You Are an Ape

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChiCowboy, Sep 9, 2021.

  1. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah but if they all evolved then they'd all be baked in the same evolutionary process. It seems counter intuitive to invent God, especially the God of creation along with an elaborate fleshed out backstory by a species who just spent eons evolving.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2021
  2. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    41,751
    Likes Received:
    14,095
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do you mean, baked in the same evolutionary process? To clarify, religion has evolved as a set of ideas and way of thinking, as all manner of beliefs and ideas evolve over the generations.
     
    ChiCowboy and Cosmo like this.
  3. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Picking on those poor apes. tsk tsk
     
  4. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    Likes Received:
    1,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only the ones that can't tell right from wrong.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only that, consider how many religions have the following belief.

    Two of the Creator Gods are Brothers. One is generally seen as "evil", either a Trickster God, or working in direct opposition to the other. Yet, when faced by outsiders they will work together.

    This is commonly known from Norse mythology. Thor and Loki. But also Egyptian with Set and Osiris. African paganism calls them Nyame and Ananse. In fact, almost all North American Indian tribes have Wolf and Coyote.

    Odds are, these all come from a common belief that probably all of those that migrated out of Africa had, but changed over the millennia as people migrated to other areas, and the teller of tales modified them to fit their surroundings. The Abrahamic is actually slightly unusual, in that they stem from originally two deities, then only a single one. And bits of that older lore can be seen in the "pre-history" of Genesis. Where instead of sometimes fighting gods, it continued on as Cain and Abel. Both humans, but son of the First Man.

    And yes, originally the Abrahamic Religion had two gods. The one we know today, and Asherah. Until the Exile (around 1,000 to 500 BCE), Yahweh and Asherah were pretty much worshiped equally, but the Hebrew religion changed during the Babylonian Exile, when the old folklore was largely written down and codified for the first time. During that time she was changed in the texts to Ba'al and worship of her forbidden. Figures, carvings, and drawings of her are found littered throughout pre-Exile archaeological sites, and some fragments still exist in the Bible.

    .
    Jeremiah 7:16-18

    Jeremiah 44:17–19

    Jeremiah 44:25

    In fact, this is one of the oldest books of the Hebrew Bible, originally written in around 625 BCE, a century before the Exile. But when they edited it, they did not remove all references to Asherah. Using her "formal title" of "Queen of Heaven", akin to "King of Heaven" of Yahweh.
     
    WillReadmore, Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, most believe that there is no longer life on Mars. At least on the surface. Short of some deep inside the crust in caves, not unlike the anaerobic and hypoxic life that can be found on Earth in deep caves or deep under the oceans..

    That is simply because the core died about 4 billion years ago, and the protective magnetic field like the Earth has went away. Allowing the surface to dry out, the atmosphere to be scoured away, and radiation rise to where nothing could survive on it today. But it is possible if we could ever explore below the surface, we might find life that still lives in the hypoxic and anoxic zones. Just like on Earth, where some actually do not "breathe" oxygen, but hydrogen sulfide. And essentially live in what to all other creatures on the planet is acid.

    Safe, and locked in time from when they were cut off from the surface, and the changes that made it impossible for any life to survive on the surface.

     
    sdelsolray, Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No more than they could comprehend electricity or anything beyond the most simple chemical reactions.

    But this is the Science thread. If you want to talk religion, please feel free to move to the Religion area. This is not it.
     
  8. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science, yes. Atheism, no. If humans spent five million years evolving, then why did they essentially turn right around and say that there is a God who created them? That'd be kinda like swimming around the circumference of the entire earth, crawling up on shore and declaring that a ship transported you. Who commits such a feat and has not the tiniest recollection? Does one sail around the earths circumference, reach port and declare to the townsfolk that it was quite a swim? Such talk isn't science. It's Atheism, cherry picking data to fit a bold narrative in spite of their forebears declarations to the contrary which remain the same since inception. To say they knew nothing and made up a fable is an Atheistic point of view, not scientific. And to prod science for reason is to keep it honest, current, wholesome and useful as a servant. Not to lift it up like a God to which we incline in obeisance and contort reason. Scientists and researchers are as prone to bias and manipulation as any religious zealot, seeking and finding what they seek and drawing up conclusions in neat bundles. But if something doesn't make sense to me, then I reject it. Even if it is to my damnation to utter darkness, then so be it. I will judge for myself.
     
  9. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bad Bobo.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,018
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting that there is a creation story the includes humans being around to witness and remember creation?

    We DO have evolution stories. They mostly involve animal and plant husbandry where humans get to control the process by being the agent of selection.

    Human evolution would probably be more rapid and noticeable if we were to control which of us are allowed to live and breed based on some consistent set of criteria.
     
    Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,018
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gods were created for various reasons by people who had far too little knowledge of evolution to suspect that humans evolved.

    Yes, scientists are humans.

    But, that is a principle concern of how modern science is designed - scientific process. The steps involved are designed to rigorously eliminate false ideas and the wishes/hopes of individuals.

    Religion has nothing like that. Thus, there are literally thousands of religions and no way to resolve which have any validity at all.
     
    Cosmo and Injeun like this.
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a religious question, not a science one. So please post it over there.

    Sounds more like you are asking about psychology, which is something else.

    Or maybe just flailing in the dark at anything you can grasp. But you are doing it badly, and utterly failing.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mine is a handshake with ancient civilizations. Yours is a one sided fellowship with bones. That is the science of reality.
     
    mswan likes this.
  14. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    46,398
    Likes Received:
    13,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correction .. 'morals' can be seen in all social mammals.

    Morals are what we call survival tactics :)
     
    Cosmo and ChiCowboy like this.
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it is not. It is demanding that all follow your Fundamentalist beliefs.

    Look, I really do not care what you believe. Follow God, Jehovah, Allah, the FSM, I really could not care less.

    But you are trying to deny science based upon your personal religious beliefs, which is not a valid argument in a debate based upon science. No more than somebody who is an atheist has a reason to go into a re ligious debate and start screaming to all that "There is no God, and you are all idiots for believing in one!".

    I would scream that such a person is a rude twit, just as you are being in here. But here is the difference, I call all rude twits out equally, no matter what side of an issue they are on.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    22,931
    Likes Received:
    14,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. I was thinking along those lines.

    Other hominids are so much like us, that morals are easy to spot. In 1976, Jane Goodall witnessed violence between competing chimp tribes, among females, with the prize being a baby, which was consumed.

    Morals came in when a member of the tribe that lost the infant is filmed doing what looks like pleading with Goodall to intervene. We can't know what the chimp was thinking, but the behavior is comparable to a child attempting to gain an adult's attention and protection - basically, vocalization and pointing.

    A fascinating rescue organization (and TV show), Orangutan Jungle School rescues orphan orangs, raises them, then releases them in a reserve. The similarity to humans is undeniable, especially when the comparative ages are in the infant range. These little orangs act like little humans. Their behavior is shockingly similar.

    Mother orangs cradle and kiss their infant offspring. The maternal instinct itself among mammals is a type of morality.

    Orangutan Jungle School – Meet the Babies Awaiting your Help

    Yes, morality can be explained by evolution.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2021
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  17. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    22,931
    Likes Received:
    14,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isis and Horus on the left. Mary and Jesus on the right.

    [​IMG]
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually Atheists do that. Sometimes they start topics mocking God and religion. It doesn't bother me. So the OP stating that my Mother is an ape, and going about stating rationale to that end is not being a "rude twit"? Everything on earth, including man, is of the earth. But man has dominion. Man has conscience to see and know right from wrong, and the free agency to choose to abide within what is right or to do wrong. Our nation, our government and entire system of justice is based on that. Nothing else in all of creation has conscience and choice. Everything in nature but man is dutybound to the laws which govern it. The sun abides the law, the earth abides the law, the solar system abides the law, all animal and plant life functions to the law of its natural design. Regardless fluctuations, no change in any part of nature is due to its acknowledgment or choice between right and wrong. If science were honest, it would conclude that man is an aberration, not an ape. This is all self evident today. It is also in alignment, more or less, with the seven thousand year old Judeo/Christian story of creation. But evolution ignores what is right in front of us today, it ignores the seven thousand year old belief of our earliest forefathers, and goes back millions of years studying and testing fossils and bones of long dead things, effectively undercutting life and all that is, sort of like dealing from the bottom of the deck, a pat hand, dismissing reality, God, and the written and oral history of man in deference to fossils, bones and the supposed findings of a pattern of scientific testing. So the hand shows there is no God and man is an ape. Behold, the bars of your prison wherein there is no light and no accountability, no right or wrong or place for reformation, no humanity. It is to make of man a psychopath, approximating trust in the hiding of fangs. Sorry but no. I had rather be what your theory mocks and discards than what it would have me be, caged.
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42,018
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to point out that understanding the history of our universe certainly does NOT undercut the existence of a god such as the god of the Bible. It is well known that science can not dispute the existence of a god for very serious reasons of science - that is, regardless of any religious argument. (I know people try to do that, but they just don't understand science, unfortunately.)

    I would point out that a god of the characteristics of the Bible could set up a universe where humans would evolve - where the quality of the universe was such that humans were inevitable. So, even if one ignores all the possibility of a god actively intervening in nature, one can't prove that god didn't do what we see around us.

    As for Genesis, humans were not around to witness how humans happened. And, I would argue that Genesis can be seen as MORE meaningful by seeing it as an allegory that as scientific detail. God had more important things to say that scientific detail. Organized Christian religions today draw allegorical meaning from what is written in Genesis concerning the Garden of Eden, for example. In that context, what is written of Eden is MORE important and insightful than is a literal translation.

    As an atheist, I would encourage you NOT to limit the power and capabilities of the God of the Bible so easily.
     
    Injeun likes this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is wrong. But then you go ahead and do the same thing in posts that have nothing to do with religion, so what does that make you?

    You do not believe in it, fine. So simply move on, as your going on and on only makes an ass out of yourself.

    And FYI, most religious leaders in every major religion has stated there is nothing in opposition between their faith and evolution. In fact, that is the very basis behind the concept of "Creative Design", "Theistic Evolution", or whatever other term you want to make. Only the most dogmatic anymore reject all forms of evolution.
     
  21. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not to worry. I've said all I need to say on this topic.
     
  22. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    9,382
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I will ponder it.
     
  23. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,966
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting post, but you seem to be conflating two different religious phenomena: Duality (opposing "righteous," & "evil," deities), and Sacred Pairs/Unions, i.e., a God-Goddess couple, representing both the masculine & feminine aspects of the Divine (instead of God being Hermaphroditic). I think-- though it sounds like you have done more research than I-- that Asherah was not Created by Hebrews, as was Yahweh. That is just one of numerous names for the goddess Ashtaroth/Ashtoreth. The reason Asherah was later depicted as evil, then, had merely to do with demonizing a deity which had been rejected, Yahweh's Consort, in favor of having a single, Patriarchal Deity.

    A noteworthy side-note is that another name for Yahweh, "Elohim," combines a root word of one gender (Elo-/Eloh-) and a suffix that is not only of the other gender, but is plural.




    P.S -- The controversies between brothers, in Judaism, are not limited to Cain & Abel. I have read it speculated that the Esau & Jacob story, descends from some splitting/power struggle between different (Hebrew) Tribes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    10,162
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But the thing is, the Hebrew faith is as is most other ancient pagan faiths based on very ancient myths, from an era long before pre-history. When all of their beliefs were passed along orally between generations.

    And what is interesting about the Bible is it is the oldest such work in a complete form. And it shows all the hallmarks of the fact that it was even more ancient, and was part of an oral tradition long before it was ever written down. Simply look how often in the text things happened in periods of time of 7 and 40. It may be days, it may be years. But those two numbers pop up over and over and over again. Especially if it is involving a period of time considered to be "sufficient". 40 days or years in the wilderness, 7 days to wait for an event or to create the world. These are oral tradition shortcuts, and the earliest passages of the Bible are littered with them.

    And this is also in keeping in that the Hebrews for thousand of years were primarily nomads. And much of the Bible was their folklore even before Jerusalem was founded in 3000 BCE. The Bible itself is an interesting amalgamation, as the Jews view it primarily as a "History Book", unlike the Christians who view it more as a Religious Book. And it was really only put down into the form we know now in around 500 BCE. But the oldest passages date to around 1500 BCE. They themselves lifted long segments of it directly from the Babylonians while in exile with them.

    And the largest change in the Hebrew beliefs during the exile are the abandoning of the Female deity in exchange for only a single one, and at around the same time the rejection of all other gods (which also was not a part of the original belief, which can be seen in the Bible). And that is likely in response to the effects of the Exodus, strangely at the same time they likely adopted many of the Babylonian beliefs into their beliefs.

    I am aware of things like dual deities, but the question to ask yourself is why this pops up over and over in religions based thousands of miles and even continents apart. A common belief is that these date to an even older mythology, one that has been lost but was probably closer to what the tribes of Homo Sapiens shared before they started their exodus to start colonizing the planet. Each took those core beliefs with them, but over the centuries they would change and morph to fit their new settings. And with the exception of the ones that migrated to the Americas, most eventually moved into a humanistic pagan belief system. But the African and American remained largely animistic (with the Egyptians becoming a combined one of animalistic humans).

    This was actually covered in a class on religions I took almost 30 years ago. And having read a lot of Bulfinch's and other mythos a decade before that, it all actually rather fits. Most of what we know today dates back to only around 3000-4000 BCE. But could not have sprung up from nowhere, many just retellings of even older stories brought from Africa millennia earlier but morphed over the passage of time.

    And this is especially visible just by looking at the Greeks and Romans. Their religions were so close that the gods were largely interchangeable. Zeus with Jupiter, Aphrodite with Venus, etc. And interestingly, the Romans were amazingly cosmopolitan about accepting beliefs from most other regions.
     
  25. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,966
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because you talk about so many different things, in your post (only half of which, is above), I do not know what your main point was, if you had one. I mean that by way of an explanation, not as an insult. I had merely pointed out to you, that your prior post, which equated Cain & Abel with Set & Osiris, and with, "good," &, "evil," Creator Gods (Thor & Loki, Wolf & Coyote), had been conflating different ideas, and stretching comparisons. I don't understand how what I quoted, above (or any of the remainder of your reply), actually responds to my post.

    I don't think that all the figures you cite, are analogs. Cain & Abel, of course, are not, "Creator gods"-- your term-- or gods, at all. They were, like Set & Osiris, brothers. I pointed out that there are multiple, "brother," stories, in the Old Testament, and that an historical explanation has been suggested, for at least one of them. I didn't even mention the Joseph story.

    But Set & Osiris were not Creator Gods, either; Osiris, though, did become the god Ra, and the child of dead Osiris & his sister & wife, Isis, became the god Horus, who moved the sun through the sky. All 3, however, were children of the Earth & Sky deities, Geb & Nut.

    Still, the Egyptians had numerous creation myths, which would have preceded all of that. In one, Thoth creates the world with a word-- somewhat like the, "Let there be light," quote, but with more emphasis on the magical element, behind the incantation. Personally, I prefer the more visceral story of Atum, who rose from the primordial sea and created life by masturbating to ejaculation. This story could also, potentially, hold an historical truth, as a reference to some alien species, introducing something from their own DNA, into our ancient ancestors' genome.

    As you see, my trying to address, what seemed to me, your rambling reply, will produce a rambling response, from me. So let it suffice for me to say that I feel you are speaking in overly-broad strokes, which clarity would call for much more explanation, if you want to compare vastly different religious traditions. (BTW, I assume that Thor may be a Norse version of Zeus which, also, would not make him an actual, "creator;" IIRC, didn't the Norse have a Cow as the source of creation?).

    Another issue that you were a bit obscure about, was how ancient are the roots of Judaism. At one point, you call the Bible, "the oldest such work in complete form." This is a perfect example of where, if there is anything to this claim, there is a necessity of you defining what you mean by, "such work." Of course, the Hebrew Torah is even older than the Old Testament (it is only called the Bible, in its Christian form, with the New Testament, included). But the extant Hindu, Vedic Sanskrit texts (the Vedas) go back as far as 1500 BCE. And Hinduism is acknowledged, I think, as the oldest of today's major religions. Though, interestingly, in Vedic times the religion was much different from Hinduism, as we now know it (just as, both you & wikipedia note, Judaism has also evolved).

    I know of no evidence of Jerusalem existing in 3000 BCE, as you cite. Can you offer some supporting link(s)? Below, is a Snip from wikipedia's Origins of Judaism.

    <SNIP>

    The Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (or Samaria) and Judah first appear in the 9th century BCE.[5][6] The two kingdoms shared Yahweh, one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, as the national god of their respective kingdom, for which reason their religion is commonly called Yahwism.[7]

    Other neighbouring Canaanite kingdoms of the time each also had their own national god from the Canaanite pantheon of gods: Chemosh was the god of Moab, Moloch the god of the Ammonites, Qaus the god of the Edomites, and so on. In each kingdom the king was his national god's viceroy on Earth.[7][8][9]

    The various national gods were more or less equal, reflecting the fact that kingdoms themselves were more or less equal, and within each kingdom a divine couple, made up of the national god and his consort – Yahweh and the goddess Asherah in Israel and Judah – headed a pantheon of lesser gods.[6][10][11]

    By the late 8th century both Judah and Israel had become vassals of Assyria, bound by treaties of loyalty on one side and protection on the other. Israel rebelled and was destroyed c. 722 BCE, and refugees from the former kingdom fled to Judah, bringing with them the tradition that Yahweh, already known in Judah, was not merely the most important of the gods, but the only god who should be served. This outlook was taken up by the Judahite landowning elite, who became extremely powerful in court circles in the next century when they placed the eight-year-old Josiah (reigned 641–609 BC) on the throne. During Josiah's reign Assyrian power suddenly collapsed, and a pro-independence movement took power promoting both the independence of Judah from foreign overlords and loyalty to Yahweh as the sole god of Israel. With Josiah's support the "Yahweh-alone" movement launched a full-scale reform of worship, including a covenant (i.e., treaty) between Judah and Yahweh, replacing that between Judah and Assyria.[12]

    <END SNIP>

    While we share an interest in this history, about which I would enjoy discussing with you, I wish to-- and I hope you will not mind my doing so-- impress upon you my sense that, to have any meaningful conversation about such distant events, one need be more exacting in their wordings, than is demonstrated in this post of yours, to which I am responding.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2021

Share This Page