The Orgin of Civilization. (paradise, churches, beliefs, belief)

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

My belief is not based on faith, I have no faith." Your " statement of "my " faith is your traditional spectulitive judgement of someone you don't even know. I can't tell you what your beliefs are based on, I don't know you. The goalpost were not widened by me, the expressed commands of the ancient gods compose the metaphrand which is to be lexically widened, and the metaphier is the recorded history of that. Such as what I showed in the history of casting lots Arequipa. The parahiers are the distinguishing marks or words on the lots which then project back into the metaphrand as the command of the particular god invoked. What is important here is to understand provoked divination such as " Sorilege", as involving the same kind of generative processes that develop consciousness , but in an exopsychic nonsubjective manner.

As with omen texts, the roots of sortilege go back into the ancient ages. The casting of lots was always an attempt to find out the commands of the gods. Which reveals the appeal to the divine was important in decision making, and that appeal continues unto this day, now by prayers. This give prayers and casting of lots an orgin in the search for the divine guidance. And that search gives us an orgin of consciousness, because they were conscious efforts.

I think your belief is based on faith as it seems to wilfully disregard the evidence and replace it with some speculations which don't seem to fit the facts - as I explained. And you did widen the goalposts by changing 'civilization' to 'Consciousness' which you clearly did, notwithstanding your smokescreen of lexical paraherical metaphrands.

Further, you imposed an artificial distinction between human consciousness and animal which is not evidentially justified, (if one accepts human evolution) and so must be based on personal opinion without evidence, and that is 'Faith'.

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I think your belief is based on faith as it seems to wilfully disregard the evidence and replace it with some speculations which don't seem to fit the facts - as I explained. And you did widen the goalposts by changing 'civilization' to 'Consciousness' which you clearly did, notwithstanding your smokescreen of lexical paraherical metaphrands.

Further, you imposed an artificial distinction between human consciousness and animal which is not evidentially justified, (if one accepts human evolution) and so must be based on personal opinion without evidence, and that is 'Faith'.

I have no faith, my beliefs are based soley on facts , and your inability to accept that is your problem, not mine. Its based soley on evidence, plenty of which I have already given, and you have already ignored. I don't ignore the evidence, nor do I need to manipulate the evidence, but you need to harp on the old dying defense of there being no evidence, and I understand that need has a hold on you. But I don't let that blindness stop me from putting out quality threads, and their quality will continue to increase, because the evidence and the facts are increasing.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

Science began as a search for the divine, and I will never forget that. Some of the founding fathers of science were religious men themselves, and I will never forget that.

Wrong, and dang prideful about it ain't ya?

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

Wrong, and dang prideful about it ain't ya?

You cannot change history, but I know you can blindly deny it. Issac Newton, John Locke and John Ray were the founding fathers of Physics, Psychology and Biology; all were religious men and amateur theologians; know your history. See these are facts in history that you cannot manipulate or destroy, the alternitives are accept the facts or distort and deny them. I then understand the need to deny them with dying defenses which prop up a lifestyle of contorted conscious efforts which pacify a way of being that one is comfortable with.

I call it " Resuffling reality to fit ones needs." Strange because thats the exact thing many religious people do, which is why I have stated before that " Some Atheism is just a flip side of religion."

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

You cannot change history, but I know you can blindly deny it. Issac Newton, John Locke and John Ray were the founding fathers of Physics, Psychology and Biology; all were religious men and amateur theologians; know your history. See these are facts in history that you cannot manipulate or destroy, the alternitives are accept the facts or distort and deny them. I then understand the need to deny them with dying defenses which prop up a lifestyle of contorted conscious efforts which pacify a way of being that one is comfortable with.

I call it " Resuffling reality to fit ones needs." Strange because thats the exact thing many religious people do, which is why I have stated before that " Some Atheism is just a flip side of religion."

The church verses science " Became a rivalry", science used to co-exist " Inside of the church." Both were religious! These two giants began fumming with each other because both proclaimed to be the only way to " Divine revelation." That is pure history!

[Mickiel]

Religion cannot be subtracted from history, if you did that, you would subtract at least 80% of our history.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I have no faith, my beliefs are based soley on facts , and your inability to accept that is your problem, not mine. Its based soley on evidence, plenty of which I have already given, and you have already ignored. I don't ignore the evidence, nor do I need to manipulate the evidence, but you need to harp on the old dying defense of there being no evidence, and I understand that need has a hold on you. But I don't let that blindness stop me from putting out quality threads, and their quality will continue to increase, because the evidence and the facts are increasing.

Let's review your 'evidence'

"With the divine reasoning , man's progress had absolutely nothing to do with animals. But with civilization, grouping must be considered, along with language; either evolving on its own, or directed by the divine.

It is commonly thought that language is such an inherent part of the human constitution that it must go back somehow through the tribal ancestry of man to the very origin of the genus homo, that is, for almost two million years. This is a view I disagree with. If early man, through these two million years, had even a primordial speech, why is there so little evidence of even simple culture or technology? There is precious little archaeological evidence up to 40,000 B.C., other than the crudest of stone tools.

The hominid population exploded out of the African heartland into the Eurasian subarctic and then into the Americas and Australia. The population around the Mediterranean reached a new high and took the lead in cultural innovation, transferring man's cultural and biological focus from the tropics to the middle latitudes. His fires, caves and furs created for man a kind of transportable microclimate that allowed these group migrations to take place.

The evolution approach feels these people were Neanderthalers , the divine approach places them as supplanted Cro-magnons, around 35,000 B.C. With either view, grouping and language were important roots in the origin of civilization."

Sanspuer knocked this 'proper reasoning only came out 35,000 BC' theory with:

"Not true...The earliest art was created by man between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago. Sophisticated stone tools have recently been discovered in Kenya, and have been dated at 1.76 million years ago. Regarding language that is debatable, but it is most likely that homo erectus developed a form of communication midway between them and the other primates more that 2.5 million years ago."

At any rate, there is no reason at all to suppose that language and problem solving and social skills were not developing from what we'd think of as primate behaviour all the time.

Your 'evidence' as opposed to sheer mythic speculation is:
"If we use evolutions theory, then names must have come as late as the Mesolithic era, about 10,000 B.C. to 8,000 B.C.. That was the period of man's adaptation to the warmer postglacial environment.2 Evolution theory says nothing of the kind and there is nothing whatever to support this contention. Names for identifying family members should have been earlier even than stone tools.

"at the best defined and most fully studied " Mesolithic culture", the Natufian, named after the Wadi en-Natuf in Israel, where the first of the sites was found. In 10,000 B.C.,"

That the supposed un civilized paleolithics without consciousness, speech or even names for one another were drawing better are somewhat refuted your theory that civilization equates with consciousness. It represents a technological development, sure, but the smarts were already there, evidently.

Ignoring the irrelevant digression into the common DNA for ALL life argument, on p 4. "Consciousness was the first stage, Grouping together and language were the next stages , followed by Agriculture and Animal domestication." and I agreed, but the question is when did the consciousness appear. I'd say the evidence puts it a lot earlier than the Mesolithic and man was equipped with the brains for civilizations when they were painting horses on cave walls. essentially all tour arguments for a Divine- inspired 'consciousness' even at the end of the palaeolithic and before the mesolithic farming revolution is not really supported by the evidence.

"I do not believe that human consciousness is continuous with the idiot hierarchies of speechless apes. And Mitochondrial DNA has proven things that certain human cultures just can't deal with; one thing it proved is that the first humans on earth were black people, mid-brown in complexion."

Your denial of evidence is neither here jnr there and what seems an appeal to some racism instinct frankly distasteful.

"Civilization is the art of living in towns of such size that everyone does not know everyone else, this is an ancient definition of civilization." Ok, but you seem to regard by this time that you have made a case. "My hope is that it is never forgotten how much religion, or the divine, had to do with our origins." Have you the hell made any kind of case.

"Its based solely on evidence, plenty of which I have already given, and you have already ignored."

So a review makes it plain that your 'evidence' is flawed, without foundation and in defiance of the evidence. The rest was irrelevant, speculative or based on the case you hadn't made. Micki, you have proven nothing but how poor are your powers of making and presenting a case and seeing whether it stacks up.

(I have corrected your misspellings along with mine - no extra charge )

[Mickiel]

[quote=AREQUIPA;22673340

So a review makes it plain that your 'evidence' is flawed, without foundation and in defiance of the evidence. The rest was irrelevant, speculative or based on the case you hadn't made. Micki, you have proven nothing but how poor are your powers of making and presenting a case and seeing whether it stacks up.

(I have corrected your misspellings along with mine - no extra charge )[/quote]


The evidence is not flawed, its flawless. They way you have consumed it is flawed. Much of it was just copied from history books of one sort or another. I understand the anxiety that strong disagreement to your views causes within you; I have seen it. Religion has some emotional content to it, and I understand that people who think animals have self concept are emotional about it. So I understand your emotionalism as it squeaks through into your writing. You need to attack my ability to present a case.

My abilitys speak for themselves, and they are increasing; and you will be a witness to this. Remember that.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

The evidence is not flawed, its flawless. They way you have consumed it is flawed. Much of it was just copied from history books of one sort or another. I understand the anxiety that strong disagreement to your views causes within you; I have seen it. Religion has some emotional content to it, and I understand that people who think animals have self concept are emotional about it. So I understand your emotionalism as it squeaks through into your writing. You need to attack my ability to present a case.

My abilitys speak for themselves, and they are increasing; and you will be a witness to this. Remember that.

I don't doubt that you got your background information out of history books, as did we, but you speculative interpretation in defiance of the evidence you got out of your own head.

At least I am giving you the credit for originality rather than lifting it from some Theist book attempting to fit genesis around scientific discoveries.

I smile at your transparent attempt to suggest that I am reacting with emotion - based bias. I am looking at the evidence and your theory does not really fit. That is all I am doing.

I hope your abilities do increase. We may yet see something persuasive.

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't doubt that you got your background information out of history books, as did we, but you speculative interpretation in defiance of the evidence you got out of your own head.

At least I am giving you the credit for originality rather than lifting it from some Theist book attempting to fit genesis around scientific discoveries.

I smile at your transparent attempt to suggest that I am reacting with emotion - based bias. I am looking at the evidence and your theory does not really fit. That is all I am doing.

I hope your abilities do increase. We may yet see something persuasive.

Well your right about one thing, I doubt that I even have a Theist book, other than Robert T. Boyds book on Biblical Archaeology. If there is one book I have refered to more than others, its Julian Jaynes" The Orgin of Consciousness", and he is not a Theist. The only book on my get list, is an orginal Torah, if I can get my hands on that.

And my abilities will increase, as they have been yearly, but they will never do so in order to " Persuade others", I hold no intrest in that.