First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland!

Neandertal? Wow, that's far. There's a difference between 2000 and 30,000 years ago. You're talking about primitive humans. And they showed interesting characteristics, that homo sapiens didn't have. Not just talking about the size of their brain.

And actually, you'd be surprised to learn that even apes -since you mentioned them- live in some kind of organised 'society', with 'rules'.
Of course, you can't really compare our advanced society with apes.


What mysterious societies are you talking about? Neandertals? If you are talking about them, scientists are still not sure why they disappeared, so I doubt you do. Neither do I anyway.


Why do you say that? I just disagreed with morality being religion's property.

I never was an anarchist. But I still don't think I need a god above my head to decide whether I should kill or rob people or not.

Since you seem to never heard of it, I'd suggest you try to google "social darwinism".


Modern evolutionary biology seems just a way to puss out from the obvious implications of the original theory. Darwin's model is perfectly consistent the way it is. To attempt to change it because you don't like where the theory leads is the height of retardation.

The theory sits as it does, Darwin makes no judgment that is what others have done. A racist will attempt to make ridiculous claims for the theory.

Social Darwinism is just waffle which attempts to provide some sort of scientific veneer by using Darwin's name, it is not scientific

Social Darwinism is the natural consequence of evolutionary science. If you believe in evolution, and don't believe in social Darwinism, you are living in self deception. Liberalism in a nutshell. First they f*ck society by coming up with sh!t theories and ideas, then b!tch when society acts f*cked up. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

No its not, Social Darwinism is a pathetic attempt to apply empirical standards to social sciences which are waffle.

Evolution = social and biological Darwinism, by definition, since evolution and Darwinism are synonymous with each other. There is no wiggle room here, no possible way to escape this simple logical sequencing. Any argument to the contrary cannot be anything other then senseless gibberish.

This is of course a non-issue for me, since anyone with the slightest amount of real brain power will understand that the theory of evolution is pure nonsense, plain and simple. Darwin himself may have not been a complete moron, and that explains why it was his theory that was eventually accepted by modern science and not that of others which were not as internally consistent (like Lamarckism), but his theory was just another building block for the development of the modernistic world view, the world view of pure intellectual atrophy to be exact.

You never said SOCIAL Darwinism. And that is actually SPENCERISM. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with this. Maybe YOU should read more, and stop interpreting things as it suits you best.

And before you add more 'bull...' to this, racism existed long before 'liberals' arrived.
Humans, and especially religious men, have a sort of gift to interprete stuff. You are a perfect example of that.


Again, I would like you to explain me this. How is it pure nonsense? There is no evolution? God created everything in one week? Well, that's your opinion. Don't expect me to buy this.

Again no it doesn't, social Darwinism is nonsense.

It doesn't matter how many times you type nonsense it remains nonsense.

Agreed. So is biological Darwinism. The one nonsense paved the road for another. Hence Darwinism being the origin of racism, etc.


It is evolution that places man above the entirety of creation, hence, humanism. Man is the pinnacle of evolution on this planet, and as such, he represents the highest point of development in the universe we are currently aware of. Thus, it is humanist thought that is elitist and dogmatic, and from this comes the folly of believing human "reason" will eventually allows us to create a veritable utopia here in this universe.

My perspective is precisely the opposite. There is no such thing as evolution, a constant transmutation for lower to higher states. To the contrary, there is only a descent from a supreme eternal principle, beyond which lies nothing. In this perspective, the center is not man, but God, to which we are but insignificant beings. Indeed, the only reason we even exist at all is that creation is in the nature of God. That is, God is compelled to obey the laws of his own nature, the only imperative that even Him cannot transcendent. But from the point of view God, who is infinite and Absolute, nothing that exists in the universe is actually of any value whatsoever, being that God is already beyond all perfections, being perfection as such.

This places two absolute imperatives upon man. One, the recognition of his own individual insignificance. Two, the need to transcend the limitations of our inferior and corrupted nature in order to achieve a closer proximity towards the Absolute principle, and thus elevating our status in the hierarchy of cosmological manifestations. It this for this reason that God has allowed us to retain a link with the infinite, for without it we would be doomed to remain in this state for eternity. Hence, we were made in his image, not in the sense that we are like Him in terms of greatness, but that we are like him in terms of our potential for transcendence, and it is in that sense and that sense only that our intelligence receives its proper context. As Schuon said, the intelligence was made for the Absolute, or it is nothing. Meaning, intelligence for the sake of individual aggrandizement or pride is a contradiction, since intelligence, if it is genuine and not simple make believe, cannot possibly be concerned with anything other then transcendent reality, against which our egoistic necessities are meaningless. In other words, one cannot be intelligent without being virtuous, for the two are synonymous with one another.

right, because the stories in the bible are not nonsense?

Your understanding of evolution is laughable at best.


hahaha, wow, just wow.
The sun also revolves around the earth and the earth is flat.

If


then why can't he break those laws, if he cannot then he's really obeying the laws that were set out for him by someone else....and who would that be??? the answer is obviously Man. Man made the rules for your god to live/create by.

Please do more research into what your religion has stolen from earlier religions, you'll soon realise that it's all nonsense. Your mind is closed, you need to open it.

Kondzior what is it that you are trying to say? You make statements then claim that you don't support those ideas but claim to be entirely logical.


If that is your understanding of evolution its no wonder that you are confused.

Is there any chance you could just say what you mean based upon what believe in?


Social Darwinism is a steaming pile of nonsense used by racists to justify all sorts of things, Fascists, racists, supporters of eugenics and empire builders love it. It has nothing to do with the Bible or religion there is no zero sum equation here.

Man is at the top of the food chain, but that's not evolution, that's biology (or maybe gastronomy?). It's actually religions that put man at the 'highest point' of development or whatever. Since, as you said, man was made in the image of God. That puts us, humans, in some sort of superior state. That's one of the interpretations. It's all about interpreting again.

But evolution doesn't place man anywhere. It's an explanation of how life evolved until today. Systematics does place us somewhere, in the mammal class, primate order, homo genus, etc.

I do agree tho that we are insignificant beings, but many scientists would agree on that too. About God being the center of everything, I won't comment.

So, tell me, what do you do in everyday life to aim at the Absolute?

I won't ask what being virtuous is to you, cuz it would probably take hours.

That type of information doesn't matter a whole lot, in the grand scheme of things.

What this statement tells me though is that you are still having trouble understanding what i'm trying to get at.

I think part of the problem is that most people don't see far enough into the realm of essences to fully grasp some of the implications of my statements. When i say Beethoven was a genius, most people will understand that i mean he was really, really smart. They don't see in the word genius the same transcendent and metaphysical essence that i do. Thus, for instance, when i posit that evolution is an impossibility, because it is highly preposterous that such a transcendent element could "rise" from a lesser thing, where it is far more "logical" that it actually descends from something higher, miscomprehension is bound to occur, since the logic is lost if you think there is nothing in genius that a computer, for instance, couldn't replicate.

Basically you are a genius but can't explain what you mean?

It is hard to explain something to a person that would not listen. Who just hunts for occasion to ridicule the "opponent". What you just demonstrated is that reason is too limited a faculty to deal with knowledge of a transcendent order. By putting reason above all other mental faculties, you are essentially limiting the scope of human intellect to its lowest possible realm of understanding. Modernism in a nutshell. According to this type of thinking, Beethoven is in no measure of manner greater then your Britney Spears. That is, it paves the way for the highest level of idiocy. No concept of a transcendent order can exist in this atmosphere of absolute intellectual atrophy.

We are not talking about art or any other thing where a judgment would be based upon preferences.

You have repeatedly made claims then backed away from them and now claim that you cannot explain the essence of what it is you are trying to say. If you are going to make bold statements you cant hide behind inarticulation (if such a word exists)

I presume your farts don't smell also?

So to sum up evolution is impossible, in your view, because it 'comes up' from lesser animals, but it's more likely that it came down from a god.

Cool story bro.

I disagree totally....

What was before neanderthal..? apes? do we really want to live in chimp society? That we know now is pretty unfair and violent?
Were hominids any earlier than that anything more than animals?

Recent research has proven neanderthals were much , much more. that they interbred with new humans , especially in Europe more than we thought. Most Europeans have 4% unique DNA inherited from Neanderthals. 80 sequences.

These mysterious non religious societies without a higher sense of self and the thought of an afterlife that is reward, what would make an parent endorse any system at all in their children instead of letting them be teh dangerous, quirky , murderous narcissits they would be without restrcitions. Why bother accepting a law?

If it was the proper way to go why didn't this mysterious non-religious peoples survive from antiquity into modern day? befor eyou claim they were all murdered bu this or that religions..say who they were..how long they lasted



You did not simply say: Morality has been with humans before religion.. (which research has said the contrary anyway. There is no proof to date of any morality before religions.) And since you made sure to say CHRISTIANITY, which is lack of neutral language

So it makes it as a target you wish to most discredit. Even though it is offshoot of Judasim.
If that as not your intent, I misread it by your wording. Sorry. Your responses are definitely milder than some here. You were just last in the line and first in the crosshair; I was not addressing you alone as much as that theme which is being bombarded into this thread and ruining its original topic.

And feel free to correct me for doubting you are merely echoing a response.I don't think anyone stated there is no morality without specifically CHRISTIANITY.

I may have missed it, but even so that is not what most of us were saying, after the topic was hijacked with uncalled for attacks on religion in general and Christians in particular. Though one can quibble that only 54% of the world follow abrahamic religions, therefore only 54% would believe religion and by default, morality come from our God, as previous mentioned.

And speaking of morality... I think it bears repeating it isn't charitable OR MORAL of any of you to come **** on on a thread that was simply lamenting the commercialization for a practice that those who attend such events hold dear..regardless of your own personal belief.

Also ethics are not morals but evolved later and do not require religion.



the point I disagree with most strongly is that there was morality before religion. And I hold there has not been morality in any society without religion or even group, though one can be ethical for societal good to degree that is new. Secular morality is new, while religious morality is not.

Religion may not have gotten sole ownership trademark on morality but it was the discoverer. Religion came first as societal glue after cooperative hunting.

Point ....was Neanderthals HAD A PRIMITIVE RELIGION,
So I can only wonder exactly who were these altruistic, virtuous non-religious societies before there was ever any religion? aliens? Ameobas? Velociraptors? you made a very broad, sweeping general statement there. Have you seriously heard or seen that isn't simply a modern person's theory and not based in anthropology or even psychology? especially as major studies are now being released that turn early 20th century assumptions on their ears as far as how primitive ancient man was not.

What morality at all has been seen in anything earlier than neanderthals? religious or otherwise?
grouping/herding/flocking together and having the major portion not kill each other is what ANY animal can do. Morality not required. Nor do they have any reason whatsoever to refrain from killing and eating their neighbors

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12049854

Conscience and morality are only just now getting serious research and study despite the pro or con bias of the anthropologist in charge of each.

Because his one theory of group selection and altruism which he cooked to explain the veering way from his "natural selection" such as the ones that volunteer to serve in war or give their life for another...had a major parodxial flaw. Wouldn't quite fit.. so Darwin just shifted his feet and assured that humans had special place and it was the intelligence that allowed it.

We know now, if you take all of anthropology as indisputable, that modern humans and hominids in general, are not as special as we wanted to think in many things. Except religions

Greek thinkers who atheists like to quote as morality before religion, were themselves agnostic or atheists sure, yet till grew up in religious superstitious societies that had a framework they could express a freedom of different belief and not be stoned. Ironically they were the most religious societies of thier age that produced so many philosophers. They had a god /spirit/demigod for EVERYTHING. Glutus god of assscratching was prolly amongst them even. The most fierce tribes in the most remote locations still had some sort of belief system. Rome was similar except it made State religions in contrast to Greek "cults".. it was also more expanive and practicle.. often adopting the gods of other pantheons like Mithra and Osiris. every god had a useful position..lol diefic divission of labor. Romans had more festivals. they didnt mind incorporating, borrowing or swallowing other religions. and their holidays.

The most recent released study has 8 out of 10 people identify as believing in something. After Christianity and Islam; the third largest "religion is"none agnostics/athiests, Judaism is 6th.

No traditional society that is avowed atheist has been discovered to date, but if you account for possible biases of active antique anthropologists and rather grey areas between "god" and "spirit," you might be able to find a society without 'gods'. No large groups of agnostic or atheist socities POST known dates of religion in practice.

I feel safe to claim there has never ever been a society with technically nothing from the start because even if mildly fictionalized versions of real experiences -legends and folklore; are beliefs. You'd have to theorize a human society with no narration, and research would be hard pressed to find missing. something that is such a fundamental part of language.

BS, show us some decent peer reviewed research to prove your nonsense.


Again, bullsht. Have you never witnessed altruism in animals?


So, you think that's it's perfectly fine to murder, but you don't because you're afraid of a boogy man in the sky?

You don't actually think that murder is wrong and everybody has the right to life?

(You should tell me more about that research)
I said Christianity because it was the main topic here. Just read back.

To you, what is morality?


Polish kids get laughed at if they don't do that first communion thing. But if social pressure is fine with you, no need to discuss about morality.


If disputable rites, especially burial rites, and animal worshipping is considered religion, even primitive religion, then sure, you must be right.
Humans always needed to find answers, and fight their deep fears. There are many ways to do so. Religion is just one of them.


We weren't there. We can only interpret findings and results of researches. There is no much certainty in this kind of stuff. Unfortunately, they didn't leave much written stuff about their beliefs. (hum)


He said that? Sorry, I was probably late that day.


What is your point here? The fact that a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it any more real. A lot of people like chocolate, or worse, cigarettes, it doesn't mean it's healthy.

The fact that people need answers is nothing new. Using people's fears is easy, just give them what they want, and you're there.

A lot of people believe in something because of: traditions, social pressure, fears. There's probably more but I've said enough for now, or I would sound anti-Christian again ;)

Morality differs a lot between different places, cultures. It's more a cultural thing, than religious. Religion is only part of a culture.

Chicken and Egg situation they evolved together


How do you know?

I can go with that


have you? Altruism is not simply ANY kindness, it is to show kindness and/or put at risk your own safety for another that you have no genetic investment in.

You have SEEN an animal rescue, die for, sacrifice & care for, feed another animal that is not in its herd/pack/flock so does not share genetic material with in any degree.

And I am not sure if a mother animal under hormonal influence adopting out species counts. Even that lioness that adopted a gnu allowed another lion to eat it unpunished.


That is TROLLING.... it is illogical arguement using circular reasoning which is fallacious in nature and never ends. It is induction not deduction and can give your your point no matter which answer I give. ..you say AH HA then I am right.

I want mods to start binning trolls that ask for PROOF in every frikin philosophical debate (which usually they made off topic because they want to pole-bash, jew-bash or bash religion and basically ruin and derail a thread they dislike; the moment they argue further without providing any viable inks to "peers" themselves!!

So trying to exclude personal blogs and student thesis.................

scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2009-10-17/the-burials-of-neanderthals-religion-evolved-at-least-two-times

So who is defining WHO is peers...? we also have

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion (granted wiki is volunteer but the biblio has plenty to sift)

news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/neanderthal-burial-ground-afterlife-110420.htm

hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca/neanderthal/n-burial.html

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/decoding-neanderthals.html

JSTOR
Archaeological Institute of America

Smithsonian

news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-skeleton-provides-evidence-of-interbreeding-with-humans-130327.htm

there are 5 study/priograms released recent on new dicoveries about neandrethal..who are now found not to be a parallel evolutionary dead end but actually part of our gene pool

here an atheist con theory:

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Humans-Became-Moral-Beings.html?c=y&page=1

I can find all the recent research in the world but for those just here to derail the thread and troll.... it will mean nothing. and not a finger wil be lifted to find teh same from sources equally reputable.

Now I want to put my steering cover and floor mats in the truck I bought myself today... and dinner to cook

Trolls usually derail threads they are uncomfortable with by dragging posters into "he said you said arguments" throwing random insults or wanting pointless fights often over a comprehension malfunction it really is a shocking pathology.

Now I see what you are unable to grasp. When I state that Beethoven is a genius, I mean it as a fact. It is NOT the matter of "preference". And before you ask for it, no I have no "evidence". There is no point in looking for evidence for the things like genius in art, or religions and faith. Either you grasp it or not.


Whatever.

Evolution is bullsh!t for anyone capable of understanding essences, that is, those possessing actual intelligence. The musings of those incapable of real thinking do no matter.

I just wonder why in the thread about fist communion legion of non believers,pagans, freaks and others jump out of the box like a puppet on the spring just to post on everything but topic.

I mean they never miss the occasion to say - hey I don't believe in God. That and this is a nonsense.
I mean you are atheist or agnostic or whatever - fair enough. Where this urge to stress it pall mall and all over the place came from? From insecurity, doubts, ignorance, stupidity, arrogance?

After all I'm not posting on all threads there are regardless of the subject - hey I believe in God - and you are just bloody heathens.

Why non-believers are different would that be one or few listed reason or maybe just maybe those vices are cry for help. Those people are posting about God and religion because they deep dawn carve for it. They want to be convinced otherwise, they are in want of faith.

Maybe not all but many are just lost souls.

Trolls? We can't discuss views, difference of opinions without being called trolls?

Burial rites and art, that's morality?
Despite all the links you posted, we don't really know what these burial rites were, what they really meant. We can only interpret.
And how interbreeding is relevant here? I know that most of us have some Neandertal genes. So what?
Call me troll if you wish, but I still don't get your point.


Bon appétit. At least, I'm a polite troll ;)


Those possessing intelligence will believe the unbelievable, because...? You decided to believe in some Greater Something (name it God or whatever you want), I decided to believe in evolution. I probably don't possess the intelligence you mentioned, but I'll live with it. Well, if you confuse Darwinism with Spencerism, don't call me stupid.

I just don't think I need religion to be a better man.


I didn't start it, I promise ;) We're just discussing, anything wrong? Confronting theories isn't a sin, is it?

about the original subject: there are many worse reasons to throw a party than the child's first communion. I'm not a fan of lavish parties, but I have been caught up trying to plan a few that I hoped all the guests will fondly remember. As far as monetary gifts, I'm not a fan of those either, but often they are a kind gesture to offset the hosts' costs.

I was well aware of your Kuhnian ideas and I have posted about such ideas in previous threads, the problem that I see is that you are making concrete statements about things and changing your stance when challenged claiming that you don't believe in such things, this contradicts your "essence" claim.

You still don't seem to understand the argument. There are no objective values without an objective dimension, and this dimension cannot be individual. Without God, man truly becomes the "measure of all things", which means no value can possibly be considered objective. Is Beethoven a genius? Is murder wrong? Is abortion a sin? Who is to say? How do you prove that the subjective values of one individual are actually objective, as opposed to those of another?

So, in the end, you have three solutions to this problem. One, there are no objective values, hence, relativism. This is the default atheist position, and people like Barney have been arguing just that in this forum. Beethoven is not a genius, he is anything you want him to be, every judgement of value being purely subjective and thus only valid for the individual. Two, you agree that there must be an outside point of view that is objective, for objective values do exist, even if they cannot be proven, hence, God must exist also. This is an argument from faith, and its what youtube.com/watch?v=Rmg720wO6tY&feature=related is using, and its also what Dostoevsky has demonstrate in Crime and Punishment, where he systematically destroyed any notion of an "objective" morality derived from a purely human point of view. I think it is this that is bothering you, because you don't like the assumption that values must exist, but if you deny this point, you are back to relativism, where again Beethoven becomes whatever you want him to be, which is simply unacceptable, and the argument starts all over again.

Then, there is a third position, one which posits the existence of a faculty that is "beyond" reason, which is referred by its proponents as "intellective intuition", that is, intelligence as such:

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/intellection.htm

There is no faith involved here, but direct, total knowledge, acquired by means of the intellect, which partakes into the supreme objectivity of God because the human point of view shares the point of view of the divine, which is objective in the highest possible sense. Thus, Beethoven is a genius, not because i say so, but because i know it to be so. Can i "prove" this to you? Not unless you posses this faculty also. At this point, the question of whether God exists becomes academic. The "obviousness" of his existence is a realization that is bound to happen sooner or later for the individual who understands the world from the point of view of essence rather then appearances.

If you want to know more, this book is the best starting point:

anonfiles.com/file/14e65a3757f8493c48141cb9f651b9a4