and out of the best materials, and the other buildings were substandard in comparison and didn't survive the disaster when the superiorly built church stays standing, and then the event is then considered proof that their god exists, and what the priest says is true and should not be questioned...

also I'm looking for someone to tell me what wonder you get being told that something was created by some god that you cant ask anything from, yet anything that good happens was him. the god is all powerfull, yet when something bad happens it was this other guy. and why would an all powerfull god care weather or not his creations worshiped him or not when he doesn't intervene.

hmm this appears to have degenerated into a rant as well... well get from it what you can, and whatever you do, do not post something at 3:20 in the morning as youll read it later and it will look entirely unsensicle, much like this one
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.