Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: September 22, 2019, 3:18 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The dawn of civilization
#11
RE: The dawn of civilization
The origin of religion isn't much of a mystery. Oog drops a gourd full of water and it goes all splash.  The next time he huddles under a shrub during a rainstorm, he wonders what Gourd Dropper In The Sky has against him.

Boru
'A man is accepted into a church for what he believes.  He is turned out for what he knows.' - Mark Twain
Reply
#12
RE: The dawn of civilization
Uncle Ogg was a pessimist.

The ultimate irony of religious origins...for all the studious pontificating..is that it's just as intuitive as all early religion was - wonderfully expressed above. The origin of religious thought has very little to do with overarching themes - that came much later, to understand where religion initially came from..one only has to think locally...very....very....... locally. Forget everything you know..and imagine yourself as a person wandering through the wilds high on shrooms and unidentified toxic plants one third of the time, starving and chasing and fucking another third, and feverish from dental issues for the remainder.

Account for periods of balls out dreaming between all of the above.

Now..let's take bets on how ridiculous Agnosticos "thoughts" are going to be, if he ever gets around to sharing them.

I'm 50/50 between "aliens" and "it's twue..it's twue...it's twue!"


Wink

-aaand since this is mah shit...returning back to a comment on megaliths, from earlier.  My property has a gorgeous rock face.  Devonian sea detritus.  I would -and have- built installations of small cairns and larger standing stones for no religious reason.  I just wanted to build them.  I like them ( I do alot of knapping and clay firing too..maybe somebody will mistake my house for a neolithic site someday in the post apocalyptic future).  Point is...it's never safe to assume that megaliths are explicitly religious....though we can at least say that it took alot of people to build them back in the day.  They didn't have winches and engines like I do.  Or, for that matter...all of my glorious free time as a late stage chemical agriculturist, lol.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply
#13
RE: The dawn of civilization
Eastern religions have gods or deities
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
#14
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 13, 2018 at 2:24 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I would -and have- built installations of small cairns and larger standing stones for no religious reason.  I just wanted to build them.  I like them ( I do alot of knapping and clay firing too..maybe somebody will mistake my house for a neolithic site someday in the post apocalyptic future)

If you ever get the chance (assuming you haven’t already done so) visit Bru na Boine, it’s quite the mind wobbler. I was one of the winners of the Solstice lottery in 1996.

Boru
'A man is accepted into a church for what he believes.  He is turned out for what he knows.' - Mark Twain
Reply
#15
RE: The dawn of civilization
    Thanks Bolga I appreciate ur input. U know more than me about about agriculture which is good.

   It is widely thought to be the end of an ice age. The civilizations just popped up one after the other didn’t they. Especially when u look at the middle east
How certain are we on the dates? Ive read that Mesopotamia was from 8,000BC and others say 5,500BC. Our written history begins here followed by the Indus valley and Egypt, then Babylon and the rest.

   And is it fair to say we don’t really know if religion or agriculture came first? Because I have heard arguments for both. Megaliths, u said we really have no idea if they were buildings, religious monuments or what. We don’t really even know how they were built either. Im interested in acient megaliths but thas a topic for another day

Quote:“Now.. let's take bets on how ridiculous Agnosticos "thoughts" are going to be”

   That’s not nice. Note that u are the only one to give a theory on this thread. I might think someones theory is stupid but I never think someone is stupid for postulating a theory on such things that no one knows about. That’s not fair.

   I haven’t been ridiculous. I was given countless definitions by this forum on belief. Am I ridiculous to try understand the definition or  not to pick one? I accepted it in my 3rd post but people are still on there now, who is ridiculous? And then I post a thread asking why that guy and many atheists are angry. Whats ridiculous about that, seriously? Its been 30 vs 1. I havent used foul language nor have i attacked anyone, iv remained calm in a room full of hostile atheists. Am I ridiculous? 20 atheists all getting their knickers in a knot over 1 person. Am I ridiculous?

   Everyone is just scared and paranoid that im a theist and don't like being questioned. Even in this thread someone was like "I'm not sure what needs to be explained" as if he knows all wen he explained nothing. Like I said im not trying to win an argument. Just rather bounce thoughts off people and understand this community

   Bolga ur the only one with the balls to offer a theory here. The only one who has actually given this topic a thought. Im only communicating with u, one on one. Not 30 on 1. So I ask u to rid all your emotions and preconceived notions. Its a long post but don’t respond instantly from the heart. Take time to think first so u can respond from the mind. If u still claim that Im ridiculous then I'll walk away knowing at east i tried.



   My theory is on pre agriculture and is based on human nature and the observation of mammal societies, especially primates. Watched heaps of docos.

   Humans have the biological drive to procreate, all animals do. Its our most primeval instinct after survival. The males instinct is to screw as many women as he can. What do young men even today try to do? It’s in our subconscious to pass our seed far and wide. He will choose the most attractive one if he has to but otherwise will screw whoever.

   Women are much more choosy. Their search for a mate is driven by hybristophilia and hypergamy. The need for a strong male who can protect and provide for her. She also wants to take the seed of the fittest men. Hypergamy is easily seen today and has even been given a mainstream term, gold digger. Female hypergamy is a constant theme in mammals.

   So 200.000 years ago there is a chance that we lived in a society like the silverback gorillas. A new species humans would have been driven by the most primeval instincts to survive and procreate. The females don’t screw around with the average males. They only go to the alpha males which makes up for about 20% of the male population. Males would have had harems of 6-10 females and controlled a territory for its resources. Other alpha males challenge for control of the females and resources.

   I often hear people blame religion for wars which is totally false. Resources and land are always the reason for war. Religion will get used as a motivator to rally the troops just like patriotism in USA, USSR, Nazi Germany, Napoleon. Religion gets used as a propaganda tool just like uncle Sam. Even the crusade wars was primarily about land, the defence of Europe from Islam.

   So there are 80% of males (beta males) who life tough lives, died early from malnutrition and often never fulfill their biological drive to mate. These are the people who will get used and abused throughout history. They will over the years be used as slaves/servants/employees and soldiers. Slavery is another thing often attributed to religion when again there is no evidence of this. Slavery seems to be just as old as written history so we really don’t know how it came about.

   Alpha males start bringing betas into his “kingdom” He allows them to procreate with some of his females on the condition of service. Confrontations over rescores drives the need to build bigger societies with bigger armies to defend and attack when required. And so evolved into societies similar to Chimpanzees. Evidence of war is all over the animal kingdom and its interesting to see the chimps, thought to be mans closest relative, wage wars that hand to hand are more brutal than human wars.

   Ul read things here that u might think is appalling and immoral but what are morals at this point in history? Survival is the only thing that matters. Nature isn’t about morals. Life and death is all around.

   So societies were limited by the ice age. There would have been limited areas suitable enough to maintain survival. Areas with water, wild game, and edible plants.
Climate started changing and man starts experimenting with agriculture. There are constant wars. The beta males are slaves/employees. There isn’t a translation for employee in the ancient western texts. Only slave and servant. So for their services they were granted citizenship, a place to live and resources like food to survive.

   After war there would be a shortage of men so polygamy was accepted as long as the man was able to provide for all his wives. The women are willing parties to polygamy and in fact are the driving force as they become desperate to find a man to impregnate her she has no problem being in a polyamy relationship.

   However generation after generation there was failures. Crime was rampant and was hindering society. Morality had no definition and was subject to a person, time and place. This doesn’t mean it will be good for society and the generations that were to precede it. Morality is thought of as personal, for oneself, for the present. But morals had to be forced upon mankind to deter him/her from giving into their desires that don’t agree with societal life. This became the law. The word of God it became in some cultures though many people in eastern cultures don’t pray to a God. Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism.

   Apart from resources there is another thing that is key to building and maintaining large societies. Birth rate. Today the birth rate is 2.2 kids per women in order to maintain the population. It would have been higher back then. But it wasn’t happening. Men were giving into lust and leaving women alone to raise kids. Without a provider they and the kids would die. Men had to be made accountable for his women and children. Without it society is not possible. They also realized that giving females choice is a loosing strategy as their hypergamous nature meant that she would monkey branch to a man with more resources at a drop of a hat. Its happening now, women are leaving men for the government as they offer stability and protection than most men. So she had to be made accountable as well. The result is that they made it impossible to divorce. Once lust and hypergamy was in control then society could grow. As long as men were kept responsible they would invent and build everything.

   That’s why Im against open divorce, abortion, gender distortions, gay marriage. These are all precursors to societal collapse that we've seen before. Our morals are so narcissistic that little thought is given to society after us.  Some people agree with these things but their morals are only based on their feelings at that moment and place. The morals I support are not based on feelings but based on sustaining a society. It has been the foundation for the greatest civilization the world has ever seen regardless what people say about slavery, war and the rest. Its been successful and none of us would be here without it. This is why I find atheists are usually ungreatful and disrespectful of their own forefathers, their own history. They've trained u guys to hate urselves and to preach it. People say oh this world is so fucked its all got to change. But where else on earth would u rather be? Seriously?


   In ancient Greece homosexuality was open, gender expression was free, even pedophilia was openly accepted. They just stood by when the revered Roman legion marched in. But Romans too fell in most part to low birth rates which made the army too small to defend its vast territory. In the west we cover up this through immigration as the Romans did.

   My prediction is that the west will fall to Islam in a soft take over. They have a huge birth rate. Generations after us they will outnumber the west and take over what will be a poor economical state. And while they will be saying “in the name of Islam” all we’ll be able to say is “in the name of gay rights”.

   There is a limit to the size of chimp societies. Rarely do they go over 200. It would be in their interests to grow bigger societies but are limited to their primeval instincts. Even mankind seems to have only overcome this through the forced morals imposed by religions.

   So on one hand you may say oh well se its all bullshit. God is fake. Its all created to control the masses. One the other hand you could say without it we are only creatures of instinct and would never have been able to build a civilization. Because can u name a successful atheist society that have lasted at least a century? I don’t know of any. Even the most isolated people had religion. Aborigines, Polynesians, native Americans. Their all just stories to help keep society going forward.
Reply
#16
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 14, 2018 at 10:58 am)Agnostico Wrote: Thanks Bolga I appreciate ur input. U know more than me about about agriculture which is good.

It is widely thought to be the end of an ice age. The civilizations just popped up one after the other didn’t they. Especially when u look at the middle east
How certain are we on the dates? Ive read that Mesopotamia was from 8,000BC and others say 5,500BC. Our written history begins here followed by the Indus valley and Egypt, then Babylon and the rest.

And is it fair to say we don’t really know if religion or agriculture came first? Because I have heard arguments for both. Megaliths, u said we really have no idea if they were buildings, religious monuments or what. We don’t really even know how they were built either. Im interested in acient megaliths but thas a topic for another day

Quote:“Now.. let's take bets on how ridiculous Agnosticos "thoughts" are going to be”

That’s not nice. Note that u are the only one to give a theory on this thread. I might think someones theory is stupid but I never think someone is stupid for postulating a theory on such things that no one knows about. That’s not fair.

I haven’t been ridiculous. I was given countless definitions by this forum on belief. Am I ridiculous to try understand the definition or  not to pick one? I accepted it in my 3rd post but people are still on there now, who is ridiculous? And then I post a thread asking why that guy and many atheists are angry. Whats ridiculous about that, seriously? Its been 30 vs 1. I havent used foul language nor have i attacked anyone, iv remained calm in a room full of hostile atheists. Am I ridiculous? 20 atheists all getting their knickers in a knot over 1 person. Am I ridiculous?

Everyone is just scared and paranoid that im a theist and don't like being questioned. Even in this thread someone was like "I'm not sure what needs to be explained" as if he knows all wen he explained nothing. Like I said im not trying to win an argument. Just rather bounce thoughts off people and understand this community

Bolga ur the only one with the balls to offer a theory here. The only one who has actually given this topic a thought. Im only communicating with u, one on one. Not 30 on 1. So I ask u to rid all your emotions and preconceived notions. Its a long post but don’t respond instantly from the heart. Take time to think first so u can respond from the mind. If u still claim that Im ridiculous then I'll walk away knowing at east i tried.

My theory is on pre agriculture and is based on human nature and the observation of mammal societies, especially primates. Watched heaps of docos.

Stay tuned. Its coming shortly...

You don't read so good. I also offered a theory on religion, or is that not what you wanted to discuss? And why are you bringing the drama from another thread here? That doesn't serve anyone's interests, but perhaps yours.
[Image: ak_botan_saionji_005.jpg]
Reply
#17
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 14, 2018 at 11:07 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You don't read so good.  I also offered a theory on religion, or is that not what you wanted to discuss?  And why are you bringing the drama from another thread here?  That doesn't serve anyone's interests, but perhaps yours.

I read ur post. Its very simplistic and doesn't answer anything. Even u said u were leaving it to G. So im addressing G just as u wished.
But off course their will always be people like u who will never accept any skeptics.
And that quote is from this thread. Bringing it up serves my interests and his. Id rather a clear mind thinking logically. His gotta drop the paranoia first.

So just let me and G have a civilized discussion please...
Reply
#18
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 14, 2018 at 11:18 am)Agnostico Wrote:
(December 14, 2018 at 11:07 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You don't read so good.  I also offered a theory on religion, or is that not what you wanted to discuss?  And why are you bringing the drama from another thread here?  That doesn't serve anyone's interests, but perhaps yours.

I read ur post. Its very simplistic and doesn't answer anything. Even u said u were leaving it to G. So im addressing G just as u wished.
But off course their will always be people like u who will never accept any skeptics.
And that quote is from this thread. Bringing it up serves my interests and his. Id rather a clear mind thinking logically. His gotta drop the paranoia first.

So just let me and G have a civilized discussion please...

Yeah, if you're just gonna be a dick, I don't think I care much to participate. I gave a theory. I'm sorry it didn't meet with your expectations or approval, but it is a very valid theory that has plenty of support. If you want to actually talk about the substance of that theory and other theories about religion, agriculture, and civilization, then I'm open to that. If you're just going to whine that I didn't fulfill your expectations when I did in fact fulfill the request in your OP, then you can fuck the hell off.
[Image: ak_botan_saionji_005.jpg]
Reply
#19
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 14, 2018 at 11:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Yeah, if you're just gonna be a dick, I don't think I care much to participate.  I gave a theory.  I'm sorry it didn't meet with your expectations or approval, but it is a very valid theory that has plenty of support.  If you want to actually talk about the substance of that theory and other theories about religion, agriculture, and civilization, then I'm open to that.  If you're just going to whine that I didn't fulfill your expectations when I did in fact fulfill the request in your OP, then you can fuck the hell off.

This is the kind of abuse I coped since day one.
Savagery
Reply
#20
RE: The dawn of civilization
(December 14, 2018 at 10:58 am)Agnostico Wrote: Thanks Bolga I appreciate ur input. U know more than me about about agriculture which is good.

It is widely thought to be the end of an ice age. The civilizations just popped up one after the other didn’t they. Especially when u look at the middle east
I don't think we could really call it popping up.  The oldest sites have a longer history of habitation.  We'd pretty much have to go site by site though, because the organization and industry differs.  

Quote:How certain are we on the dates? Ive read that Mesopotamia was from 8,000BC and others say 5,500BC. Our written history begins here followed by the Indus valley and Egypt, then Babylon and the rest.
We can't be certain, we can only make progressively more narrow estimates.  The fertile crescent is difficult, we can't say for sure but there's every reason to assume that precursor sites have long since been swallowed up by alluvial deposits.  The dates for that lie somewhere between the ubaid and uruk periods, 6500-3000bc.  5500 is right in the middle, so that's probably where that number comes from.  Late Nl egyptian and post pottery babylonian are all examples in the fertile crescent set, not separate from them.   

Early Harrapan in the indo gangetic follows a similar pattern, as does the north china plain, andes, and mesoamerican sets.  To make a conservative statement...globally, civilization began to coalesce between 8000bc and 3000bc, a long pattern of development in each case, and all five sites being within a thousand or so years from the others, give or take.  

Quote:And is it fair to say we don’t really know if religion or agriculture came first? Because I have heard arguments for both. Megaliths, u said we really have no idea if they were buildings, religious monuments or what. We don’t really even know how they were built either. Im interested in acient megaliths but thas a topic for another day
It is fair, yeah.   We'd have to have a seriously expansive definition for religion to contend otherwise, and whatever pre agricutlural whatsists we included in that expansive definition would be unrecognizable in comparison to religion as we know or see it now.  Essentially, it's the difference between personal superstitions, lucky sticks, and token idols..and temples or gatherings with a common and organized belief set.  

There's alot of sensationalism when it comes to megalithic sites.  It's not actually true that we don't know how they were built...more that it's difficult to understand why the people who built them would go through so much trouble to stand up some rocks, and how they found themselves with the time and manpower.  Particularly in the case of pre agricultural megaliths.    

Quote:That’s not nice. Note that u are the only one to give a theory on this thread. I might think someones theory is stupid but I never think someone is stupid for postulating a theory on such things that no one knows about. That’s not fair.

I haven’t been ridiculous. I was given countless definitions by this forum on belief. Am I ridiculous to try understand the definition or  not to pick one? I accepted it in my 3rd post but people are still on there now, who is ridiculous? And then I post a thread asking why that guy and many atheists are angry. Whats ridiculous about that, seriously? Its been 30 vs 1. I havent used foul language nor have i attacked anyone, iv remained calm in a room full of hostile atheists. Am I ridiculous? 20 atheists all getting their knickers in a knot over 1 person. Am I ridiculous?

Everyone is just scared and paranoid that im a theist and don't like being questioned. Even in this thread someone was like "I'm not sure what needs to be explained" as if he knows all wen he explained nothing. Like I said im not trying to win an argument. Just rather bounce thoughts off people and understand this community

Bolga ur the only one with the balls to offer a theory here. The only one who has actually given this topic a thought. Im only communicating with u, one on one. Not 30 on 1. So I ask u to rid all your emotions and preconceived notions. Its a long post but don’t respond instantly from the heart. Take time to think first so u can respond from the mind. If u still claim that Im ridiculous then I'll walk away knowing at east i tried.



My theory is on pre agriculture and is based on human nature and the observation of mammal societies, especially primates. Watched heaps of docos.

Humans have the biological drive to procreate, all animals do. Its our most primeval instinct after survival. The males instinct is to screw as many women as he can. What do young men even today try to do? It’s in our subconscious to pass our seed far and wide. He will choose the most attractive one if he has to but otherwise will screw whoever.

Women are much more choosy. Their search for a mate is driven by hybristophilia and hypergamy. The need for a strong male who can protect and provide for her. She also wants to take the seed of the fittest men. Hypergamy is easily seen today and has even been given a mainstream term, gold digger. Female hypergamy is a constant theme in mammals.

So 200.000 years ago there is a chance that we lived in a society like the silverback gorillas. A new species humans would have been driven by the most primeval instincts to survive and procreate. The females don’t screw around with the average males. They only go to the alpha males which makes up for about 20% of the male population. Males would have had harems of 6-10 females and controlled a territory for its resources. Other alpha males challenge for control of the females and resources.

I often hear people blame religion for wars which is totally false. Resources and land are always the reason for war. Religion will get used as a motivator to rally the troops just like patriotism in USA, USSR, Nazi Germany, Napoleon. Religion gets used as a propaganda tool just like uncle Sam. Even the crusade wars was primarily about land, the defence of Europe from Islam.

So there are 80% of males (beta males) who life tough lives, died early from malnutrition and often never fulfill their biological drive to mate. These are the people who will get used and abused throughout history. They will over the years be used as slaves/servants/employees and soldiers. Slavery is another thing often attributed to religion when again there is no evidence of this. Slavery seems to be just as old as written history so we really don’t know how it came about.

Alpha males start bringing betas into his “kingdom” He allows them to procreate with some of his females on the condition of service. Confrontations over rescores drives the need to build bigger societies with bigger armies to defend and attack when required. And so evolved into societies similar to Chimpanzees. Evidence of war is all over the animal kingdom and its interesting to see the chimps, thought to be mans closest relative, wage wars that hand to hand are more brutal than human wars.

Ul read things here that u might think is appalling and immoral but what are morals at this point in history? Survival is the only thing that matters. Nature isn’t about morals. Life and death is all around.

So societies were limited by the ice age. There would have been limited areas suitable enough to maintain survival. Areas with water, wild game, and edible plants.
Climate started changing and man starts experimenting with agriculture. There are constant wars. The beta males are slaves/employees. There isn’t a translation for employee in the ancient western texts. Only slave and servant. So for their services they were granted citizenship, a place to live and resources like food to survive.

After war there would be a shortage of men so polygamy was accepted as long as the man was able to provide for all his wives. The women are willing parties to polygamy and in fact are the driving force as they become desperate to find a man to impregnate her she has no problem being in a polyamy relationship.


Wait thers more

The Chad Theory, lol. It's ridiculous. There's alot of grunting and groaning about alpha and beta males up there, but no explanation for ag, civ, or religion. Where did Chad get his bricks, how did he know how to make them? Who did Chad learn that from and how long did it take to go from lithic to ceramic culture? How many Chads are required to cultivate an appreciable piece of cropland and with what? Whats the defining feature or moment of Chad-based religious emergence? What was Stacy up to, with her hyper vagina, while Chad was doing what he does? Cucking betas, I presume?

etc, etc, etc
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Mid-Morning Of Civilization BrianSoddingBoru4 10 403 December 16, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Last Post: LostLocke



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)