User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Are religions, our tribes within tribes, now redundant and a costly moral and financi

  1. #21
    Points: 87,755, Level: 72
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,995
    Overall activity: 37.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    169864
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,261
    Points
    87,755
    Level
    72
    Thanks Given
    19,714
    Thanked 22,500x in 13,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Superstitious is so broad as to be meaningless. Ancient religion centered around family. See especially Prof Numa Denis Denis Fustel De Coulanges' The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome, or see chapter 1 of Larry Siedentop's Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.

    When "Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Tylor framed cultural evolution into three stages" what did they say about the three main components of evolution: mutation, selection, and replication? If nothing--and I suspect these writers in the 1800s said nothing--then it's not evolution. What evidence did they cite? Any? As I said, people tend to abuse the word 'evolution' to imply progress. Morgan's great work: Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. Evolution is not progressive. And naturally "That Ancient Society came to be regarded by Marxists as a classic was largely the result of the importance that Marx and Engels attached to it, because Morgan’s own social allegiance was to the industrial and commercial middle class and its achievements." Lewis Henry Morgan

    That's your single source?
    Superstition is certainly a broad term, but it's still the predecessor of religion.

    I don't care if we don't use the term, "evolution." We still have to recognize than man far predates religion.

    Ancient Greece and Rome are still too recent to be examples. Man has been around much longer.

    Cultures could not develop religions before they developed languages. So, we know language predates religion. Crude superstitions on the other hand didn't require advanced linguistic skills, so that's logically where the first laws came from. I agree they likely centered first on families.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  2. #22
    Points: 600,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    422281
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    182,594
    Points
    600,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    26,416
    Thanked 69,856x in 48,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    1943 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Superstition is certainly a broad term, but it's still the predecessor of religion.

    I don't care if we don't use the term, "evolution." We still have to recognize than man far predates religion.

    Ancient Greece and Rome are still too recent to be examples. Man has been around much longer.

    Cultures could not develop religions before they developed languages. So, we know language predates religion. Crude superstitions on the other hand didn't require advanced linguistic skills, so that's logically where the first laws came from. I agree they likely centered first on families.

    All that based on the unscientific (non-empirical) theory of a progressive pair from the 1800s?

    Religion predates ancient Rome and Greece. Where in ancient history do you not find religion as an organic part of life?

    As I said, ancient religion centered around family, anscestor worship we now call it. Controversially, "intentional burial of early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals as early as 300,000 years ago is proof that religious ideas already existed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion
    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

  3. #23
    Points: 87,755, Level: 72
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,995
    Overall activity: 37.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    169864
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,261
    Points
    87,755
    Level
    72
    Thanks Given
    19,714
    Thanked 22,500x in 13,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    All that based on the unscientific (non-empirical) theory of a progressive pair from the 1800s?

    Religion predates ancient Rome and Greece. Where in ancient history do you not find religion as an organic part of life?

    As I said, ancient religion centered around family, anscestor worship we now call it. Controversially, "intentional burial of early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals as early as 300,000 years ago is proof that religious ideas already existed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion
    As your source says, those ideas are "entirely conjectural."

    Burial of the deceased could just as easily be the result of not wanting to see/smell decomposing corpses.

    There is no logical evidence to suggest humans were able to create complex religious ideas until they first developed linguistic skills.

    You've put the cart before the horse.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  4. #24
    Points: 600,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    422281
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    182,594
    Points
    600,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    26,416
    Thanked 69,856x in 48,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    1943 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    As your source says, those ideas are "entirely conjectural."

    Burial of the deceased could just as easily be the result of not wanting to see/smell decomposing corpses.

    There is no logical evidence to suggest humans were able to create complex religious ideas until they first developed linguistic skills.

    You've put the cart before the horse.

    Controversial, conjectural, all the same, lacking empirical, scientific evidence. Can't be argued.

    Decaying corpses could then much easier be carried off to a distance and left to rot. No, they were buried connecting generations in a family.

    I'm talking about ancient, pagan religions that were not complex. Burial became a ritual simply by watching. Ditto religious beliefs about seasons. Language later gave rise to religious stories.
    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

  5. #25
    Points: 87,755, Level: 72
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,995
    Overall activity: 37.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    169864
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,261
    Points
    87,755
    Level
    72
    Thanks Given
    19,714
    Thanked 22,500x in 13,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Controversial, conjectural, all the same, lacking empirical, scientific evidence. Can't be argued.

    Decaying corpses could then much easier be carried off to a distance and left to rot. No, they were buried connecting generations in a family.

    I'm talking about ancient, pagan religions that were not complex. Burial became a ritual simply by watching. Ditto religious beliefs about seasons. Language later gave rise to religious stories.

    Still, there is no real evidence for it. Superstitionism, sure, but even pagan religions had a degree of complexity. They came later.

    The earliest religion we know of is Hinduism. After that, Zoroastrianism, on which Christianity was likely based.

    But, man preceded all of these.

    How do you propose ancient civilisations created religions before they could even communicate verbally?
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  6. #26
    Points: 600,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    422281
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    182,594
    Points
    600,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    26,416
    Thanked 69,856x in 48,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    1943 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Still, there is no real evidence for it. Superstitionism, sure, but even pagan religions had a degree of complexity. They came later.

    The earliest religion we know of is Hinduism. After that, Zoroastrianism, on which Christianity was likely based.

    But, man preceded all of these.

    How do you propose ancient civilisations created religions before they could even communicate verbally?

    Your confusing religions with religion. When I say early religion centered around the family, ancestor worship, and the like, I'm not talking about a named, organized religion. I'm talking about religion that predates civilization. In the Timeline of religion you have to scroll 100s of 1000s of years before you get to religions like Zoroastrianism.
    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

  7. #27
    Points: 87,755, Level: 72
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,995
    Overall activity: 37.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    169864
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,261
    Points
    87,755
    Level
    72
    Thanks Given
    19,714
    Thanked 22,500x in 13,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Your confusing religions with religion. When I say early religion centered around the family, ancestor worship, and the like, I'm not talking about a named, organized religion. I'm talking about religion that predates civilization.
    Religion doesn't predate civilization.

    Religion is a by-product of civilization.



    In the Timeline of religion you have to scroll 100s of 1000s of years before you get to religions like Zoroastrianism.
    All of those are based on supposition as the link indicates. In addition, that specific wiki page is noted at the very top for not including vital citation.

    Again, the author of that page is trying to link burial with religion when there's no clear indication that's what was happening.

    Why is the author linking burial with religion? Why do a handful of others link burial with religion? That idea is disputed as your former link indicated.

    The first real evidence of religion starts with Hinduism.

    I'm not confused at all about what religion is but I think you are. I think you're confusing superstitionism with religion. I think you're looking for signs that religion occurred before we know it actually did. That's okay in a sense because religion grew from superstitions after all.

    But one thing is very clear -- laws and morals predate religion. By a long, long time.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  8. #28
    Points: 600,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    422281
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    182,594
    Points
    600,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    26,416
    Thanked 69,856x in 48,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    1943 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Religion doesn't predate civilization.

    Religion is a by-product of civilization.




    All of those are based on supposition as the link indicates. In addition, that specific wiki page is noted at the very top for not including vital citation.

    Again, the author of that page is trying to link burial with religion when there's no clear indication that's what was happening.

    Why is the author linking burial with religion? Why do a handful of others link burial with religion? That idea is disputed as your former link indicated.

    The first real evidence of religion starts with Hinduism.

    I'm not confused at all about what religion is but I think you are. I think you're confusing superstitionism with religion. I think you're looking for signs that religion occurred before we know it actually did. That's okay in a sense because religion grew from superstitions after all.

    But one thing is very clear -- laws and morals predate religion. By a long, long time.

    Religion doesn't predate civilization.

    Religion is a by-product of civilization.
    Really, where do you come up with these fantasies? The same two progressives of the 1800s admired by Marx, lol?



    Burials are part of ancestor worship.



    "The first real evidence of religion starts with Hinduism." IOW, you're not talking about primitive, ancient religion like I am, but modern, organized religions. You should make that clear when you make these pronouncements. That you only consider religion as represented by modern, organized religions, and that you reject or define away any prior religion.

    And where does Hinduism show up in the timeline of religion:

    Religious practices in prehistory
    Middle Paleolithic (200,000–50,000 BC)
    Despite claims by some researchers of bear worship, belief in an afterlife, and other rituals, current archaeological evidence does not support the presence of religious practices by modern humans or Neanderthals during this period.[2]

    100,000 BC: Earliest known human burial in the Middle East.
    78,000–74,000 BC: Earliest known Homo Sapiens burial of a child in Panga ya Saidi, East Africa.
    70,000–35,000 BC: Neanderthal burials take place in areas of Europe and the Middle East.[3]
    50th to 11th millennium BC
    40,000 BC: The remains of one of the earliest known anatomically modern humans to be discovered cremated, was buried near Lake Mungo.[4][5][6][7][8]
    38,000 BC: The Aurignacian[9] Löwenmensch figurine, the oldest known zoomorphic (animal-shaped) sculpture in the world and one of the oldest known sculptures in general, was made. The sculpture has also been interpreted as anthropomorphic, giving human characteristics to an animal, although it may have represented a deity.[10]
    35,000–26,001 BC: Neanderthal burials are absent from the archaeological record. This roughly coincides with the appearance of Homo sapiens in Europe and decline of the Neanderthals;[3] individual skulls and/or long bones began appearing, heavily stained with red ochre and separately buried. This practice may be the origin of sacred relics.[3] The oldest discovered "Venus figurines" appeared in graves. Some were deliberately broken or repeatedly stabbed, possibly representing the murders of the men with whom they were buried,[3] or owing to some other unknown social dynamic.[citation needed]
    25,000–21,000 BC: Clear examples of burials are present in Iberia, Wales, and eastern Europe. These, too, incorporate the heavy use of red ochre. Additionally, various objects were included in the graves (e.g. periwinkle shells, weighted clothing, dolls, possible drumsticks, mammoth ivory beads, fox teeth pendants, panoply of ivory artifacts, "baton" antlers, flint blades etc.).[3]
    13,000–8,000 BC: Noticeable burial activity resumed. Prior mortuary activity had either taken a less obvious form or contemporaries retained some of their burial knowledge in the absence of such activity. Dozens of men, women, and children were being buried in the same caves which were used for burials 10,000 years beforehand. All these graves are delineated by the cave walls and large limestone blocks. The burials share a number of characteristics (such as use of ochre, and shell and mammoth ivory jewellery) that go back thousands of years. Some burials were double, comprising an adult male with a juvenile male buried by his side. They were now beginning to take on the form of modern cemeteries. Old burials were commonly re-dug and moved to make way for new ones, with the older bones often being gathered and cached together. Large stones may have acted as grave markers. Pairs of ochred antlers were sometimes mounted on poles within the cave; this is compared to the modern practice of leaving flowers at a grave.[3]
    10th to 6th millennium BC
    9130–7370 BC: This was the apparent period of use of Göbekli Tepe, one of the oldest human-made sites of worship yet discovered; evidence of similar usage has also been found in another nearby site, Nevalı Çori.[11]
    7500–5700 BC: The settlements of Çatalhöyük developed as a likely spiritual center of Anatolia. Possibly practicing worship in communal shrines, its inhabitants left behind numerous clay figurines and impressions of phallic, feminine, and hunting scenes.[citation needed]
    7250-6500 BC: The ʿAin Ghazal statues were made in Jordan during the Neolithic.[12] These statues were argued to have been gods, legendary leaders, or other figures of power. They were suggested to have been a representation of a fusion of previously separate communities by Gary O. Rollefson.[13]
    Ancient era

    Extent and major sites of the Indus Valley civilization. The shaded area does not include recent excavations.
    3200–3100 BC: Newgrange, the 250,000 short tons (230,000 t) passage tomb aligned to the winter solstice in Ireland, was built.[14]
    3100 BC: The initial form of Stonehenge was completed. The circular bank and ditch enclosure, about 110 metres (360 ft) across, may have been completed with a timber circle.
    3000 BC: Sumerian Cuneiform emerged from the proto-literate Uruk period, allowing the codification of beliefs and creation of detailed historical religious records.
    The second phase of Stonehenge was completed and appeared to function as the first enclosed cremation cemetery in the British Isles.
    2635–2610 BC: The oldest surviving Egyptian pyramid was commissioned by Pharaoh Djoser.
    2600 BC: Stonehenge began to take on its final form. The wooden posts were replaced with bluestone. It began taking on an increasingly complex setup (including an altar, a portal, station stones, etc.) and shows consideration of solar alignments.
    2560 BC: This is the approximate time accepted as the completion of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the oldest pyramid of the Giza Plateau.
    2494–2345 BC: The first of the oldest surviving religious texts, the Pyramid Texts, was composed in Ancient Egypt.
    2200 BC: The Minoan civilization developed in Crete. Citizens worshipped a variety of goddesses.
    2150–2000 BC: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh—originally titled He who Saw the Deep (Sha naqba īmuru) or Surpassing All Other Kings (Shūtur eli sharrī)—were written.
    1700–1100 BC: The oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rigveda was composed. This is the first mention of Rudra, a fearsome form of Shiva as the supreme god.
    1600 BC: The ancient development of Stonehenge came to an end.
    1500 BC: The Vedic period began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley civilisation.
    1351 or 1353 BC: The reign of Akhenaten, sometimes credited with starting the earliest known recorded monotheistic religion, in Ancient Egypt.[citation needed]
    1300–1000 BC: The "standard" Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was edited by Sîn-lēqi-unninni.
    800–300 BC: The Upanishads (Vedic texts) were composed, containing the earliest emergence of some of the central religious concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism.
    ...
    All that comes before it you simply dismiss.


    "laws and morals predate religion" -- again, where do you come up with these gems. Oh, right, two progressives of the 1800s admired by Marx. That's called confirmation bias.
    Last edited by Chris; 09-25-2022 at 07:58 PM.
    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

  9. #29
    Points: 87,755, Level: 72
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 1,995
    Overall activity: 37.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    169864
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,261
    Points
    87,755
    Level
    72
    Thanks Given
    19,714
    Thanked 22,500x in 13,368 Posts
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Really, where do you come up with these fantasies? The same two progressives of the 1800s admired by Marx, lol?
    Burials are part of ancestor worship.
    You're buying into magical thinking now. But, even if they were--it would only indicate early man created laws and morals.

    Bodies decay. Even early humans would quickly figure that out.

    Your own first link explained they were not proof of religion.

    "The first real evidence of religion starts with Hinduism." IOW, you're not talking about primitive, ancient religion like I am, but modern, organized religions. You should make that clear when you make these pronouncements. That you only consider religion as represented by modern, organized religions, and that you reject or define away any prior religion.
    You want us to believe that early humans were not bright enough to create laws for their families and groups--yet they were able to create religious beliefs.

    What you fail to understand is that by the time any culture could create a religion, it was already creating laws.

    And where does Hinduism show up in the timeline of religion:
    Hinduism is the world's oldest religion.

    All that comes before it you simply dismiss.
    I don't dismiss it, Chris. You've backed yourself in a proverbial corner--one in which you had to create a new definition of religion to bolster your revisionist anthropology.
    I've said numerous times that early man was superstitious. Now, you're saying the same thing -- only you've created a distinction without a difference by calling that superstition a religion. I suggest you look up the various definitions of religion. You'll find you're wrong.
    "laws and morals predate religion" -- again, where do you come up with these gems. Oh, right, two progressives of the 1800s admired by Marx. That's called confirmation bias.
    Your position is that laws and morals stem from religion. I've shown the opposite to be true.

    There's only ONE way in which your fantastical scenario could take place--and that's if an all-powerful creator created humans and gave them laws at the same time. That's it. Finite. Nothing else. Yet, you claim to be atheist, so you can't use that argument. Others here could use it. You can't. Unless you're prepared to tell us you've been lying to us and you're really a believer. LOL

    Humans--left to themselves--create basic laws and moral codes. Those laws and morals not only precede religion, they are the basis for religion.

    Here's the main question, Chris--if humans did not create laws and morals, who did? Riddle me that.
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  10. #30
    Points: 600,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 73.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    422281
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    182,594
    Points
    600,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    26,416
    Thanked 69,856x in 48,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    1943 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    You're buying into magical thinking now. But, even if they were--it would only indicate early man created laws and morals.

    Bodies decay. Even early humans would quickly figure that out.

    Your own first link explained they were not proof of religion.



    You want us to believe that early humans were not bright enough to create laws for their families and groups--yet they were able to create religious beliefs.

    What you fail to understand is that by the time any culture could create a religion, it was already creating laws.



    Hinduism is the world's oldest religion.



    I don't dismiss it, Chris. You've backed yourself in a proverbial corner--one in which you had to create a new definition of religion to bolster your revisionist anthropology.
    I've said numerous times that early man was superstitious. Now, you're saying the same thing -- only you've created a distinction without a difference by calling that superstition a religion. I suggest you look up the various definitions of religion. You'll find you're wrong.


    Your position is that laws and morals stem from religion. I've shown the opposite to be true.

    There's only ONE way in which your fantastical scenario could take place--and that's if an all-powerful creator created humans and gave them laws at the same time. That's it. Finite. Nothing else. Yet, you claim to be atheist, so you can't use that argument. Others here could use it. You can't. Unless you're prepared to tell us you've been lying to us and you're really a believer. LOL

    Humans--left to themselves--create basic laws and moral codes. Those laws and morals not only precede religion, they are the basis for religion.

    Here's the main question, Chris--if humans did not create laws and morals, who did? Riddle me that.

    This is a pointless discussion. You have declared man created laws and morality and civilization and all else and then tagged on religion. You've declared any and all evidence of prior religion not religion. You've demonstrated nothing except an unwillingness to accept evidence religion came first. Your entire argument is based on special definitions.

    I think I see the problem. You seem to think and resist any claims about religion because to you they imply a creator God--"There's only ONE way in which your fantastical scenario could take place--and that's if an all-powerful creator created humans and gave them laws at the same time." Yet, not once in this discussion have I even mentioned God. Ancestral worship, religion centered on the family, the earliest evidence being burial sites imply nothing at all about a creator God, only the origin of religion.

    Anyway, this is pointless. Arguing with your prejudices and fears leads nowhere.
    Last edited by Chris; 09-26-2022 at 08:36 AM.
    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ― Michael Joseph Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts