October 02, 2006

There Is No God - A case for atheism by Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller.

Sorry, I didn't intend to post twice today, but I just got into a heated discussion on religion, and this article came to mind. I thought it might provoke some interesting responses. I happen to think what he had to say was fantastic.

posted by schark 17 years ago
  • I think this may be a double. Steady on with the posting, there!
  • GO FOR THREE *starts 'the wave'*
  • Schark they won't do anything if you do a third. They are all hot air. HEAR ME OUT THERE? HOT AIR I TELL YA! *jumps on tiny clown bicycle and pedals for the door*
  • Huh, not a double. You were lucky this time... /glares
  • Three!Three! Three Thrrrre! Three!Three! Three! Three Three Three!Three! Three! Three! THREE! THREE! THREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREETHREE!!! Drei!
  • Три
  • *joins the call for a trio*
  • Who's with me I got one I got one who wants one ONE! I got one can I get two two posts who's got two posts I see two you want two who's two two posts lemme see two I got two over here where's two I got TWO! Two posts can I get three lemme see three who's got three over here can I get three let's go three you bywannaget three lemmehearyaseethreenow c'mon three who's got three
  • If, instead of being a community web log wannabee that actually gained traction and became better that the entity it cloned, MoFi was instead a portable black & white television set that suddenly went all fuzzy and the sound crapped out and all sorts of squiggly lines went across the screen, this is the point at which I would pound it on its left side with my fist to see if that didn't help. Whap! What the hell is going on here lately?
  • Wow. I anticipated some kind of reaction but not this.
  • Monkeys are easily distracted. But yes, this happens a lot -- moreso when someone breaks the guidelines, even with good intentions. Post gets no attention.
  • Interesting post, schark. The whole concept of the website is kind of neat. "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future." That is probably his strongest argument, I think. Or the one that hit me the most. And to be honest, I struggle with the whole human suffering thing as well. But there is another thing that kind of seems strange to me. He finds it would be "rude to ask the invisible for more". Rude in what way? If God doesn't exist, that just makes him crazy, not rude. He mentions he is fortunate. Would it not be much more rude to just be completely without thanks? I can appreciate atheism. There are many things that suggest God isn't really there. But to place a negative moral bearing on someone who does believe in God is offensive to me, personaly.
  • Below are some arguments, Ritz, as to why it is not only perfectly acceptable to find belief immoral, but why one is virtually compelled to do so. ********** One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it ... You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. --Bertrand Russell There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. --Edward O. Wilson The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth. --H. L. Mencken I am deeply frightened by ritual, because it implies mind-numbing repetition, obedience and the mysticism of action without thought. --Jonathan Wallace I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. --Penn Jillette Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality. --Peter W. Huber Skepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin. --T. H. Huxley In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. --W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief
  • From the MonkeyFilter FAQs: "If you think you have more than one [good, interesting and discussion-worthy post], so be it." I took that to mean that if I felt strongly about posting a second link, I could. I didn't mean to start a whole shmegeggy. (self-flagellating to follow)
  • Monkeys are easily distracted True. Well, we have had how many posts touching on atheism in the past month? It's a topic that can sap a lot from an individual - and anything after is just beating a dead marmoset. I didn't mean to start a whole shmegeggy. Wow, I didn't even realize we had a schmegeggy going on!! *disrobes*
  • I ascribe my own self-consciousness and self-identity, together, as proof to myself of a much higher intellect (i.e. God, whatever the definition may be). The pervasiveness of suffering is indeed abominable, but I chalk that up to a God that either (1) doesn't care, (2) is too busy, or (3) can't get involved for some reason that's not obvious. It could be in the same vein as a kid who starts an ant farm and then neglects it.
  • Damn, that's weird, I just posted a new comment and it never appeared. That's a first.
  • The schmegeggy is now official. Clothes off. Ready the Miracle Whip[TM] and lawn darts.
  • No, trust me, just two more Atheism posts and we'll have all the monkeys convinced!
  • Sorry rolypolyman, I think my robe covered your comment.
  • There is no spoon.
  • I will be damned though; before I saw this link I believed that Penn was God.
  • I think arguing the existence of God is an exercise in futility, and Penn and Teller would be my last resource for philosophical input. Ritz's citation is full of holes. What I do find irritating though is that the left, in it's ambition to establish itself in the pecking order of the intelligentsia, has found its easiest victim, religion. This rather pointless attack on an aspect of culture, alienates leftist religious figures from leftist agnostic or atheistic religious figures. The attack on religion is a knee jerk reaction to some aspects some may find distasteful, but yet integral to the institutions. To compound this some of these rules, such as Rome and birth control, are conflated to law, as if people are not given a choice. This of course not to be equated to the Christian Right in the US that is attempting to make religious rulings into state law. This constant attack of religion just pisses off religious people, stop it. This has been brought to you by an atheist! *puts hand on should of RalphtheDog* I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you. I'm touching you.
  • No one tell Mord about this thread. Quick! Rename it to something about knitting or having babies!
  • Incidentally, I am tempted to post a self-link to my web series Something To Be Desired just to complete the flaunting of the rules, but I shan't.
  • Nicely put, oh glammarous jammous.
  • Bertrand Russell's quote makes sense. Religious extremism has been proven through history, and very much so in modern times, to be a bad thing. Edward O. Wilson's comment can be just as readily applied to the next gen console wars and the flame wars you read on Joystiq. Even without spiritual belief, there will always be disagreements. I don't see any evidence for Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's quote. H. L. Mencken's comment doesn't say anything. I can parrot the same words back with the same conviction against atheism. I really like Jonathan Wallace's statement. Ritual is something that needn't be practiced with Jesus. Penn Jillette's words parellel my own thoughts... same with Peter W. Huber's. And again, your quote from T. H. Huxley is also good. Finnaly, your quote from W.K. Clifford makes a lot of sense too. "Test everything. Hold on to is good." 1 Thess. 5:21 I agree that blind faith, without reasoning is useless. But these quotes do not tell me belief is wrong. They tell me unreasoned and unbased belief is. And I have no belief ritual is unrequired for salvation, either. My belief and relationship with Jesus is no longer based on "what I learned in Sunday school". It is through experience and study that I have come to believe what I do today. And if there is no God? If we're here simply "'cause", then I don't see any basis for morality. The animals certaintly are free from such restraints.
  • That's it! I was an atheist, but after reading this I'm going strictly evangelical. My Jesus is going to mess you people up. Prepare to be smoted, turdlings! Pfft, Bertrand Russell. Know where his big ol' ass is? City of Dis, that's where. Eating a chicken pot pie. An infernal chicken pot pie! That means no chicken.
  • So it's just pot?
  • (carried on from my last comment) ...which brings me back to my statement. If there is no basis for morality, then I do not see why it would be "rude", as Penn coined. If there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?
  • Tony's got some change and he's gonna get cut up. Tony's got some beer. Tony's gonna get high. Tony's got some dope. Tony's gonna get fucked up. Fifty bucks for a piece of Tony's potpie. Tony got some ass. He's gonna get some shut eye. Tony's got some shake. Now he's gonna get high. Tony smells cat piss. Tony's gonna get loaded. Fifty bucks for a piece of Tony's potpie. Potpie.
  • Morality doesn't derive from religious systems. This is a common error made by religous people. You don't need god to discover ethics and morals - they are entirely pragmatic and utilitarian. They derive from group survival tactics - not from some invisible deity.
  • Just because religion is the assumed source of morality, does not necssarily mean that a moral or ethical code cannot exist without it. the morals of religious extend, as it were, from the barrel of a divine gun, e.g. the threat of eternal damnation. Could not the typical aspects of a spiritually-based moral code be equivalenced without God? Because, after all, moral codes evolve with the cultures that encompass them. As such, they are inherently useful. A moral precept without underlying usefullness fails to evolve and is over time shorn from the whole, like fetal gills on a mammal. Usefullness transcends mere godliness. Else we'd all still self-flagellate.
  • Dammit Chy!
  • Chyren, I've heard the argument before. The first thing that comes to my head is the concept of General Revelation (link in case your not familier with it). The argument is that God did in fact impart ethics and morals to everyone and He is responsible for it. I'll be honest, I am not 100% versed in the whole theory behind it, but its something I just recently started looking into. If ethics and morals derive from group survival tactics, why are animals seemingly without such tools?
  • I don't know that you can say animals lack morals and ethics. After all, a dog seems to possess a codified behavior towards members of its own pack. Seems to me that this reinforces Chy's argument considerably.
  • Seemingly. If you can provide evidence for such behavior in animals, that would be neat. I personaly haven't come across much that suggests they do, however. So if you have examples that elborate say your thought about codified behavior in dogs or something similer, that would be useful.
  • I meant to emphasize the use of the word "seemingly" in my previous post. Not sure if that was clear or not. But yea, again, if you have evidence, I would like to see it =D
  • Why do people always say "you can't prove a negative", as if it were a well established principle of logic? Of course you can prove a "negative", just as easily as a "positive". They must mean "lack of evidence doesn't necessarily prove non-existence", which is completely different.
  • Howcum you expect Nickdanger to provide evidence "for such behaviour in dogs" when you aren't producing any evidence for god?
  • >>This constant attack of religion just pisses off religious people, stop it. The feelings of one subset of people does not trump the truth. I will not stop. And for Ritz: The web of this world is woven of Necessity and Chance. Woe to him who has accustomed himself from his youth up to find something necessary in what is capricious, and who would ascribe something like reason to Chance and make a religion of surrendering to it. --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose--which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me. --Richard Feynman Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. --Richard Dawkins
  • Thanks rushmc. It would be helpful if you elaborated on the quotes, though. What are you trying to convey? You use them like I might quote scripture. And on that note, I find as much credibility in those people's understanding of life as you might find in anything I might quote from the Bible or Christian leaders I am fond of. But they do prompt critical thinking, which is good... but if you could go further and help explain them, that would be better.
  • Sorry nipperr, I missed your comment. Your question is a little off, I think. I'm not providing evidence for God for the same reason I am not asking him to disprove God. I am asking for evidence towards behavior in animals that would reflect ethics and morality. If you like, I can go find evidence for ethics and morality in humans, but I think thats already evident enough.
  • It depends of what sort of evidence you're interested in. You accept that a dog will behave differently towards a member of its pack than a strange dog, and this is because a dog is a social animal and its individual survival is dependent to great extent on group survival. I certainly offer no evidence that there's a moral or religious reasoning at play because a dog is not a reasoning or religious animal. Humans are also social animals and have also evolved to exhibit a set of behaviors that work toward group survival. Because one of our great evolutionary adaptations is a malleability in our behaviors, we have a certain amount off wiggle room in our codified social dynamic, mostly involving how far-reaching we consider our social circle to be. Although it is outwardly more sophisticated than what we observe in other animals I believe that the root behavior is essentially the same. Now, please note, I'm not attempting to disprove God here. I have just seen no evidence that God specifically and *overtly* instructs *only* humans, and then only some of them (the ones making the argument at the time, usually as to why they and their group deserve most of the resources) in morality.
  • I have proof that God exists. The game Yahtzee. A godless universe could never have created such a game. When feeling down And questioning God Just yell out Yahtzee And feel the love
  • Ritz, I really don't want to get into a discussion with a believer in the Bible, because they already have their minds made up. Plus, I have no idea to what level of irrationality your belief may take you, ie, thinking the world is 6,000 years old, literal truth of the scriptures, etc. I simply point out, that evidence suggests Jesus very likely didn't exist as he is depicted in the NT, & that even if he did & the Gospels are accurate about his claims, then he was a false prophet. His prophecies failed, God doesn't answer prayers, & you are not gwine up to hebbin. Evidence of cooperative or moral behaviour in dog packs, indeed wolf packs, is copious. As it is in apes. In fact, altruism in animals has been observed & noted by biologists. Whether this can be called 'morality' is open to argument & hair-splitting, but there can be little rational doubt that early human societies had to live together & avoid mass killings, rape & theft among their own groups simply because they would not have maintained very long if they did not. The presentation of early 'godless' man as a bunch of wild thugs given to murder & pillage at every opportunity is not supported by any evidence. At all. In fact we even have evidence of morality in early man - Neanderthals - who cared for their sick & buried their dead with reverence. This is circa 18,000 years ago, long before God had been created by man. I personally can prove that laws, ethics & morals don't come from the Judeo Christian god - because they predate him. Indeed, in Egypt, people were getting married with wedding rings, obeying laws, prosecuting murderers, employing lawyers, believing in Re (Akhenaton's concept of a single deity from which sprung all creation - possibly the influence on the Appiru for their later 'innovation') about a thousand years before Bishop Ussher has the Earth created, or anyone had uttered the name YHVH among the hill tribes of the Levant. Belief in God as source of morals & ethics is bonkers, most obviously because the God of the Old Testament neither acts in ethical ways, nor does he show proof of omniscience, revealed clearly in the narrative of these scriptures themselves. God of the OT in fact lies quite often, & subjects innocent human beings to horrendous suffering, so I think I'll not cede the creation of morals to that particular gentleman, thanks all the same.
  • You seem to have taken great strides to insult me, Chyren. Anyway, if that is the way you feel, then so be it. You make some very wrong assumptions about me and my understandings... but I can accept this, considering we do not know each other. I am honestly interested in what others believe, including your own insight... It is why I asked for it. My mind is not and was not made up about the Bible. I have many concerns about it, myself. And the references you made in that last post are interesting. I'll be doing a lot of Wikipedia research with those, thanks.
  • My last point (as poster): When posting this link, I didn't mean to do so as an insult to believers. I have a whole family of church-goers. My main beef is that it's perfectly acceptable for people to proclaim their religion; in fact, it's become basically required of politicians, but for some reason it's still scandalous to say you're an atheist. That chars my pop tarts.
  • The feelings of one subset of people does not trump the truth. What truth are you talking about here? The negative impacts of religion? Is everything you say in regards to the negative aspect true of every religious person? No! If you are arguing God does not exist, and that is your truth, you have a lot of splainin to do. If you have some insight that historically we have not been able to tackle, please let me know, because this is hardly an argument against the existence of God. So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. Penn Jillette Obviously he has a great deal of stock in the idea that science does not take great leaps of faith. Leaps of faith in the human faculties, leaps of faith in the tools we use. Leaps of faith on many levels. Many times they produce, many times they mislead. what bugs me is that this arbitrary attack on some cultural aspect of humanity that goes back longer than recorded history. Instead of facing the real issues of religious freedom, when faced with fanatics that want to institutionalize religious law., people go into a knee jerk, well your core beliefs are wrong anyway, so your opinion does not count. Where instead the reaction should be, I respect where you are coming from, but since none of us can grasp the magnificence of a divine being, and his or her intentions, we should respect why religious freedom is important in this country. This is the dogmatism that should be adopted.
  • but for some reason it's still scandalous to say you're an atheist. That chars my pop tarts. Yes and a woman has not been elected President yet. Neither has a black person. None of these issues are religiously motivated, but culturaly. So lets not conflate what possibly could be a cultural motivation with a religious one. Being Christian does not only reflect a belief in God, but a cultural history congruent with a Judeo-Christian culture. Meaning that culturally, not only religiously but culturally as a whole, your beliefs are in line with a vast majority of the nation.
  • Has there been an atheist President? Or even a President that does not attend any Christian religious services?
  • No, there's never been an (avowed) atheist President. Nor have any been Jewish or Buddhist or Islamic. But of course, this is just culturally-motivated and has nothing to do with religion.
  • nunia It takes two to tango, and I'm not in the mood to dance. Statements of conviction from atheists are met with more hostility than any statement of religious zeal could ever bring about and I'm sick of it. Anyway, I'll pray for all of you.
  • I was just looking out for you, Mordy. I know how zealous you get about these discussions. *mwah*
  • I enjoyed the quotes rushmc posted way upthread, but take exception to the one from Jonathan Wallace on being "deeply frightened by ritual". My exception stems from thinking about the Confucian concept of li (礼) as expounded in a philosophical work I've been translating. As I understand it, the Confucian concept of social ethics (which was not based on an appeal to spiritual powers) was that in a world of diverse individuals, it is useless to ask for agreement in the heart, but that you can expect behaviours to accord to some norm, and that this is desirable for social harmony. Those norms were li, usually rendered as 'propriety', and to a certain extent, our performances according to these are ritual performances. So long as what is proper in a given community is open to input from all its members and can change and adapt over time, I do think this is a viable form of ethics, and one that doesn't require an appeal to something supernatural. In this context, more formal ritual performances have been shown to serve a purpose in binding human collectives together and in transmitting values, and I see nothing wrong with that, though it is of course fraught with danger. Again in the Chinese context, much of the burden of later Buddhist schools (the Chan) was about how to pass on the essence of a system, in large part through ritual relationships, without the ritual becoming a mere empty shell, deadening to thought, or an end in itself.
  • Well, perhaps there are others, but only one discussion comes to mind and I don't like the way I painted myself into a corner in that one, nor do I have anything to add. Penn and Teller are just stating the obvious, like "I believe the sky is blue." Now if they came out and said that they believe Zarquot the Space Goat shat out the universe and demands the sacrifice of Honeyed Ham on Thursday, that would be something.
  • Sorry, just Penn. He's also believes in the absence of global climate change IIRC.
  • in a world of diverse individuals, it is useless to ask for agreement in the heart, but that you can expect behaviours to accord to some norm, and that this is desirable for social harmony I find this interesting -- weren't the founding fathers of the U.S. largely a group of agnostic/atheists? But rather than enforcing atheism, they went for religious toleration and separation of church & state instead.
  • I respect where you are coming from, but since none of us can grasp the magnificence of a divine being, and his or her intentions, we should respect why religious freedom is important in this country. That's the official story for sure. But if a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion for their child, it's "sorry, your religion is full of crap". Science does trump religion sometimes. Thank Zeus.
  • GI Jesus
  • I blame this whole damn thread on the Republicans. I thought we'd agreed not to discuss the existance of Dog in that other thread? Never mind. MonkeyFilter: Trac proclaims Monkety TRUTH: Monkeys are easily distracted. MonkeyFilter: Prepare to be smoted, turdlings! MonkeyFilter: That chars my pop tarts. MonkeyFilter: ...not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. The existance of God can neither be proven or denied, however, the existance of the One True and Holy Tagline is obvious. Heed the Truth of the TAGLINE!! Mmmmmmm, Mord, I'm so looking forward to that Honeyed Ham on Thursday!
  • *nominates Chyren for U.S. president*
  • (I'm not an atheist)
  • (Worshiping Kylie Minogue doesn't count.)
  • (I'm not an atheist) But - but- I believed in you! *lipwobble*
  • Way too many atheist links lately.
  • Interesting, Abiezer. I find it pretty repulsive, but interesting nonetheless. And the focus you cite for later Buddhist schools is precisely why I find them misguided and devolved. Buddha, himself, was much wiser: Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. --Buddha Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. --Buddha
  • Seriously, though: "You seem to have taken great strides to insult me, Chyren." Bullshit. It was easy. Like fallin' off a log. It's easy to insult Christians, just tell them their religion is st00pid, & they're all "boo hoo". ;) Hey, here's the thing, though: it's a huge insult to the rest of us non-Jesus people to tell us that our ethics & morality - which most of us come to via the use of our brains - could not exist without some shmo in the clouds, & that Christianity is the best thing to have ever happened to human civilization. It could, & it isn't. So, if you really don't want to be insulted (& I actually wasn't trying to insult you, personally, I just think Christianity is a particularly ridiculous belief system - like Islam & Judaism & others - & stated this plainly) then don't make outrageously simplistic statements like "If there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?" - which to me is a red rag to a bull, intellectually speaking. It's preposterous. I couldn't care less what you believe, in fact, more power to you, as long as you don't try naughty tactics like banning the teaching of science or sneaking religion into the law. I would definitely stand up & try to defend believers in Christ if some power came along & tried to put an end to the religion or whatnot. Just don't tell me I can't get along without it, because I can prove that's bullshit, which is where Christians start to cry, because I know a lot of arcane stuff.
  • Ah, actually, there *is* a god, but two things, firstly, she's black...
  • (Kylie Minogue is not black, I don't think.)
  • You misunderstand. I was not insulted by your attacking of Christianity. After all, I invited such comments... more on that in a moment. Instead I found offence to the gross assumptions you made about me. "I don't like talking to believers in the Bible because their mind is already made" was one of them. People use that as an excuse not to hold a conversation, but it just sounds stupid. If you're open minded, give the other the benefit of the doubt. And if your going to be just as stubborn, don't go accusing someone else of the same problem. Back to that one question I had made that seemed to get you so upset. When I asked the question "if there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?" I was honestly asking with an open minded question. I'm not trying to preach, I'm not trying to win you over to my own way of thought. I'm simply asking questions I have. ...Questions that so many times people refuse to give an answer for. A lot of you did though, and thats great. Stuff for me to think about. And rushmc, those are two quotes I can agree strongly with :)
  • One is in agreement with Chyren. Logic in the application of knowledge requires a degree of objectivity, the opposite of which is glaringly evident in the responses of 'Christians' to any opinion in opposition to their own. Active refusal to accept a wealth of research and the evidence of science is nothing less than an active value grafted upon a determined ignorance. Judeo/Christian/Islamic tenet is based on the active 'nurture' of human kind's inate fears and insecurities, a need for an 'order' and/or reasons for phenomena experienced within their environment; this is coupled with the desire of some to exercise complete power over other's lives, both cultural, economic and otherwise. Add the element of an either personal or collective agenda and you view a 'belief system' which again, at best, has nothing at all to do with "morality" but rather more to do with ego and the desire for a collective and/or 'tribal superiority.' Furthermore, to thus pursue an equally active adherence to an obviously "preposterous" belief system created by members of a nomadic desert culture of 2,000 + years ago, added to and perverted by a multitude of ignorant misogynists (at best) and sociopathic sadists (at worst) and we see the divisive effects evident in the global condition of these times.
  • I refuse to make any more comments in this thread if they are not written in the phoenetics of Jar Jar, which will be torture to me and many others.
  • Not for the first time I find myself reading a moral/ethical debate on MoFi and finding out that Chryen has articulated my point better than I could before I got here! In the meantime I went to a VERY Catholic wedding on Saturday and found myself wondering why it was that my relatives felt the need to proclaim their faith at every opportunity during the day (not just the service but the reception afterwards)
  • Hallelujah!
  • "If there is no God, why put any value into a moral system?" Because we have to live together with complex brains in a complex society. If we're taught that it's better kill, rape, rob or torture one another I'll be less likely to do those things to you and yours; we're taught to cooperate then you and I together can do things each separately cannot. Other social animals have such mechanisms, they're just less complex -- befitting their simpler brains -- and less likely to be written down.
  • Penn Jillette? Seriously?
  • Just because a certain segment of society needs a religious construct of retribution in order to behave properly doesn't mean that the religious construct devised the proper behavior.
  • Buddha, himself, was much wiser: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it." /Doesn't not believe Buddha quote, which means I believe it, but I can't believe simply because I have heard so, so... [Brain collapses in on itself]
  • Sucker.
  • One is in agreement with Chy. Two are.
  • Three.
  • Four the win!
  • I'm in, but just for the fez.
  • Ah, actually, there *is* a god, but two things, firstly, she's black... ...and she is pissed.
  • Wikipedia: Secular Ethics as a starting point. My head 'asplode. We're not all running about going "there is no eternal punishment so I'm going to rape, steal and murder for the hell of it." My question is how is it that the religious fail to notice that secular morality must be coming from somewhere. This is a common last-ditch argument for the religious when confronted by nontheism. It goes something like "Even if there is no God, the belief in God is good because it provides morals [to people who would otherwise be rapists and murderers]". But without a God to provide the moral framework (as is argued), how can we judge that morality itself is a good thing? Since this is taken as given to be true, even "if there is no God", moral judgements must be originating elsewhere.
  • It always disturbs me when I hear the "If there was no God/Hell/Punishment, everyone would be raping dogs and killing willy-nilly and marrying their sisters!" argument, because to me it always implies not so subtly not that this is what everyone would be doing without fear of retribution, but rather that, if he/she weren't afraid of eternal damnation, that's what the person making the argument would be doing. Which is to say, the "loaded gun" theory of morality says more about those who ascribe to it than those who don't. If not a expression of their own sublimated desires, then a telling portrait of how they view the rest of humanity. If that makes any sense.
  • Thor, Quetzalcoatl and Cthulhu are displeased with all this talk about God, Jesus and bible. Better not go stand in a field with an iron bar!
  • Ah-ah-ah. Cthulhu could care less what us puny mortals think. We are ants to him, and of no more consequence. It is our own inconsequentialousness that scared the crap out of HPL. Cthulhu, dead but dreaming, warps our reality with his dread dead dreams. Humans can have only one prayer--when the Old Ones return, and Cthulhu wakes to rise roaring from the sea, to be among the lucky ones eaten first! Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Ftaghn! ;E
  • *shivers*
  • Speaking of Cthulhu, have you seen this?
  • Thanks for the link, Mord. The concept I personaly have come to ascribe to regarding the source of secular ethics comes from the previously mentioned idea of General Revelation. When God created us (however long ago that was), he created us with the ability to reason and to chose. At the same time, he has revealed certain truths to everyone, which included a sense of moral and ethics. You don't have to believe in God to reason that it is useful not to go and commit murder, or to rape and steal. You don't need to put faith in Jesus to understand what is right or wrong. I am not saying that without Christianity or any other religion people would be devoid of such tools. God existed from the beggining and long before Christianity started or Egypt had anything more than a nomadic clan in it. Religion is not the source of morals and ethics. God is that source of morals and ethics. Religion, regardless of which one it is, is based off these basic concepts and ideas that God provided for us. If that makes any sense. I don't think if there was no God/Hell/Punishment that "everyone would be raping dogs and killing willy-nilly". Nor do I secretly desire to do evil but think "Oh, shit! God exists, so I better not". I would be more than willing to accept something like Utilitarianism (or some other secular ethics system) if I became convinced God doesn't actually exist. I simply believe that if God didn't exist, we would be no different than the animals. We would be incapable of understanding right and wrong, would be without a justice system and would be completly unaware of personal consequence to our actions or to anyone else. I view humanity as incapable of anything more than what animals are capable of, without God. Obviously, if God doesn't exist, then this concept is absolutely wrong and my understanding of the capability of humanity is also quite off-base. But again, I don't secretly desire to do wrong but chose not to in fear of retribution. Nor do I think that those who don't practice religion are without morals and ethics. Instead, I believe God has given everybody this ability, this tool, per say, so that we could protect ourselves from ourselves. And if God doesn't exist, I'm wrong.
  • One last moment clarrification... When I asked "if God doesn't exist, why put value into a moral system?" I had meant to ponder "why or how are we capable of such systems, if the rest of the animal kingdom is without such mechanisms?" rather than to offend.
  • Right. Its got everything to do with the whim of the grand designer, whatever his name is this week. The fact that human morals have changed over historical time, let alone evolutionary time, is all part of the plan. The animal kingdom is *not* without such mechanisms. Animal social structures have rules just like ours. It would be a better argument for God if all the animals had morals that were just like ours. As it is, the variety of what is acceptable to one species and what is not to another speaks for their being no standard template. Go look up Bonobos, and then tell the puritanical Christians about how THEY resolve conflicts and watch them squirm.
  • Haha, I've got no related arguments/questions against that, really, other than splitting hairs. This is all very interesting, thanks for your input.
  • Oh, actually, one thing. Any examples of punishment within these systems, as well?
  • Oh yes; in apes, for example, social rejection, denial of shared food, denial of sex.
  • I seem to recall the dolphins would exile males who didn't behave from the pod.
  • It seems to me that the sense of right and wrong arises from a recognition of what is destructive to a society and what makes it work. Pack and herd animals have their own "rules" that determine leaders and followers, and the appropriate behavior for each. Codifying appropriate human behaviour in religion or other belief systems makes a lot of sense since our socialization process takes years to instill, but some of the rules humans have inherited seem more tribal than basic. Dietary restrictions are among those, as are rules about which day/days are holy. On the other hand, sharing those rules must help bind groups together, so they're not meaningless at some level. But, are we truly serious about the less major proscriptions? I can remember when stores weren't open on Sundays, since that was the Christian day devoted to the supreme being. I'd say that now not many of us avoid going to the mall on one of our few days off. So, how do we "honor" the Sabbath? Are the orthodox Jews more blessed than we since they still adhere to some pretty strict Sabbath rules? It also seems to me that our civil laws address the most important of those from religion, but there are still some differences that deny the universality of moral behavior. I've learned a lot about tribal behaviour by reading middle eastern blogs since we invaded iraq, and "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to "others" in some instances. And, yet, the Muslims worship the same god of Abraham that Christians do. It's difficult to understand how the same god can have different rules for different sects. Wouldn't an all powerful diety be able to align its believers? And, how do you know that you've accepted the proper set of rules? I can understand the "leap of faith" that adheres believers to the sect that attracts them, but I do think it's important to think about issues like this.
  • >>I've learned a lot about tribal behaviour by reading middle eastern blogs since we invaded iraq, and "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to "others" in some instances. And, yet, the Muslims worship the same god of Abraham that Christians do. It's difficult to understand how the same god can have different rules for different sects. Take a look at the recent installments of "Blogging the Bible" on Slate.com. He talks about how God makes it clear to Moses and his people that the laws he's been given apply to his group of Jews, NOT to all the peoples he has them conquer and destroy.
  • Speaking of Cthulhu, have you seen this? No, but I have seen this: Cthulhu Carols!
  • It's difficult to understand how the same god can have different rules for different sects. It's hard to understand ANYTHING about God. He's omnipotent and omniscient, more advanced than humans are above amoebae -- infinitely so. Our puny human brains cannot possibly comprehend why He would publish the Bible as a recipe of all the exact wrong things to do. Yep, it's a lesson plan on how to go directly to Hell, actually co-written by Satan. Go figure. Turns out Christianity is the most direct route to eternal damnation, but Islam will eventually get you there too. I should note that all Buddists get a free puppy before being thrown into the lake of fire. Hindus..., well, you don't wanna know, but it involves a goat, some tweezers, and the anus. Makes no sense to me, either, but I am but a simple caveman human, and God told me this directly while I was last talking with him (during my last orgasm). Oral sex is the One True Path to salvation. Or is that salivation? Shit, now I forget...
  • Sludgination: The Ministry of Punistry.
  • It's hard to understand ANYTHING about God. He's omnipotent and omniscient, more advanced than humans are above amoebae -- infinitely so. Then he is also utterly pointless to discuss or worry about, because no matter how smart you are, you are only infinitessimally likely to be right about any give God-fact.
  • Sounds like somebody needs an epiphany! Um, just a blowjob and a diet coke for me.
  • Okay here's a question. You know that crazy guy who shot those Amish kids? He did it because he was "mad at God". So if we were living in a Godless society, what would the crazy guys be mad at?
  • Jodi Foster.
  • Mord: You are correct, sir. (Simple, huh?)
  • Mord: You are correct, sir. Really? How do you know? I mean, what's the difference between that and just having an opinion?
  • If you define God as infinitely unknowable, then the conclusion is he's infinitely unknowable. I haven't said anything.
  • I mean, why don't agnostics debate God? Because they don't believe you can. But I don't like the misuse of transcendental infinities, and think that logic applies and ergo, God can't exist as defined. If you don't think God is bound by logic (like Islam, IIRC) then communicating about God is an exercise in futility: he's a moving target you'll never hit and all you're really talking about is the bias of the speaker.
  • Sure, if God is not "bound" by logic, then maybe if you pray for rain, He'll kill 40,000 chimpanzees in Africa. Maybe worshipping is precisely the opposite thing you should be doing. Maybe you should be cultivating bananas instead. Doesn't make sense? Exactly. So... what's the point? Why do people say they understand Him? Just irks me when people say "God is beyond mere human logic", then interpret Him in a way that makes sense to them -- i.e., bind Him with human logic. Think about what you're saying. Be consistent, consider the ramifications, and it'll tumble down like a house of cards. / used to be very religious // took about four hours of hard thinking, then another week of working through the conditioned fear to cure myself /// dunno that I'm happier this way, but there's no going back -- at least I'm going through life with my eyes wide open
  • I like Jodie Foster therefore God exists!
  • There is, of course, the tradition of the via negativa (unsatisfying wiki link), which is one way theologians have dealt with the understanding problem. It seems to work for this guy.
  • I'm an atheist, by the way, but I have a lot of time for (intelligent) religious types.
  • From the article on via negativa: One problem noted with this approach, is that there seems to be no fixed basis on deciding what God is not. God is not not me. Therefore I am God.
  • Now listen, what is all this talk about "good" and "evil"? I don't understand that. I'm more worried about "gruly" and "empoluk". Is it gruly to be side on the upper? Is it empoluk the between hipney? These are the big questions.
  • >>I have a lot of time for (intelligent) religious types. That's an oxymoron. At best, "religious types" can be clever.
  • Is it gruly to be side on the upper? Pfft. n00b.
  • Wow. I can't believe people are still posting here. From little acorns grow...
  • Whosoever be without noobness, let him be the first to cast the Pfft noobity.
  • That's an oxymoron. At best, "religious types" can be clever. Yeah. Clever.
  • At best, "religious types" can be clever. Wow. Thought it was supposed to be the religious types who're closedminded.
  • Ya cain't start a holy war if ya ain't got a god.
  • rushmc was a bit hyperbolic, but one still isn't supposed to be so open minded that their brains fall out. The best one can say is that intelligent people can still choose to either selectively not apply reason to religion, or disregard their logical conclusions and believe things that don't make sense in spite of their intelligence. But I understand where the hostility towards the religious is coming from. And if I have to endure another season of "woe is me, the heathen atheists are trying to take away Christmas and teach our children that they are monkeys" I'm going to puke. I don't have a lot of respect left for anyone who takes religion seriously, and if my heart is hardened its not because I set out against a bad idea, its because of all the abuses I've seen because of it.
  • Dunno, man. Kenneth Miller is a biologist and a Catholic, and he totally pwnd Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument.
  • He didn't need to be religious to do that. At best, it gives him more credibility among the faithful. The two ideas are unlinked. You get stupid atheists too, and smart religious people. Just because one part of your brain is subject to reason based arguments doesn't mean the whole thing is. It doesn't say anything about the soundness of religious arguments, and some of the implicatons of religious reasoning ala magical thinking are very scary. Right now I'm watching thousands die in the middle east because they disagree about who is a prophet and who isn't. Religion has a lot to answer for, and you can keep saying its harmless, but the style of thinking that gives rise to it, may have served a purpose once, but it doesn't IMHO anymore. Its long past time for people to evolve into something greater and stop looking for the absent parent to take care of them and make everything alright.
  • I am reminded of the parable of the puddle. A puddle appears after a rain storm and thinks, look how perfectly this hole in the ground fits me, it must have been made for me. Obviously someone cares about me and has a plan for me. And then the sun comes out and all along the puddle is thinking look how perfectly this world fits me as it gets smaller and smaller. Clearly someone has a plan for me and won't let anything bad happen to me. And it thinks this up until the moment its evaporated completely, not realizing that it fit the world, completely by accident, and not the other way around, and there really was no-one looking out for it.
  • Thats a Douglas Adams one, btw.
  • I feel bad for that puddle.
  • To an anarchist, power is innately corrupting. Whether the power be delegated by the state, church, or pariarchy, most anarchists believe that even the best intentioned authorities inevitably become more concerned with their own power rather than serving their constituents. Most hold the notion that human beings are capable of voluntarily cooperating to meet everyone's needs, without bosses or rulers, and without sacrificing individual liberties.
  • Neanderthals... This is circa 18,000 years ago, long before God had been created by man. Sorry, Chy, small mistake here: Neanderthals had disappeared from the fossil record by that point in time. They were dated from about 350, 000 years ago to near 33, 000 years ago. This is when god was a twinkle in his father's eye. I don't remember when the evidence of Neanderthal HMO was but I think it was around 180, 000 when we first start seeing healing in the human remains. I'll be doing a lot of Wikipedia research with those, thanks. Oh. Your. God. Wikipedia... Please, tell me that's just the start of your research. Was this supposed to be sarcasm? Pack and herd animals have their own "rules" that determine leaders and followers, and the appropriate behavior for each. Path is on the mark, too. Elephant herd mothers will chase and beat elephant "rapists" down. Identifying non-consensual sex as a "bad thing" in society is something we humans attribute to a moral and ethical code, no? Ya cain't start a holy war if ya ain't got a god. Maybe, islander, but the original reasons for invading Iraq would still be full of holes even without God being on Bush's side. Drums? ...and you can keep saying its harmless... I dunno, Mord, it seems like some dogmas only give people a set of justifications and they are free to pick and choose between which sets they will use for whichever purposes. Which is religion: dogma or interpretation? I'm pretty sure it's the interpretation, but why, then, make profound the dogma as the end all of the code of ethics? The harm is in the manipulators of the codexes and not in the following of the benevolent concepts within; rather, it's the contradictory values proponed by despotic intolerant egoists. Take Einstein for example: thanks to his discoveries some people melted almost 225,000 Japanese into shadows. Would you say that the special theory of relativity is a bad thing or was it the jackasses that used it to design harm?
  • Ok, Chy, I had to do the research, Shanidar Cave was the place where multiple human remains were found having signs of healing, including massive trauma on anomolously older individuals. Some of the folks who dug the site postulate one of the individuals had the Neanderthal equivelant of an Irish wake. But I was wrong about the date: it was about 80,000 years ago. And yeah, they are humans, just not modern ones, and they aren't even direct ancestors of ours they're considered by many taxonomists to be a subspecies of ancient Homo sapiens - more like cousins. There is a chance, ya know, that they're still around - albeit a very, very small chance. Kissing cousins and all that. I don't know if that helps or hinders Chyren's argument, but it might clarify a few things.
  • There is a chance, ya know, that they're still around They're doing Geiko commercials, from what I've heard. Dunno, cuz I don't watch the teevee none.
  • Who needs God, when we can kick those little Neanderthal behinds all around the countryside? Heh. Kick!
  • To the duly-Godded, those Neanderthals are in fact Satan's infertile hellspawn. And God planted dinosaur bones to test our faith. And God set up radioactive decay constants to fuck with us. Oh yes, just to fuck with us.
  • ...and geological processes that "take billions of years." Pshaw.
  • And God planted dinosaur bones to test our faith. It don't matter where they're planted at, let's kick their behinds all around the countryside.
  • "small mistake here: Neanderthals had disappeared from the fossil record by that point in time." Not entirely accurate, because there is argument about Neanderthal's disappearance date. The lack of remains from that period is not evidence of a lack of Neanderthals. While your figure is likely to be a better bet, revisionist paleoanthropology seems to be suggesting that there might be a lot more overlap. In the last decade, the early date of Cro Magnon appearance has been pushed back 10 thousand years or more, so I suspect that the latest Neanderthal could have survived may be pushed closer to us. We only have 11 or so full skeletons of Neanderthals in toto, & so their remains are extremely rare. For such a long lived species, they could well have survived much longer into recent prehistory in isolated pockets. There is no proof for this, however. You're right that my arbitrary use of the date 18,000 yrs ago viz evidence of ritual burial & support of wounded/aged individuals is not accurate because those remains come from *much* earlier. However, I'm taking them as proof of a cultural practice. I personally believe Neanderthal survived much longer than is generally accepted, in fact I think they interbred with humans in Europe. This personal opinion entered into my post composition, which was naughty. "..they are humans, just not modern ones, and they aren't even direct ancestors of ours.." There's an immense amount of disagreement on this. Most people accept that they are not a direct ancestor. There are many complications to this, however, since Neanderthal was around for so very long. Some suggest that groups of Neanderthal migrated into North Africa, evolved into Cro Magnon, then their descendants came back to Europe. Others say Cro Magnon came from Homo Antecessor or Erectus in Africa, separate from Neanderthal. Nobody knows for sure what the deal is with early modern man. There were many 'cousins' at one point or another, it's confusing & unclear. My use of the term "early man" is OK, because.. they were early men. Humans. They share cultural & genetic ancestry with us, even if they are a different branch of the family. I think they're not our direct ancestors, but I personally am interested in the idea that they interbred with early European Cro Magnon settlers, their descendants making up the modern Basque people, who are unique genetically & culturally. This is just theory at this point. The physical differences between Cro Magnon & Neanderthal have been overly emphasised. Aside from some significant skeletal & skull variations, early modern man & Neanderthal share more characteristics than not. The skeletal differences between them are still within the range of morphological variance, strange to say. They're obviously not us, but neither were Cro Magnon, really.
  • Fuck. I just wrote a response that took me an hour to word appropriately and firefox crashed. If this comes across as brusque, Chy, it has nothing to do with you, it's just my frustration with this technology. Let me try again: The lack of remains from that period is not evidence of a lack of Neanderthals This is a tautology: "the lack of evidence is not evidence." I didn't insinuate this. I said disappeared from the fossil record, not existence. This is important to understand for something else you mentioned. We only have 11 or so full skeletons of Neanderthals in toto, & so their remains are extremely rare. This is extremely misleading. The amount of individual neanderthals recovered is several hundred. They are the most prolific finds of all the paleoanthropological finds. If 11 complete skeletons is all that have been found, that makes sense, complete skeletons are an extremely rare find in osteological remains - even rare in burials. ...in fact I think they interbred with humans in Europe. This is what my "kissing cousins" remark refers to. Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans have been found in context in burials. My use of the term "early man" is OK, because.. they were early men. Humans. I have to take the piss out of you for this one, because that's exactly what I said, "Yeah, they are humans, just not modern ones..." But, you're spot on about the direct ancestor thing, there's a lot of contention about those bones. Looks like my own biases crawled in there, as well. Some suggest that groups of Neanderthal migrated into North Africa, evolved into Cro Magnon, then their descendants came back to Europe. Others say Cro Magnon came from Homo Antecessor or Erectus in Africa, separate from Neanderthal. Ok, there's a lot of stuff messed up here. Cro Magnon is a localized divergence of anatomically modern humans, in my opinion. Cro M. appears around 40 KYA anatomically modern humans ~130 KYA. If Cro M. was from Antecessor or erectus in Africa we'd expect to find his remains all over the migratory routes where erectus and neanderthalensis are rampant. Compare the skulls of all involved, esp. H. sapiens and Cro M. Fuck, I can't rewrite this part without sounding like a twit. Suffice to say, a lot of purporting and very weak evidence. If someone told me Cro M. were the babies of H. s. s. and H. s. n. unions, I'd say, "it's entirely possible." ...their descendants making up the modern Basque people... Interesting... Who's is this from? Aside from some significant skeletal & skull variations, early modern man & Neanderthal share more characteristics than not. Look at a dog post-cranial skeleton and a cat post-cranial skeleton, you'd say the exact same thing. Now compare their skulls. I have never met a H. sapiens sapiens with H. sapiens neanderthalensis traits. Never. I strongly believe that I never will. But I may be surprised some day. Craniums are the most specialized area of the body for most critters. This is why they create the best basis for speciation. But fuck this silly debate, Neanderthals showed signs of morality way before the invention of God or the Biblical genesis. And, Chy, I am so pissed off that my original carefully worded post is gone that I couldn't give a shit how I worded this one. Goddamn you, technology. Fuck preview.
  • This is important to understand for something else you mentioned. I mean that the lack of evidence keeps us from seeing the gradient or ancient to modern morphology and the individual variation within the non-evident populations. Disregard this "something you mentioned" crap. I and computer are idiots.
  • Yeah, the skeletal remains are from hundreds of individuals, but each bit is relatively tiny. I forgot to add that. You got me there. What I'm trying to say is that we don't have that much in the way of Neanderthal remains, per se. I've never heard anyone say that they are prolific. Compared to other finds they are common, but the other finds are just tiny. Look at Gigantopithecus, we have some jars of teeth & a bit of jaw & they reconstruct the whole animal from that, based on similarities to Orangutan dentition. These are the kind of huge logic jumps that I object to. Such jumps have also been made with Neanderthal. Up until, what, a couple of decades ago, they were telling us he couldn't even speak other than grunts. Then they found a Neanderthal hyoid bone, which shows he's nearly able to produce all the complex sounds we do. This kind of stuff makes me always want to give Neander more benefit of the doubt, because he's gone from a hairy, humpbacked brute to a sophisticated cultural being in one human lifetime of research. I say there's more to come. "If someone told me Cro M. were the babies of H. s. s. and H. s. n. unions.." I didn't mean that at all. Obviously, I'm not really up to scratch on this stuff, but AFAIK, nobody has any solid idea where early moderns sprang from, out of Africa theory, etc. I have a habit of calling all our early moderns Cro Magnon, which is obviously not accurate. I quickly sought the name of the early human that came before Neanderthal, & which (verrrry roughly) also existed at the same time, but I couldn't figure out whether it was Antecessor or Erectus. Erectus is too primitive to be the direct progenitor of early modern, there has to be some other sub-species in there. I know next to nothing about that part of this. I know a fair bit about Neanderthals, but not early modern man. "...modern Basque people... Interesting... Who's is this from?" Something I read recently which I half absorbed but which I forget where I saw it, now. I don't think it was crank stuff, otherwise I wouldn't have remembered it at all. There was some interesting, but circumstantial, evidence for it that sounded promising. I completely forget the details. I'll try to find where I saw it. I believe it has something to do with the unique genetic traits of the Basques, & their location. "Look at a dog post-cranial skeleton and a cat post-cranial skeleton, you'd say the exact same thing. Now compare their skulls." That's making my assertion sound a little too extreme. The skulls of Cro Magnon & Neanderthal are morphologically quite different, but not *that* grossly different. You could shave up a Neanderthal & put him in a suit, he'd have a big nose & no chin, & a pretty extraordinary brow ridge, but I argue that he would still look pretty much like us. I've seen some pretty fuckin' ugly lookin' modern humans in my time, with no chins & big brow ridges, & thought to myself, 'holy shit, that could be.. nah'. Skeletal structures similar to Neanderthals can be seen in the Inuit. Granted their bones were extremely stocky, but I still argue within the range of variance. If I took a 7ft black basketball player, a congo pigmy, & a little old lady from Arkansas & lined 'em up, one might be tempted to think they were from different branches of the human species, too. There are modern human skulls from south america with grossly distorted, almost cone-head craniums. They're still modern humans. I have heard the argument, again not from cranks (but certainly from mavericks) that Neanderthals may not actually be a separate species at all. This is never going to be accepted by paleoanthropologists without some good evidence, of course, & it's not likely, but still within the realms of possibility. Let me ask you this: how many complete or near complete Neanderthal skulls have we found? It's not that many.
  • Anyway, the point is I agree, Neanderthal has some form of morality or community spirit that has him looking after that old guy with one arm & chewing his food for him for decades, & flower burials, etc. So there is no God. Q.E.D.! Take that, Jezoids! (Me fail logic? That is invalid syllogism!)
  • Also, I didn't take your post as brusque at all. I've had the thing eat my posts on occasion, & it is extreeeeeemely irrrrritatinnnnnng. Especially when they're long.
  • God made your computer crash because he didn't like your post.
  • *refrains from kicking another Neanderthal behind after reading scholarly post from Chyren*
  • You dig deeper and deeper And soon you will find God is not in the dirt But just in the mind
  • ))) to ye,Argh!!! All best work has been eaten by Fierce Bad Browsers!
  • Erectus is too primitive to be the direct progenitor... there has to be some other sub-species in there. Multiregional hypotheses claim H. erectus evolved into H. sapiens in different areas. Again - according to the fossil record. The mtDNA research supports "mitochondrial Eve" for the Out of Africa hypothesis where H. antecessor, H. heidlebergensis and H. steinheimensis (as if they were actually different species/branches of the tree... more likely people trying to justify research or PhD's) come into play. Still, nothing is in stone, but genetics work in the favor of Africa models, I believe, with "Y chromosomal Adam" and "mtEve". Ya know, to think about it, my dog/cat skull comparison was way off base. Take two dogs, say a Bulldog and a Shih-Tzu, and look at their skulls. They look totally different; one has a dramatically reduced snout, one doesn't. Both of these are Canis familiaris. Mix them together and you get the quality of my argument regarding the taxonomy here. Now take a red fox skull and compare it to a papillion's, they look pretty much the same, but one is Vulpes vulpes and the other is C. familiaris; totally different genuses. My argument doesn't have a leg here. I fucking hate taxonomists. This is why I choose to lump things. Some sites, like Lazaret cave only have a neanderthal parietal bone. But there are a considerable amount of quite intact Neanderthal skulls (>60% intact - complete guess) that all share dramatically dimorphic characteristics from all H. sapiens sapiens skulls. Whether we're talking about two distinct breeds (my favored scenario) or two distinct species is up for the dudes working out the N. genome, I'd presume. Any comparison would let us in on if the two could interbreed. The fact that we are simply taking bones that look the same and throwing them in the same two boxes depending on these structural homologues is definately as ridiculous an exercise as you suggest, except for the fact that, as of yet, within the two boxes there isn't enough variability to create a borderline morphology that both have shared; the segregated differences remain consistently seperate. Just a few of these consistent differences: [Neanderthal vs. (H. s. s.)] occipital buns (occipital protuberance), flattened lambdoidal area (rounded), dramatically sloping frontal bones (vertical frontals), anterior-posterior long, squashed football shaped cranium (tall, anterior-posterior short, rounded cranium), sometimes jutting nasal projections (never projections), comparativey high average cranial capacity (medium average cranial capacity) as well as the ones you mentioned and more. Who knows? You could shave up a Neanderthal & put him in a suit, he'd have a big nose & no chin, & a pretty extraordinary brow ridge, but I argue that he would still look pretty much like us. I've seen some pretty fuckin' ugly lookin' modern humans in my time, with no chins & big brow ridges, & thought to myself, 'holy shit, that could be.. nah'. I think you could tell instantly the difference. I do remember a documentary with the cleanshaven neanderthal in the suit routine for a cheap "academic" chuckle (if that was a reference on the sly). Here's a decent article discussing the differences and the Cro-Magnon occurance from an Out-of-Africa standpoint with a little lip-service to Multiregional hypotheses. Another interesting theory to check out is species recognition mechanisms in early hominids. Some people want to throw erectus, neanderthal, sapiens and all the other contemporaneous early humans into the same species due to what is (completely hypothetetically) all the same species recognition mechanisms. Check out the hourglass on Erectusette! These are extrapolated from modern analogues by primatologists and behavioural psychologists, so your mileage will vary.
  • Oh, mylantra, it posted!
  • If people were accustomed to wearing their skeltons on their outsides like the nectar-crazed but beneficent honeybee, they wouldn't be so confused about what bit of bone belonged where and with whom.
  • I bow to your knowledge, InsolentChimp. A very interesting discussion altogether which tickles my frontal lobes. I shall be doing some more reading on all of this lot. I'll also try to find that thing about the Basques. Bees, I think that would be uncomfortable. I mean, without exterior buttocks, sitting down wouldn't be as nice. Although birth, for the femmes, would probably be an easier business. In fact, your probably right. Intelligent design, my arse!
  • *You're*. Bumclouds. Personal pet-hate.
  • > I'll also try to find that thing about the Basques. the basques have a strong presence in french rugby, and several rugby fans have mentioned a neanderthal-basque "physical" link to me. the standard basquaise physique is shorter than average, quite stocky, with not very much neck, and a heavy brow. i think part of it is oral tradition (e.g. see the basajaun), but part of it seems based on research in a variety of fields.
  • "...modern Basque people... Interesting... Who's is this from?" It wasn't this one was it? It just jumped to mind.
  • roryk's second link seems more on the money to what I was recalling, tho' I seem to remember seeing it in a more mainstream scientific site with nice layout. Honestly, I completely forget, & judging by my accuracy record of late, I probably saw it on Jeff Rense in connection with fuckin' alien abductions for all I know. Grain of salt, etc.
  • Nuh, that aint it. Besides, that theory don't wash. Autism, or my Asperger's Syndrome, my sister's ADHD, that is environmental, IMHO. Just mutations. Asperger's is a less extreme mutation that may or may not be passed into the gene pool, but to say that these modern neurologic nontypicalities relate to something inherited from a long extinct human branch species seems a little stretched. The most likely place I saw this link I'm talking about, recently, would be Digg, which I've been trawling a bit over the past month or two. It's possible my memory is conflating a Nature article on Neanderthal survival in the Gibraltar area with the 'How the Neanderthals became the Basques' page you linked, roryk. There seem to be a lot of similar pages linked on Google. A neurology.org article, which you need a subscription to read online, may be a lead. Dunno how I could have read that, maybe I saw an extract somewhere.
  • Anyway, I think that is a dead end. The Neanderthals died out. Absent more convincing evidence, my romantic beliefs they lived on to interbreed with early modern man remains just a personal opinion.
  • Christ, that Neanderthal-Autism link has quite the plethora of cranky racial assumptions & data. Wowee.
  • Fascinating thread. Thanks to all for the links to additional reading.
  • Anyway, I think that is a dead end. The Neanderthals died out. Absent more convincing evidence, my romantic beliefs they lived on to interbreed with early modern man remains just a personal opinion. A lot of the "peeps in the know" seem to think this is more plausible than you'd think. Christ, that Neanderthal-Autism link has quite the plethora of cranky racial assumptions & data. Wowee. Not to mention rampant idiocy in regards to understanding fossil evidence and current therories. Coupla things I noticed off the bat before I gave up on this long winded bullshit: 1) Human beings became monogomous shortly after H. erectus: In studies of primates (yeah, we have to use silly primatology to pick at the behavioural bullshit) the less sexually dimorphic the individual the more it will be monogomous. Humans are really sexually dimorphic; matrimony really isn't our natural bag. This seems like western naivete to me. This prolly didn't happen until quite recently, shit, look at mormons. 2)It is very likely that brain expansion was largely driven by the unstable climate of Eurasia, which required constant adaptations from their inhabitants. These selective pressures never existed in Africa. Africa instead acted a lot like a refugee area where larger populations could survive for extended periods of time. Frequent hybridization between advanced, but sparse, Eurasian Homo and refugee African Homo ensured that Homo evolved larger brains. Bullshit. It is far more likely that H. e. migrated to the warm places. Selective pressures did exist in Africa, but no, not "these" selective pressures. Brain development through evolution required and still requires high caloric intake. You don't get the kind of biomass that can provide that to a species (that still needs to be weeded to the brainier individuals, mind you) on a glacier. You do find a high biomass in Africa during the glaciation, however. There are a lot of crucial flaws here. Smells like the distinct perfume of racism shrouded in "fact." 3)Modern humans formed when they hybridized with the archaic Asian Homo erectus population. Pure idiocy. How can one thing exist by having sex with another being to conceive itself? Someone get me Douglas Adams on the line, pls. 4) Got tired of all this purporting of the "facts" without any real support. The author confuses what these sources are saying, such as the changes to the out of Africa theory Nat'l Geographic link (which is such a great resource, by the way, almost as good as the Glacier National Park virtual field trip link for the purposes of what's being proposed). The author seems to think the fact that big brained humans didn't travel out of Africa first to mean that big brained human beings never traveled out of Africa. This negates the replacement model which is the out of Africa model. It goes something like: smart humans traveled out of Africa and replaced (or hybridized) all of the H. erectus and H. neanders. What the author is claiming is nothing new it's just a multiregional model which ignores the gentic dating (and significance) of mtEve at about 150KYA in Africa. At this point, I really couldn't care for author's hybridization theories because this person tried way too hard to destroy the OOA theory for no good reason (it would have supported his claims either way). What's the point? White autistic Hitler youth are natural? This author reminds me of the Moundbuilder deniers. Meh. I hate misinformation. Speaking of long winded bullshit... /ranty pedant i think part of it is oral tradition (e.g. see the basajaun), but part of it seems based on research in a variety of fields. Oral traditions have been translated through geology and archaeology before and somewhat accurately to boot. It's too bad you can't always date them tho'. Good links!
  • Weird things in that second Basque link. I don't know if anyone caught it. There's a book in there called Homonids that's published by a pretty well-known fantasy/sci-fi publisher: Tor. So, I took a better look at the rest of the references: a link to a David Icke site and a link to more UFO type bullshit. I decided to forget everything I read. That's not research, that's entertainment. Couple of decent references in there (Norton, BFC), but the bad ones spoil it all.
  • More thanks -- to IC, this time, for preemptive critical analysis I'll keep in mind.
  • squeeee! neanderthals!