Religion is only for the highest and most evolved animals.

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet. 

Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion. 

It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear. 

Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms.  Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved.  eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking. 

Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living. 

To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.



Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
bible shows all of creation is religious, or at very least believes and obeys God.

i can argue that rocks are more religious than some people.

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,986
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet. 

Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion. 

It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear. 

Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms.  Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved.  eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking. 

Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living. 
You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming  therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists.  So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?

To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.
You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work.  It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.

I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it  can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species  in varying degrees.  But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.

b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Where did you see atheists that are living like wild animals, without control, rules or social norms? Who are they? I don't know any atheists who could be described in that way. Tell me where I can find them or read about them.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,211
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
So, this is a topic to roast rabid atheists, aint it?

At least you have a point, we human beings are in an ongoing evolutionary process. Thats why we still have religions -and also atheism- today.

But I agree with you, atheism is as primitive as religions.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Melcharaz
bible shows all of creation is religious, or at very least believes and obeys God.

i can argue that rocks are more religious than some people.
Ok. Show me how a rock is religious. Thanks. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Sidewalker
It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet. 

Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion. 

It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear. 

Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms.  Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved.  eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking. 

Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living. 
You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming  therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists.  So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?
It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic.  What sort of ad hominin argument is that?  I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution".  In any event, my argument is straightforward.  Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.  

To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.
You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work.  It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.
Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more.  Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me?  I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion.  Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent.  Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work.  What however it looks like you are doing is this.  You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond.  Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond.  I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself. 


I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it  can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species  in varying degrees.  But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.

Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Where did you see atheists that are living like wild animals, without control, rules or social norms? Who are they? I don't know any atheists who could be described in that way. Tell me where I can find them or read about them.
Yes, I see them at parties, nightclubs, people getting themselves intoxicated on alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it. Of course, you might be tempted to say atheists don't drink or take drugs, or have sex. 

I also notice them at restaurants, eating sushi, rare meat, vegan food, etc.  It's quote common really.  Or do you think atheists don't go to restaurants? The rarer the meat, the more cultured you are.  The more expensive the wine, and never ever drink beer. 

So if you want to see them, come to Melbourne, you will see them on almost any city street during lunchtime, or in the evening at all the plush cafes'. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, this is a topic to roast rabid atheists, aint it?

At least you have a point, we human beings are in an ongoing evolutionary process. Thats why we still have religions -and also atheism- today.

But I agree with you, atheism is as primitive as religions.
Yeah, I confess, I felt like roasting an atheist.  It seems to be more the norm to roast the religious.  

I just want to even up the scores a little bit. 

Thanks for agreeing. Refreshing really. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Tradesecret
This is a foundation for a much larger fundamental difference between Christianity and right-wing politics and atheism and left-wing politics. Christianity ultimately yearns for a higher state that transcends the flesh which is inherently flawed meanwhile the ENTIRE FUCKING foundation for liberalism assumes a positive natural state in which humans must enter a "social contract" with government. 

Left-wing politics is foundationally primitive
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
luke 19:37-40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo wrote: So, this is a topic to roast rabid atheists, aint it?


The Reverend wrote: Yeah, I confess, I felt like roasting an atheist.  I just want to even up the scores a little bit. 

Even up the score!!??   he says:  while having his strongest opponents on block and denying them the right to respond. The Reverend is a cowardly bible dunce that simply wants to use this site as a pulpit and go unchallenged on his profound comments, statements , contradictions, ad hominem and bible duncery.




Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2



IlDiavolo wrote: So, this is a topic to roast rabid atheists, aint it?

The Reverend wrote: Yeah, I confess, I felt like roasting an atheist.  I just want to even up the scores a little bit. 
"Even up the score:!!!"   this vile tirade against atheists will take some beating. And from a man chosen by god, too.


"Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead.  Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian".




zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
One does not need to subscribe to a religion to be able to understand the naive hypothesis behind it.

I would also suggest that atheism is actually a more progressive concept than theism.

The rejection of archaic naivety in favour of logical realism.


1. The theist accepts that it was a magical floaty about Middle Eastern bloke what did it.

2. The atheist assesses the theistic concept and realises how stupid an idea it is.


As ever:

GOD concept valid.

Floaty about Arabian type, not so.



Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
My guinea pigs have a god, it’s me.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Pastor Jim Bakker:  "When I first went to prison, I was even questioning where, God, where are you?"

Albert Einstein:  'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather                                                       primitive  legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '

Who do you think is the most evolved?

Remember that the PTL empire preacher Jim Bakker built with wife Tammy Bakker crumbled 30 years ago, after financial and sex scandals.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Why did Man create an opiate? What is striking about the historical estimates is how similar the mortality rates for children were across this very wide range of 43 historical cultures. Whether in Ancient Rome; Ancient Greece; the pre-Columbian Americas; Medieval Japan or Medieval England; the European Renaissance; or Imperial China: Every fourth newborn died in the first year of life. One out of two died in childhood.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,986
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
Where did you see atheists that are living like wild animals, without control, rules or social norms? Who are they? I don't know any atheists who could be described in that way. Tell me where I can find them or read about them.
Yes, I see them at parties, nightclubs, people getting themselves intoxicated on alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it. Of course, you might be tempted to say atheists don't drink or take drugs, or have sex. 
These people you see at parties and nightclubs, how do you know they are atheists, do they wear a badge, or maybe there is an atheist uniform?

I also notice them at restaurants, eating sushi, rare meat, vegan food, etc.  It's quote common really.  Or do you think atheists don't go to restaurants? The rarer the meat, the more cultured you are.  The more expensive the wine, and never ever drink beer. 
Same questions for the restaurants, are they sitting in the atheist only section?

So if you want to see them, come to Melbourne, you will see them on almost any city street during lunchtime, or in the evening at all the plush cafes'.

b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
You make atheists sound like a bunch of weirdos.
Be that as it may, I'm more interested in discussing your ideas about the bible.
I have nothing further to say about the topic of this thread.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
 I'm more interested in discussing your ideas about the bible.

So am I, b9_ntt.
But don't hold your breath. Even though he claims to be a Pastor with a congregation of over 300 and a Chaplain to his countries armed forces; Australia and a tutor to university students in all things biblical, I can assure you that he knows absolutely nothing about the scriptures.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
This is from a cartoon I saw online.

A man is floating on a cloud:  Where am I?

He sees God and says: Oh no, I think there has been a mistake.

God: Why?

Man: Uh, I'm an Atheist.

God: Yeah, thing is we only let Atheists in Heaven.

Man:  You're kidding me?

God: For Serious. I didn't give you Mortals the capacity to reason
           just  so I could reward people who believe nonsense without evidence.


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is a foundation for a much larger fundamental difference between Christianity and right-wing politics and atheism and left-wing politics. Christianity ultimately yearns for a higher state that transcends the flesh which is inherently flawed meanwhile the ENTIRE FUCKING foundation for liberalism assumes a positive natural state in which humans must enter a "social contract" with government. 

Left-wing politics is foundationally primitive
I totally agree that Left-wing politics is foundationally primitive.  It's unsurprising then that most atheists are in the Progressive left.  They have yet to evolve to the rest of humanity. One problem they haven't figured out yet, this is the Left, not necessarily the atheist, is logic. 


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Melcharaz
Thanks for the Luke 19 passage.  I wondered whether that is where you would go to initially. Still the fact that God could make them praise God implies that they are not currently religious. 

I wouldn't use this to suggest that they were. 
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
are you asserting rocks dont praise out of desire/freewill?
would you argue humans also dont have freewill? you are on a slippery slope in assuming inanimate objects dont have a desire/will.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
One does not need to subscribe to a religion to be able to understand the naive hypothesis behind it.
That is a statement that asserts more conclusions than it can prove.  Religion doesn't have a naive hypothesis behind it. One walks into a museum and sees all the artwork on the wall. What might we conclude? That there is a naive hypothesis behind it all.  Or that perhaps each of the works had an artist behind it.  One doesn't necessarily mean the other.  And yet that is what your first sentence concludes.  

I would also suggest that atheism is actually a more progressive concept than theism.
Suggest away.  But don't forget that progress has a direction.  It might be headed to the chasm or to enlightenment.  Progress is not neutral. Even our modern political systems recognise that progress has different directions.  In other words, the word progressive is not neutral.  And ergo adds little to the conversation. 

The rejection of archaic naivety in favour of logical realism.
Yes, I reject foolish notions such as "first there was nothing, then for no apparent reason, since nothing changed, nothing exploded.  And this nothing - which exploded somehow transformed into the most amazing something".  That is the ultimate archaic naivety.  Logical realism says - that nothing can come from nothing. It requires something to create something and to cause something.  

1. The theist accepts that it was a magical floaty about Middle Eastern bloke what did it.
Commencing with ridicule proves how desperate and faulty your logic is. It simply means you have accepted defeat already, but don't know how to deal with it in your own mind.  Hence, why you resort immediately to ridicule.  


2. The atheist assesses the theistic concept and realises how stupid an idea it is.
The atheist when they commence with ridicule demonstrates they are unable to assess objectively.  Hence, what flows after that is always going to be non-sequitur. 

As ever:

GOD concept valid.

Floaty about Arabian type, not so.
As demonstrated.  Your argument is not really an argument.  It is ridicule and therefore ad hominin.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Melcharaz
are you asserting rocks dont praise out of desire/freewill?
would you argue humans also dont have freewill? you are on a slippery slope in assuming inanimate objects dont have a desire/will.
I'm not sure whether you are being serious or not. Rocks don't have minds and they do not have freewill. Rocks are not even alive.  If a rock praises God, then that is because God caused it to do so. 

In relation to humans,  I think we need to ask the question about what freewill is.   Is it the freedom to do whatever we want? Or think? 

If it is simply going to be a choice then every human has the ability to make some choices.  Yet there are some things we can't choose to do. For instance, I can't choose to be a bird.  I can't choose to be Asian.  I can't choose to be 25 years of age again.   

So yes, I do think that humans have free will. After all, it wouldn't appear just for them to be punished for something they had no choice over.  I reject your assertion that since inanimate objects do not have free will humans can't. There is no slippery slope here.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
You make atheists sound like a bunch of weirdos.
Be that as it may, I'm more interested in discussing your ideas about the bible.
I have nothing further to say about the topic of this thread.
Atheists are no weirder than anyone else. They have their own delusions.  The main one is that they think they are objectively correct. 

hey, if you want to discuss bible ideas, start your own thread. I am happy to contribute to forum topic that I am interested in. 


Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
you can reject what you want, but scripture makes it clear that even rocks have a will. that even the earth is "groaning" according to scripture, desiring for the manifestation of the sons of God.
you seem very confident in your ignorance. if you want verses, just @me
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Melcharaz
you can reject what you want, but scripture makes it clear that even rocks have a will. that even the earth is "groaning" according to scripture, desiring for the manifestation of the sons of God.
you seem very confident in your ignorance. if you want verses, just @me
The bible uses language to describe things in such a way that humans are able to identify with and therefore respond to. 

The bible also pictures God with hands and feet and yet we know from other passages that he is a spirit and does not have a body like humans. This is metaphorical language or language that gives us an understanding of God yet not a literal picture.  

The earth groaning and the rocks praising - are giving to inanimate objects by pictorial language human attributes.  The rock is not going to suddenly stand on two feet which it does not have or open a mouth it does not have and say words - which it can't articulate.   Remember the heavens declare the glory of God.  But that is by a simple declaration of what it is.  Similarly, the earth's groaning is not suggesting it has a mind. Rather the earth is in a waiting mode - for the time that Christians wake up to themselves and start living in the way they ought to. 

But it is not suggesting that the earth has a freewill. That is taking the language completely out of context - language and genre context.  
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
nonsense. nor do you have any proof to make that assumption.
you certainly dont have a good enough understanding of scripture to seperate metaphorical discription as a true rendering.
i bet you think the psalms are just metaphorical as well.