(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F547fb6cf5afbd3121d8b4567-800%2Fafp-oldest-engraving-rewrites-view-of-human-history.jpg&hash=d127fde5b4c3ef65f219f02c6da22843" rel="cached" data-hash="d127fde5b4c3ef65f219f02c6da22843" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/547fb6cf5afbd3121d8b4567-800/afp-oldest-engraving-rewrites-view-of-human-history.jpg)
Paris (AFP) - Anthropologists on Wednesday said they had found the earliest engraving in human history on a fossilised mollusc shell some 500,000 years old, unearthed in colonial-era Indonesia.
The zigzag scratching, together with evidence that these shells were used as a tool, should prompt a rethink about the mysterious early human called Homo erectus, they said.
The discovery comes through new scrutiny of 166 freshwater mussel shells found at Trinil, on the banks of the Bengawan Solo river in East Java, where one of the most sensational finds in fossil-hunting was made.
It was here in 1891 that an adventurous Dutch palaeontologist, Eugene Dubois, found "Java Man."
what is this ? is this another
"My whole life is full of lie " ??
i thought The oldest Human is From Africa
+ 200.000 years ago . :chef:
is this valid and legit .
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-oldest-engraving-rewrites-view-of-human-history-2014-12#ixzz3MVxv5q2a
Something about that bothers me. The shell may indeed be half a million years old. Maybe older. The marks on it--- nope. They are far too fresh, far too sharp and clear to be anything like that old. Not in that material, where they supposedly found it.
Imagine going back into a cave, known to have been inhabited by prehistoric man back before men mastered fire, and there-- in the back of the cave-- you find the inscription in iridescent spray paint--- "Bob Loves Tina". That's sort of how this thing strikes me. Those marks are recently etched into the shell, likely with a pocket knife. They don't even appear to be that old.
Something about that bothers me. The shell may indeed be half a million years old. Maybe older. The marks on it--- nope. They are far too fresh, far too sharp and clear to be anything like that old. Not in that material, where they supposedly found it.
If the shell was sealed off and undisturbed for all that time there wouldn't be much to erode the markings. But then again, 500000 years would be
way early. Before Neanderthals early. I'll wait for a report from something with core competence closer to archeology.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F7.22191.1417622702%21%2Fimage%2Fimage1_900px.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_630%2Fimage1_900px.jpg&hash=0b6da8ae93d791fa42faec1e9bbf4367" rel="cached" data-hash="0b6da8ae93d791fa42faec1e9bbf4367" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22191.1417622702!/image/image1_900px.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image1_900px.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F7.22192.1417622868%21%2Fimage%2FImage-4_900px.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2Flandscape_300%2FImage-4_900px.jpg&hash=a5812965ba9eeeed31f9a9491ceed1e3" rel="cached" data-hash="a5812965ba9eeeed31f9a9491ceed1e3" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.22192.1417622868!/image/Image-4_900px.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_300/Image-4_900px.jpg)
indeed, it is hard to believe if a doodle can stay at a Shell for 500.000 years old .
on the other hand , another theory about this Homo genus and species emerged in Africa about 2 million years ago is lack of evidences .
Mebbe it's just me, I dunno--- one of those marks looks like an "H", and the one next to it looks like an "M". Now, I suppose its entirely possible that men that long ago could have made marks that look like modern letters--- the Romans used marks not unlike our modern alphabet characters for numbers, in fact much of our modern alphabet is Roman, so I guess the Romans could have "borrowed" it from some more ancient culture. But, those marks still look too new.
Nothing changes, does it. We have quite the debate going on about the "Shroud of Turin". Some believe it may have been the burial cloth of Jesus, others believe it's a Middle Ages forgery designed to imitate the real thing, and there are loud voices on both sides of that argument. Now a shell comes up with recent-looking markings that supposedly were made by human ancestors half a million years ago, and I reckon if we wait here long enough we'll find somebody who will stand for the idea that it's the real deal and not a poorly done forgery. By now you know where I stand on this.
so this doodles is founded in africa , from 100.000 - 200.000 year ago .
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsf.gov%2Fod%2Flpa%2Fnews%2F02%2Fimages%2Fbbcochre2000_big.jpg&hash=f6f35beacff6366e44a4748a3bebb672" rel="cached" data-hash="f6f35beacff6366e44a4748a3bebb672" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/images/bbcochre2000_big.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flavinscorner.com%2FBigengraved-ochre-2000.jpg&hash=06d103b35abb2fae0d12a3c2a13d95c4" rel="cached" data-hash="06d103b35abb2fae0d12a3c2a13d95c4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.flavinscorner.com/Bigengraved-ochre-2000.jpg)
perhaps it have similarity in patterns , but it does not mean that Doodle in Shell is really from 400,000-500,000 years ago .
i always sceptical with that kind of thing-ies .
even the validity probably is absurd ..
but that was the second weird invention of Pre-historic evidences in this 10 decade after Megalithic pyramid in Mount Padang .
which the Carbon-dating test results from the Miami lab show that the structure could date back to 14,000 BC or beyond.
older than Giza pyramid .
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Foy504f5035.jpg&hash=e44573ce1acba8dcad5bbc21bc120929" rel="cached" data-hash="e44573ce1acba8dcad5bbc21bc120929" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/oy504f5035.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Fgo504f501a.jpg&hash=7078732258aa8bb74151fce5871214ce" rel="cached" data-hash="7078732258aa8bb74151fce5871214ce" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/go504f501a.jpg)
Here (http://www.nature.com/news/homo-erectus-made-world-s-oldest-doodle-500-000-years-ago-1.16477)'s a link to the much better popular-science article in Nature. And now for the
real article:
Joordens, J. C. A. et al.
Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13962 (2014).
Under the assumption that most of you are obstructed by a paywall, I'll post some excerpts relating to the concerns mentioned above. Most of the article is about the use of tools, especially the use of shells as a raw material for making tools. Speaking just for myself, when out in "the wild" (um, probably at the very most an hour's walk from civilization) it seems to me the most obvious tools are branches, shells, feathers, and combinations thereof. (No, this is not a mountainous area with plenty of stones around to play with.) Yet you'd also be quite unlikely to find fossils of such items used as tools. Only shells might be reasonably expected to survive at all, yet the very use of a shell as a tool virtually insures its eventual destruction. To me these results are exactly what I'd expect, which is why it's of the utmost importance to test for signs that go against such expectations. It looks like the authors did their job.
One of the Pseudodon shells, specimen DUB1006-fL, displays a geometric pattern of grooves on the central part of the left valve (Fig. 2). The pattern consists, from posterior to anterior, of a zigzag line with three sharp turns producing an ‘M’ shape, a set of more superficial parallel lines, and a zigzag with two turns producing a mirrored ‘N’ shape. Our study of the morphology of the zigzags, internal morphology of the grooves, and differential roughness of the surrounding shell area demonstrates that the grooves were deliberately engraved and pre-date shell burial and weathering (Extended Data Fig. 5). Comparison with experimentally made grooves on a fossil Pseudodon fragment reveals that the Trinil grooves are most similar to the experimental grooves made with a shark tooth; these experimental grooves also feature an asymmetrical cross-section with one ridge and no striations inside the groove (Extended Data Fig. 6). We conclude that the grooves in DUB1006-fL were made with a pointed hard object, such as a fossil or a fresh shark tooth, present in the Trinil palaeoenvironment. The engraving was probably made on a fresh shell specimen still retaining its brown periostracum, which would have produced a striking pattern of white lines on a dark ‘canvas’. Experimental engraving of a fresh unionid shell revealed that considerable force is needed to penetrate the periostracum and the underlying prismatic aragonite layers. If the engraving of DUB1006-fL only superficially affected the aragonite layers, lines may easily have disappeared through weathering after loss of the outer organic layer. In addition, substantial manual control is required to produce straight deep lines and sharp turns as on DUB1006-fL. There are no gaps between the lines at the turning points, suggesting that attention was paid to make a consistent pattern. Together with the morphological similarity of all grooves, this indicates that a single individual made the whole pattern in a single session with the same tool.
Age estimates for the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht vary from the Early to the early Middle Pleistocene stages, usually based on correlation of the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht with the Grenzbank layer at Sangiran on Java10, 11. However, such lithological correlations should be tested with direct chronological methods12. The presence of sediment-infilled Pseudodon shells enabled us to obtain direct 40Ar/39Ar and luminescence dating evidence for the age of the shells from the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht. The 40Ar/39Ar approach provides a maximum age: the sediment infill cannot be older than the youngest volcanic event being dated, but can be younger. Luminescence dating was performed to obtain a burial (minimum) age for the sediments inside the shells. The 40Ar/39Ar analysis of hornblende minerals picked from shell infills yielded, for each shell, three age groups of 1.65 ± 0.04 million years (Myr), 1.12 ± 0.04 Myr and 0.64 ± 0.06 Myr, respectively, reflecting three periods of volcanic activity (Extended Data Fig. 7 and 8, and Supplementary Table 5). For the youngest hornblende age group, which is crucial for defining the maximum age of the Hauptknochenschicht shells, the corresponding isochron age of 0.54 ± 0.10 Myr is the best representation of the true age of this group. Luminescence studies on feldspar from the sediment fill of four shells (including the engraved shell DUB1006-fL) provided an average minimum age of 0.43 ± 0.05 Myr (Table 1, Extended Data Fig. 9 and Supplementary Table 6). Hence the maximum and minimum age of the shells, including 1σ uncertainties, situates them in the middle part of the Middle Pleistocene. These are the first direct ages for sediments from the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht, suggesting it to be younger than has been estimated thus far. The minimum age unequivocally indicates that H. erectus and not H. sapiens must have made the shell modifications. Our results highlight that the sediments of the Hauptknochenschicht contain volcanic material from different eruptions, as expected on Java where run-off, floods and lahars from the volcanic uplands bring a mix of volcanic material of different ages into the lowlands. These findings underline that it is crucial for future chronological studies on Java to use additional dating methods to constrain 40Ar/39Ar ages13, 14 and to critically evaluate previously reported 40Ar/39Ar ages for the first appearance of H. erectus on Java15.
The combined evidence for high-dexterity opening of shells, use of shell as a raw material to make tools, and engraving of an abstract pattern on a shell with a minimum age of 0.43 ± 0.05 Myr indicates that H. erectus was the agent responsible for the exploitation of freshwater mussels at Trinil described here. The inclusion of mussels in the diet of H. erectus is not surprising, as predation on aquatic molluscs is observed for many terrestrial mammals, including primates6, 16, 17. The reported use of shells as raw material for tool production is the earliest known in the history of hominin technology. It may explain the absence of unambiguous stone artefacts in the Early and Middle Pleistocene of Java9, 18, possibly the result of poor local availability of lithic raw material, as also suggested for the much younger (about 110,000 years old) Neanderthal shell tools from Italy and Greece19. Our discovery of an engraving on shell substrate is unexpected, because the earliest previously known undisputable engravings are at least 300,000 years younger4, 5 (Extended Data Fig. 10). We predict that it is only a matter of time before comparable evidence is discovered, filling the gap between this early case of shellfish exploitation, shell tool use and engraving, and its later counterparts.
i thought The oldest Human is From Africa + 200.000 years ago . :chef:
That would be why it mentions
homo erectus and not
homo sapiens sapiens. :right:
Mebbe it's just me, I dunno--- one of those marks looks like an "H", and the one next to it looks like an "M". Now, I suppose its entirely possible that men that long ago could have made marks that look like modern letters--- the Romans used marks not unlike our modern alphabet characters for numbers, in fact much of our modern alphabet is Roman, so I guess the Romans could have "borrowed" it from some more ancient culture. But, those marks still look too new.
Our alphabet directly traces back to the Phoenician alphabet. But whether the markings were made half a million years ago or in the 1890s, the picture is of course optimized to show the markings.
A visiting colleague photographed the shells and later noticed a faint zigzag pattern on one. “People never found this engraving because it's hardly visible,” says Joordens. “It's only when you have light from a certain angle that it stands out.”
I'll wait for a report from something with core competence closer to archeology.
The co-author, Wil Roebroeks, is an eminent archeologist.
The piece that Sparta quoted says later on...
Palaeontologists eventually categorised the find as a Homo erectus, or "upright human" -- a hominid that according to sketchy and hugely debated fossil evidence lived from around 1.9 million years ago to about 150,000 years ago.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-oldest-engraving-rewrites-view-of-human-history-2014-12#ixzz3MXESeY5J
so they said Erectus is older than Neanderthal .
and everybody loses their minds. :yikes:
What Frenzie said. Of course mistakes are made in dating, and you don't get a good stable picture until you have several instances. The story of the Neandertals has regularly been rewritten in the last 150, especially the last 50, years. Increasingly it is Homo erectus' time.
They were around for around two million years (depending on where to draw the species line) up until fairly recent times, they spread across the world (the old world anyway), and adapted significantly during that time span into many species/sub-species/populations/cultures/all of the above. In the latter days they co-existed with Homo sapiens (sapiens) and Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis, humans and Neandertals.
They were accomplished hunters, in some ways better than us, with fairly advanced technology and mastering fire. We don't know if they mastered language as well. They only had brain sizes half of ours, then again the Neandertals had bigger brains than we do, and little did that help them.
The implicit question, given that these markings wouldn't be accidental and wouldn't have any practical tool use purpose, is: Were (some of) Homo erectus artists, or were they merely blood-thirsty engineers?
Scientists say that there's a bit of the knuckle dragger in all of us.
=======================================================
Note: Don't you hate it when somebody uses "scientists say"?
knuckle dragger is genuinely human rights .
Note: Don't you hate it when somebody uses "scientists say"?
if in satirical contents is acceptable .
but in a serious discussion , sometimes that maybe conflict with argumentum of authority fallacy .
Homo erectus were ape like creatures, not artists. I don't know why they are called homo, relativism at it's best probably.
Homo they definitely were, from what we now can pick out from their bones and tools, they were something else that what came before them.
From the long-discarded idea of H. erectus as little more than a semi-monkey we have advanced to dramatisations and documentations (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=368.0) like BBC's Planet of the Apemen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0126998) episode 1, where H. erectus, not H. sapiens, was the top dog.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7hfeICyyzs[/video]
i think make assumptions is not a good thing to do .
dont forget if Java island is young , and there are many volcanoes there .
perfect to create fossils by bury any prehistoric ancient human , nor civilizations .
if there are many Pre-historic evidences there , probably that is because the geographics factors .
they were something else that what came before them.
Everything is something else that what came before.
Be it hominid or worms, that's not the issue.
The problem, is a materialist culture that tries to minimize Man by saying that we are not different from some ape-like creatures and with that denying the divine nature of Man.
Constantly, atheist media trying to be the Truth, intoxicating populations already intoxicated by football and soap operas delivered by the same media.
The triumph of ignorance, copyright by atheism.
saying that we are not different from some ape-like creatures and with that denying the divine nature of Man.
Wouldn't you assume anthropology to be inundated with atheists? After all, theology is full of theists. :knight: :cheers:
Wouldn't you assume anthropology to be inundated with atheists?
Anthropology, by it's own nature, it's only accessible to theists. Atheists studies monkeys and their variations.
Anthropology, by it's own nature, it's only accessible to theists.
Oh stop it! Physical anthropologists are interested in human
biological origins, evolution and variation. They give primary attention to investigating questions having to do with evolutionary theory, our place in nature, adaptation and human biological variation. Granted that there are other branches of anthropology--sociocultural, linguistic,etc., but they are open to all, not just theists (not even mostly theists). I have nothing against believers really, so why do you hate atheists? Do you likewise hate all people who believe differently than you or do you reserve that just for atheists? :knight: :cheers:
any -ism is un-hate-able if there is no lunatic fundamentalist intolerant militant bigots and zealots .
I have nothing against believers really, so why do you hate atheists? Do you likewise hate all people who believe differently than you or do you reserve that just for atheists?
Hate atheists? I think you need to put yourself in the queue of my "hates".
In the first place I discuss with protestants. When having some extra time I pay some attention to atheists. Only the smart ones.
I have no time to you. :knight: :cheers:
I have no time to you.
You have no time for English either.
I was baptized a Methodist, so I am Protestant. I choose to believe that there is no God of any kind, but since no one has ultimate knowledge of that, I am an agnostic atheist. You have no ultimate knowledge of God either (if you can be honest about that), so you are an agnostic theist. I believe that I know enough about the Bible and Theology to discuss it rationally with anyone. :knight: :cheers:
So, now ya dun made me go look it up.
Anthropology is the study of humans past and present. It may indeed be impossible to study man properly without getting into religion simply because humans have been worshiping something ever since-----....
However, that doesn't mean you have to be a theologian to study anthropology. You don't even have to believe that any god exists, even though as an anthropologist you'll encounter a pantheon of gods and goddesses that various people have worshiped. You're studying humans, not gods.
Given their track-record, I wonder if theologians are the best choice for studying God. Some of the stuff they produce has me worried that they know less than I do--- and I don't have any degrees in theology.
I choose to believe that there is no God of any kind, but since no one has ultimate knowledge of that, I am an agnostic atheist. You have no ultimate knowledge of God either (if you can be honest about that), so you are an agnostic theist.
You "choose to believe" that there's no God, I didn't '"choose to believe" that there is God.
I've concluded solely by means of reason that the world would be not possible without the existence of God with the characteristics generally attributed meaning omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and morally Good. As such,human reason can't simply have the ultimate knowledge of a being that has no limits or boundaries, and this is a perfectly logical, sound, rational conclusion. Therefore, I'm no agnostic.
For anthropology, ignoring the unique dimension of Man's nature, that puts him apart from all other forms of life, is no way of studying Man. Man is not a monkey that, by chance, got slightly more intelligent.
As for theology, people keeps on confusing theology with philosophy. Theology is totally dogmatic respecting things as the existence of God, what theology does is trying to understand his will, what God wants to express to man. I find it, at least, problematic and probably a boring thing to do.
It may indeed be impossible to study man properly without getting into religion simply because humans have been worshiping something ever since-----....
Let's just say that there are many subfields in anthropology with the primary focus remaining on Biological Anthropology and the evolution of humans and near-humans (apes, monkeys, as well as our fossil ancestors). Cultural Anthropology, on the other hand, focuses on such things as the social and political systems, family patterns, marriage patterns, economic patterns, and religious beliefs of different societies. Linguistics and Archaeology are other branches of anthropology, of course. Therefore, when it is all added up, it seems that the bulk of all anthropology can be done without touching on religion at all. :knight: :cheers:
I didn't '"choose to believe" that there is God.
And therein lies the problem.
You were told what to believe and you continue to regurgitate what you were told in the same old tired words without an iota of useable rational proof or evidence from anywhere. You speak of things that are limitless when limitless makes no sense and then you wrap that in the protective make-believe bubble of "we aren't capable". The fact of the matter is, the Bible says that man is quite connected to God, First Peter 1:16 says, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” It doesn't say less holy or not holy enough, therefore we should be capable of understanding God's divinity because divinity is within us too.
You will twist the Bible to your own liking here and we will get nowhere--once again. In the end I can respect your belief as I respect religion (in some ways), for what it has done for mankind. However, religion also does it share of harm as well. Among other things, I don't like that religion (including you Belfrager), makes a virtue out of faith..."Faith is a virtue" comes screeching from every pulpit. Being without faith is a virtue as well because it teaches independence and reliance on oneself for prosperity, problem solving and happiness in this world. You see, as science eats away at areas once held by religion, traditional religious beliefs require greater and greater mental defenses against science's threatening information. To remain in control, religion trains its followers to practice self-deception, shut out contradictory evidence, and trust religious authorities rather than their own capacity to think. Along this same line, religion teaches helplessness and believers wait for God to solve problems they could solve themselves.
Until recently, most people have believed that religion does more good than harm; providing social services, a source of good moral values, a comfort, and indeed, religion can be all of these. But 911 changed the landscape permanently. Moreover, people's childlike and unquestioning faith in faith has been shattered not only by the militant Islams, but by the ever ugly presence of the Christian Right. In the words of sociologist Phil Zuckerman, “Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity.” It seems when members of a society feel prosperous and secure the hold of religion weakens. Ultimately, perhaps, that will be our true salvation. :knight: :cheers:
The fact of the matter is, the Bible says
You aren't arguing with his own interpretations. He explained theologians for a reason. :right:
You aren't arguing with his own interpretations. He explained theologians for a reason.
Translation please. :rolleyes:
It's a your interpretation vs their's situation. Futile argument given his system of belief (Catholicism) . He's 'disconnected' from interpretations of a book he's probably never read.
Just trying to help.
You will twist the Bible to your own liking here and we will get nowhere--once again.
That's absolutely right, we will get nowhere but not because of me twisting the Bible or anything else.
We will get nowhere because you're frozen into a protestant/pseudo scientific cultural matrix. In other words, a protestant atheist trying to convince equal protestant cultural equals that they are wrong.
With me, you choose a wrong target.
You know, atheism comes in flavours - Catholic, Protestant even Muslim. It doesn't have enough inner structure to exist per itself.
One wonders how atheism fared during Greek and Roman times. A whole pantheon of gods and goddesses to claim non-existence of, just choose one-- any one, there's plenty to go around.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, some of the Caesars tried to claim that they were gods. Got the idea from the Egyptians, where every pharaoh that came along joined the pantheon of Egyptian gods and goddesses.
It must have been rough to be an atheist back then, when the reigning god could order your head lopped off while he watched.
If you're going to study human history for any length of time, you inevitably run into two things. Religion in all its forms, and wars. Men have been worshiping something since the beginning, and men have been going to war for one reason or another for nearly as long.
If you're going to study human history for any length of time, you inevitably run into two things. Religion in all its forms, and wars.
And sex.
If you're going to study human history for any length of time, you inevitably run into two things. Religion in all its forms, and wars.
And sex.
Men have worshiped and gone to war over sex. The Old Testament is full of gods and goddesses (Ashera poles were symbols of a female fertility goddess) and of course we can't forget Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships.
And let's not forget Angelina Jolie, the stone cold face that launched a thousand quips!
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/face-launched-1-000-quips-article-1.424765 (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/face-launched-1-000-quips-article-1.424765)
You know, atheism comes in flavours - Catholic, Protestant even Muslim.
Christianity alone comes in thousands of flavors, the absurdity of which comes out in this joke by Emo Phillips:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. :knight: :cheers:
Men have worshiped and gone to war over sex.
At least in going to war over sex, you are fighting for something real...not to mention crucial. :knight: :cheers:
Come the next Inquisition, sir, you are in serious trouble! :rip:
Come the next Inquisition, sir, you are in serious trouble!
Yes, even with religion 'might makes right'. The Catholic church alone has the power to end world hunger, but they would prefer to hold people's feet to the fire as is the case with Catholic hospitals http:// (http://denying care)denying care (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/12/02/alcu-woman-miscarried-denied-proper-care-at-catholic-hospital/)to miscarrying women. :knight: :cheers:
Yes, even with religion 'might makes right'. The Catholic church alone has the power to end world hunger
How might it do that?
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-01, 17:21:47 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=688.msg34361#msg34361)Yes, even with religion 'might makes right'. The Catholic church alone has the power to end world hunger
How might it do that?
Simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc :knight: :cheers:
One wonders how atheism fared during Greek and Roman times. A whole pantheon of gods and goddesses to claim non-existence of, just choose one-- any one, there's plenty to go around.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, some of the Caesars tried to claim that they were gods. Got the idea from the Egyptians, where every pharaoh that came along joined the pantheon of Egyptian gods and goddesses.
Pretty well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Presocratic_philosophy). While most Greeks were not express atheists, some were. Others may have been less than devout, so to speak.
Yes, even with religion 'might makes right'. The Catholic church alone has the power to end world hunger
How might it do that?
On a more serious note; the operating costs for one year for the Catholic Church runs about $170 billion and they take in considerably more than that, of course (by contrast, GE grosses about $70 billion/yr. and nets about $15 billion/yr.). Of the $170 billion, the church spends a paltry $4.7 billion in donations to charities or about 2.7%. One year of the Catholic church's operating costs would end hunger in the world for about 4 years. Seems a worthy cause that could add millions of followers and set a precedent for other religions as well--why don't they do it or at least a large part of it? :knight: :cheers:
Money doesn't fix everything.
You can't sum up the church's contribution so easily either. You're suggesting they can end world hunger with less money than the US annually contributes to the cause?
*Or the $70 billion figure you pulled out of your butt?
You're suggesting they can end world hunger with less money than the US annually contributes to the cause?
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html :knight: :cheers:
So a link from 2008 that's not independent from the ones making the claim proves what?
That you're gullible? If you wanna backup that ridiculous claim you'll need to do better.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-01, 17:21:47 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=688.msg34361#msg34361)Yes, even with religion 'might makes right'. The Catholic church alone has the power to end world hunger
How might it do that?
So your source is Sarah Silverman? Good grief! I wonder what she has to say on dark energy and dark matter. :jester:
Simple:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc[/video]
:knight: :cheers:
[/quote]
Apparently the ramblings of one idiot and the support of one old text is enough for him to believe.
Wait, what was his problem with religion again? :sherlock:
If you wanna backup that ridiculous claim you'll need to do better.
This is fairly comprehensive and recent: http://www.economist.com/node/21560536
And this is how they calculated the size of the Catholic Church in America:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/08/catholic-church-america :knight: :cheers:
So your source is Sarah Silverman? Good grief! I wonder what she has to say on dark energy and dark matter.
Idk, but I'm sure it would include references to her pussy. :knight: :cheers:
If you wanna backup that ridiculous claim you'll need to do better.
This is fairly comprehensive and recent: http://www.economist.com/node/21560536
And this is how they calculated the size of the Catholic Church in America:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/08/catholic-church-america :knight: :cheers:
Those don't support anything you've claimed. I assume you realize that and simply can't.
The value of the church is irrelevant. The consequences of it closing its doors are the issues. And over 12yrs in Afghanistan with an international force that's spent over a trillion dollars with no resolution for what should be an easier problem. No shortage of warlords looking to control resource distribution but you're sure we can solve this problem at bargain prices. Smh.
So your source is Sarah Silverman? Good grief! I wonder what she has to say on dark energy and dark matter.
Idk, but I'm sure it would include references to her pussy. :knight: :cheers:
:o :up:
But 911 changed the landscape permanently.
In what way? 911 was a trivial event but for the 3000 people who died, their friends and relatives and a shocked public. More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country, and more than 10,000 of them are homicides. Do these numbers shock and horrify like 911 did? Why not? Because the media take all of those deaths in stride because they trickle in on a local level.
911 was a trivial event but for the 3000 people who died, their friends and relatives and a shocked public.
That pretty much covers the whole world, Jimbro, so I don't see your point. If you are talking about folks in the Andromeda galaxy, then I'm sure it was trivial for them.
But are you too shortsighted to even see the practical impact? What about the psychological or economic impacts, not just here but around the globe? Life is not the same on planet earth since 9/11 and you call it a trivial event. Death in itself is not horrifying, more than 150,000 people die everyday, we slaughter more than 30,000 people a year with cars--you gonna give up driving in sanctimonious protest? Are you truly horrified by death--all death--(I don't think so), or is the manner or the reason why people die that is the horrifying part? Which is more horrifying for you, a death from an accident or the death of an innocent child slaughtered by terrorists? If you see them as equally trivial then you have lost your humanity. :knight: :cheers:
I think you do have a deep point there jimbro. It is all about presentation and tapping into immediate emotion with the media putting aside the wider for each local incident. This touches immediate emotion locally for them whilst the wider issue is shoved aside.
Want to try something different and help bring us back to the topic, jseaton2311?
What would you say was one of the most damaging 100 years of Christianity (or just religion)?
I'm going with this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century) Because of stuff like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas) But clearly there were some perks too.
I'm going with this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century) Because of stuff like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas)
Tennessee... the land of future... the best one hundred years of civilization... :zzz:
What would you say was one of the most damaging 100 years of Christianity (or just religion)?
Most of it was damaging, even deadly, throughout its course, but it has had its good points, especially early on. You see I am not an antitheist in that people should be free to believe what they will. However, when anything, take racism for example, becomes harmful and/or outrageous to a society, people need to take a stand--don't you think? Religion is harmful, damaging and outrageous in many respects that are plain to see today, so I take a stand. I don't take a stand as an atheist or because I am an atheist, I take a stand as a concerned member of planet Earth.
Faults in certain religions need to be quickly corrected by those religions (or sects of religions), or they should be abolished (as should racism), because of their harm (sometimes deadly), to society. Preventing the teaching of good science in schools is harmful in that it stifles education and the attainment and advancement of real world knowledge. Religions that deny followers the right to use contraceptives or have abortions is harmful to a society that has to carry the burden of unwanted and neglected children who grow up to live on social programs paid for by those who are productive in society. And any religion whose written and holy doctrine is to force itself on the whole of humanity is just plain offensive lunacy. These are but a few examples.
Religion should first do no harm; you don't need to be a genius to see the harm certain religious doctrine causes . Believe what you wish to believe, but just leave it at that and worship quietly amongst yourselves. I don't get carried away with atheism (any more), and I haven't ever preached it to anyone, not even my own children, one of whom is religious while the other two are not--all by their own choices. :knight: :cheers:
James, you might want to read this (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism)… :)
Tennessee... the land of future... the best one hundred years of civilization...
Actually all the Presidents from Tennessee were ruthless assholes. You'd probably like them.
James, you might want to read this (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism)… :)
I read it twice thank you for that article. My trifling thoughts are that as the population of scientists increases due to the many new sub-branches of science, one will not find just the unobtrusive nerdy guy in the back corner with his test tubes and Bunsen burner, as apparently the author Austin Hughes would prefer. Instead you will find every character of person that there is in the world, now delving into science. Hence, you will find the good, the bad and the ugly as you would in any other endeavor of man where there is money and possibly fame to be gained. Shocking news only to science idealists like Hughes.
Lines in the sand have been drawn for science not to cross by powerful and influential institutions before, but to no avail then or now. Envisage the world if science had bowed to the fervent entreatments of religion to not delve into areas presumed to be better left for religion to answer. Can you imagine how much knowledge, technology and over all improvement in life could have been lost? Now philosophy wishes to draw a line in the sand for science not to cross and it fights science with the eloquent, logical and convincing style born out of philosophy itself. It gives me pause for a moment or two, sure, but soon I dismiss it as simply a futile attempt at philosophy's own self-preservation. Just like religion, philosophy is not going away any time soon and perhaps never entirely away at all. But why would anyone ask science not to attempt to eclipse philosophy in the first place? What is philosophy afraid that science might find--philosophy's own folly perhaps?
If the intellectual expertise of Sam Harris in neuroscience intuits him to believe that science can ultimately answer questions of morality and ethics, why shouldn't he be able to conjecture on that--even pontificate on it for money if he wishes? Science often begins with musing and conjecture, it's not scientifically backed up yet, but so what? If you stop scientists from imagining out loud and bouncing things off others, what good are you doing--moreover, what harm could you be doing? Surely it would have been folly to imagine that the same person who witnessed a 12 second flight at Kitty Hawk could have also witnessed a man walking on the moon a short 65 years later. And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly? You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak. :knight: :cheers:
And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly?
What if it turns out that that the reason why we are on the verge of global war and destruction is scientists who keep inventing more effective weapons. Or is there perhaps some other reason, religion or philosophy? Nope, looks like scientific progress in the military area is the only reason.
You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak. :knight: :cheers:
I have a very good idea what they will discover: More of the same.
And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly?
What if it turns out that that the reason why we are on the verge of global war and destruction is scientists who keep inventing more effective weapons. Or is there perhaps some other reason, religion or philosophy? Nope, looks like scientific progress in the military area is the only reason.
Lol, so the caveman who invented the first club to bash in the brains of a neighboring tribe did it. Are you sure he was a scientist? Get serious.
You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak. :knight: :cheers:
I have a very good idea what they will discover: More of the same.
We can only hope so Ersi...we can only hope so. :knight: :cheers:
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.
Science is great at asking--- and answering-- whether we CAN do something. Religion and philosophy ask whether we SHOULD do it.
You can build a bigger monster, a more powerful bomb, mess with human DNA in an attempt to build a superior human. Science can do that. But, should you? What if the superior human builds a bigger monster to throw his more powerful bomb to wipe all us lesser men off the face of the planet? Science never asks that---- until after the fact.
it seems apocalyptic mind will bring to nowhere ..
and that is how insane people change the world
since Normal People are to Fear to Create something Radical
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.
No it doesn't. When they tried, it didn't work.
Science is great at asking--- and answering-- whether we CAN do something. Religion and philosophy ask whether we SHOULD do it.
And science will do it anyway.
You can build a bigger monster, a more powerful bomb, mess with human DNA in an attempt to build a superior human. Science can do that. But, should you? What if the superior human builds a bigger monster to throw his more powerful bomb to wipe all us lesser men off the face of the planet? Science never asks that---- until after the fact.
I'm sure this is a spoof and not a good one at that. :knight: :cheers:
Finding out that you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.......
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-zcl2bvGgA3s%2FTr1LNJ--LXI%2FAAAAAAAAAtQ%2FG6vbyLzQ2Uc%2Fs1600%2Fbrewster.jpg&hash=6571f5edf6ab69527b626d620d982f9d" rel="cached" data-hash="6571f5edf6ab69527b626d620d982f9d" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zcl2bvGgA3s/Tr1LNJ--LXI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/G6vbyLzQ2Uc/s1600/brewster.jpg)
Yes, you can do this--- but --- just don't. No need to explain.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3ghPy8KTgt4%2FTPJ1EiWLnJI%2FAAAAAAAABbk%2F0Xesg2hGLkQ%2Fs1600%2Fthanksgiving%2B2010%2B13.jpg&hash=4399d811adf8694924d15a777046ad2c" rel="cached" data-hash="4399d811adf8694924d15a777046ad2c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3ghPy8KTgt4/TPJ1EiWLnJI/AAAAAAAABbk/0Xesg2hGLkQ/s1600/thanksgiving+2010+13.jpg)
Science do not need anything , because it is a Dead Matter .
while Human ..
For somehow, Need Consciousness to develop Science .
No Conscious mind , No Science .
Vice versa
Religions , in my perspective is something like Social-Political vehicle .
it is good at populate the People .
no People , no Taxes .
no taxes , No Experiments .
especially experiments that Founded by the Governments .
I don't know what science has to do with History except if DnD has turned a Marxist refuge...
On the other hand, post modernism as the end of history doesn't convince me.
On the other hand, post modernism as the end of history doesn't convince me.
What will follow postmodernism? Neoantique?
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.
Why's that? It might discover something that offends people that take a book written by people barely out of the stoneage more literally than they took it themselves? Oh right, you mentioned building a superhuman and other monstrosities. There's no reason to assume that the atheist scientist lacks because shed primitive superstitions. Now look at what religious ethics have brought us. Yes, it has happened people of limited cognitive and moral development do the right thing. Look up Kohlberg's stages for moral development for more explanation.
However, the religious excuse for ethics has brought us "witch" burnings, the Inquisitions, people fleeing to the New World for religious freedom only to establish a dictatorship that went so far as to execute Native Americans for holding weddings according to their own customs and traditions, Cromwell invading Ireland resulting in half the Irish dead. That's just the beginning of atrocities committed in the name of religious ethics and concerning only one religion. In modern times, still only dealing with Christianity, jseaton2311 already mentioned religious prohibition against abortion and the added strain to social services. Yet, many of the ones against abortion also managed to be against contraception. Condoms, of course, also serve to reduce the spread of STDs A widespread folly among religious people is to assume that religion (their religion in particular) somehow has a monopoly on morals and ethics.
But why would anyone ask science not to attempt to eclipse philosophy in the first place? What is philosophy afraid that science might find--philosophy's own folly perhaps?
Perhaps philosophy and religion can incorporate new insights and discoveries by science? If not, they seem doomed to intellectual death and rehashing the same tired ideas in evermore eloquent ways.
Or in sometimes less eloquent. In the Myr thread, I briefly criticized this (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism) for inaccuracies. I had to keep my critique short as to not waste hours shredding it. Then it occurred to me that articles like that are deliberately long and convoluted for several reasons: to confuse the reader into accepting the author's opinion, to impress readers with sheer number of arguments (the accuracy of them not withstanding), the common knowledge that most people will only read the top and possibly conclusion of any given lengthy article and assume the middle is correct, and other reasons. In other words, I suspect that some of the philosophers are becoming less eloquently deliberately. I say this knowing how counter-intuitive it might seem. Think of it this way, it's actually easier poke holes in Aquinas' "Five Proofs" than it is to do so with an article like Hughes' because Aquinas wrote his ideas clearly and concisely without deliberately misrepresenting mainstream scientific opinion and bloating it with gibberish.
Yes, you can do this--- but --- just don't. No need to explain.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3ghPy8KTgt4%2FTPJ1EiWLnJI%2FAAAAAAAABbk%2F0Xesg2hGLkQ%2Fs1600%2Fthanksgiving%2B2010%2B13.jpg&hash=4399d811adf8694924d15a777046ad2c" rel="cached" data-hash="4399d811adf8694924d15a777046ad2c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3ghPy8KTgt4/TPJ1EiWLnJI/AAAAAAAABbk/0Xesg2hGLkQ/s1600/thanksgiving+2010+13.jpg)
Looks like a bear's foot. Do you trust tofu? Or vegans? Spock didn't, and he traveled to distant Vega.
Looks like a bear's foot. Do you trust tofu? Or vegans? Spock didn't, and he traveled to distant Vega.
Do you mean this Spock? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock
I don't know about a Bear's foot although it looks like a Bear's something.
Strange how a vegetarian would want to even pretend that they might be eating a cuddly little turkey with "meaty" gravy.
Vegetarianism is usually a diet, while veganism is a lifestyle, some would say "religion."
Do you mean this Spock?
Wrong Spock!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.startrek.com%2Flegacy_media%2Fimages%2F200307%2Fspock01%2F320x240.jpg&hash=7660c02f0386c12c59aab9bcd575285e" rel="cached" data-hash="7660c02f0386c12c59aab9bcd575285e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media/images/200307/spock01/320x240.jpg)
On the other hand, post modernism as the end of history doesn't convince me.
What will follow postmodernism? Neoantique?
Some kind of Terror that we can't even imagine the details. Robespierre will be laughing.