Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Ouroboros]

You have exactly NOTHING to show that the “religion” of primitive peoples was in any way morality related when research by actual professionals shows it to be nature related.

The extreme separation of moral development from religious development remains Quag's position. Try to keep up.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are carrying water for the watchmaker arguments of both Frank and DrewPaul. Of this there is no doubt. You just did it for DrewPaul in post #2572.

Still don't care that you think the watchmaker arguments were refuted, and I don't even think said argument applies to Frank A. at all. Why do so many atheists lack the ability to make such distinctions?

 

[Ouroboros]

Quag is clealry arguing for ethics arising in non-human animals through communication of some sort between them rather than reliance in some sort of outside source, such as a “God” merely “giving” it to them. Same same for primitive humans. You are defeating your own arguments.

That's not what he said and I will be fascinated to see if he responds to your lie.

 

[Ouroboros]

The protestation of pure agnostics is fence-sitting that way too often parrots the claims of the theists/relgionists, as has been done by yourself and the two others who spend so much time in here.

Yawn. You're in love with being wrong, it seems.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nor does the nonexistence of the DMOCC have ANY evidence.

What can we conclude from a lack of ANY evidence either supporting or refuting the existence of the DMOCC?

I conclude that you uttered a random statement for which no evidence can exist by the nature of the statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

God statements are just as random and lacking in supporting evidence.

Lacking in the evidence that atheists say they value, only to turn around and make false statements like, "all anthropologists believe that moral social organization precedes religious social organization." Even if one could prove such unanimity, why would any atheist place faith in such an unproveable hypothesis, except for rhetorical purposes?

 

[Ouroboros]

Same with humans

We are talking about use language not literacy. Why can they not be compared?

Why? I have explained how this can be

I have repeatedly stated that morals do not require religion. For your claim to be true religion has to have occured before morals. I am disproving your claim by showing that morals almost certainly came before religion due to the need for language able to convey the idea of religion but not morals
You have yet to give any reason why or how religion could have preceded morals.

(1) Already refuted. (2) I object to an oversimple parallelism. (3) The instinctual responses of ants don't constitute morals. They've been passed down by biology as if by fiat. (4) No, I've counter-argued that morals and religion could have evolved in tandem rather than being radically distinct. I established that nonhuman animals could organize short-term agreements on certain workable behaviors-- like that of the rats at play, which CAN be distinguished from the instinctive responses of ants-- but I don't think that these short-term responses can be extrapolated into some sort of precognitive moral positions.

 

[Ouroboros]

The OP specializes in boring.

I specialize in calling forth the mediocre responses of atheists, and the above is just one more.

 

[Ouroboros]

No I havent I have stressed that there isnt enough differences to make humans into something other than animals

Ok can you show that and then show that percludes morals

Article didnt even come close to say all or most ape tribes it was a very few specific ones and said it may be rituals and it may be play. Once again ritual isnt religion you can have non religious rituals..

Ritual does not equal religion

Those who have studied this disgaree with the bolded ands depsite yoru best efforts you cant prove this shows morals as humans societies have also practiced incest

Still waiting for you to try and prove morals come from religion

(1) The fact that humans can conceive far more animals can indicates that your parallelism is too extreme. (2) Again, I am disproving your assertion that morals must precede religion. (3) And the primate responses you cite regarding incest avoidance may be individually rather than societally motivated. (4) Some anthropologists have believed that ritual leads inevitably to religion; rituals which may have been just as pre-cognitive as your agreement paradigm. 'Like Frazer, Harrison believed that myths could arise as the initial reason a ritual was forgotten or became diluted. As an example, she cited rituals that center on the annual renewal of vegetation. Such rituals often involve a participant who undergoes a staged death and resurrection. Harrison argues that the ritual, although "performed annually, was exclusively initiatory";[14] it was performed on people to initiate them into their roles as full-standing members of society. At this early point, the "god" was simply "the projection of the euphoria produced by the ritual."[14] Later, however, this euphoria became personified as a distinct god, and this god later became the god of vegetation, for "just as the initiates symbolically died and were reborn as fully fledged members of society, so the god of vegetation and in turn crops literally died and were reborn."[14] In time, people forgot the ritual's initiatory function and only remembered its status as a commemoration of the Adonis myth.[14]'-- Wiki, Myth and Ritual. (The same essay mentions that other scholars disagree with the myth-ritual school. That disagreement doesn't prove that the myth-and-ritual school is entirely wrong, though. It just means that anthropologists of different schools often disagree.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You reject all of the past gods, but you cling so dearly to your god of Creation. All that you are really doing is to engage in the same superstitions that have been with Homo sapiens since the very beginning. You have just changed the “power” of the god from eclipses to the entire universe. It’s still every bit as ridiculous.

I cling, for logical reasons, to the POSSIBLITY of a god of creation.

You seem to miss that point.

For some reason you want to assert that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply am not willing to go that extra step.

Not sure why you want to think that by me insisting that I will not take that step because I see it as illogical...makes me a fence-sitter. I am no more a fence-sitter than you. People who describe themselves as agnostics are no more fence-sitters than you.

 

[watsup]

I cling, for logical reasons, to the POSSIBLITY of a god of creation.

You seem to miss that point.

For some reason you want to assert that it is impossible for a god to exist. I simply am not willing to go that extra step.

Not sure why you want to think that by me insisting that I will not take that step because I see it as illogical...makes me a fence-sitter. I am no more a fence-sitter than you. People who describe themselves as agnostics are no more fence-sitters than you.

I reject ALL figments of human imagination which are called God or gods. You do not. As such, you are a fence sitter.

 

[watsup]

I specialize in calling forth the mediocre responses of atheists, and the above is just one more.

Says the author of the most mediocre OP this side of Tosca.

 

[watsup]

Yawn. You're in love with being wrong, it seems.

The daily projection of Ouroboros, the person who has yet to present even thr least bit of evidence that I am wrong.

 

[watsup]

Lacking in the evidence that atheists say they value, only to turn around and make false statements like, "all anthropologists believe that moral social organization precedes religious social organization." Even if one could prove such unanimity, why would any atheist place faith in such an unproveable hypothesis, except for rhetorical purposes?

Ah yes, looks like Ouroboros still has to depend on his strawman LIES, given that he is the one who added the word “all” to my original TRUE claim. The need to hide behind strawman lies is yet another indication of the huge fail of this thread.

 

[watsup]

That's not what he said and I will be fascinated to see if he responds to your lie.

Then tell me where I am wrong instead of just making an empty claim. Has Quag indicated any sort of need for an outside source for the “lower” animals to establish their ethical routines other than their instinct? Of course he hasn’t. Once again, you are unwilling/unable to undergird your statements.

 

[watsup]

Still don't care that you think the watchmaker arguments were refuted, and I don't even think said argument applies to Frank A. at all. Why do so many atheists lack the ability to make such distinctions?

You are the one who needs to try to keep up. If you had read Frank at all, you would indeed have seen that it is the “Creator” God that he references as his so-called “possibility”, and the Creator God is founded in the watchmaker argument.

 

[watsup]

The extreme separation of moral development from religious development remains Quag's position. Try to keep up.

Early on, this applied. It was only much later in human development that the two were finally linked. And I still can’t figure out why you can’t engage Quag without wanting my help. You can do it on your own. You really can. There, does that encouragement help?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I reject ALL figments of human imagination which are called God or gods. You do not. As such, you are a fence sitter.

You want to think that making a blind guess is somehow more logical than simply telling the truth. As such...you are whatever you want to be. Whatever it is allows me to laugh whenever I read your posts.

 

[Ouroboros]

Says the author of the most mediocre OP this side of Tosca.

A judgment rendered by the guy who made the goofy claim that modern day Baptists might be in any way responsible for slavery. "Are these the same Southern Baptists who would preach from the pulpit in the Old South that God approves of their slavery?"-- from your OP attacking Baptists. Duh, no, about two hundred years separated the two groups referenced.

 

[Ouroboros]

The daily projection of Ouroboros, the person who has yet to present even thr least bit of evidence that I am wrong.

Already cited the ambivalent statements of your hero Richard Dawkins, which you dodged and are still dodging.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah yes, looks like Ouroboros still has to depend on his strawman LIES, given that he is the one who added the word “all” to my original TRUE claim. The need to hide behind strawman lies is yet another indication of the huge fail of this thread.

As I recall, you just said "anthropologists." That connotes all of them, with no distinctions. And as I said, atheists like to claim that they make distinctions that theists never do. When you fail to do so, you're just creating another species of dogma.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then tell me where I am wrong instead of just making an empty claim. Has Quag indicated any sort of need for an outside source for the “lower” animals to establish their ethical routines other than their instinct? Of course he hasn’t. Once again, you are unwilling/unable to undergird your statements.

Please post the claim where Quag made any claims about how social organization invalidating revelations from God. He may well believe that. But he hasn't said that; all the posts I've read talk about needing the abstractions of language to articulate religion, with nothing about revelations from a deity.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are the one who needs to try to keep up. If you had read Frank at all, you would indeed have seen that it is the “Creator” God that he references as his so-called “possibility”, and the Creator God is founded in the watchmaker argument.

Quote, please.

 

[Ouroboros]

Early on, this applied. It was only much later in human development that the two were finally linked. And I still can’t figure out why you can’t engage Quag without wanting my help. You can do it on your own. You really can. There, does that encouragement help?

I can't imagine anyone invoking your help for anything, since you can't even get right the positions you're citing.

 

[Quag]

That's not what he said and I will be fascinated to see if he responds to your lie.

Yeeah that is basicaly what I was saying