Page 14 of 44 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 435

Thread: Christian/Creation PB followers page 14

  1. #131
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    I just want to take a moment to say that while "anquidated" is not actually a word, it sounds awesome and we should come up with a suitable definition for it.

    Go!
    Damn dyslexia...

  2. #132
    Uncephalized's Avatar
    Uncephalized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Grok View Post
    You are still implying a highly specialized division of labor which is only seen in Flintstone cartoons.

    And no, I've never been on an extended wilderness hike where I had to survive on my own.

    I remember a TV show recently where a group of people were left out in the wilderness to survive on their own, and they did not do so well.

    You cannot compare a modern day human with modern day social programming with prehistoric pre-agriculture man.
    You are missing the point so hard right now. You are either one of the most obtuse people I have ever debated (not unintelligent, just completely uncharitable and obnoxiously intent on misinterpretation of others' arguments) or you are a magnificently skilled troll. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CLARIFY OUR POINTS TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES. YOU INSIST ON INTERPRETING THEM IN A WAY WE HAVE EXPLAINED WE DID NOT MEAN. STOP DOING THIS PLEASE.

    Perhaps shouting will get my point across where lengthy elaborations and clarifications do not. I'm not holding my breath though.
    Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

    My Primal Journal

  3. #133
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    Also, your assertion that hunting men are the only major protein source for HG societies is not true AFAIK. Women in such groups are often responsible for trapping, fishing and harvesting small game, insects, fish, eggs, nuts, and so on--often supplying the majority of animal protein as well as the majority of calories. If it weren't for gangs of men from rival groups coming in to rape and steal women, there might not be a need for men in most such groups at all, outside of breeding. Not that men don't contribute--but they're hardly the lynchpins of nutrition that you paint them as. They're probably more essential as deterrents to attack from other, non-related males (which is still a very important role!). The fact that they supply less food, on average, than the women do means that if they were to disappear there would actually be more food for the women and children rather than less.
    Why do you think there was such a scarcity of women such that gangs of men would have to invade tribes who had a few precious women?

    And I don't think the women would be fighting the ostriches for their eggs and climbing fifty feet up a treacherous trees to get at birds nests, etc. Remember, we are talking about before the domestication of animals some 30,000 years or so ago. Do you really think eggs were so easy to come by that you could just pluck them off the ground as you walked by? How easy do you think fishing was back in the day? I'm sure they weren't kicking back sipping a brew while casting a line on a fishing pole and a worm on a hook.

  4. #134
    DarthFriendly's Avatar
    DarthFriendly is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,843
    yawn.

  5. #135
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    You're still tryin to find a need that God's existance must fulfill or He can't exist. And that was my whole point, that existance isn't dependent on the need for something to exist.
    Your default stance is that god exists, and you can't prove that wrong because there is nowhere you can go to find him. You just have to believe. Plus, you can't even say there is no need for him because other things don't have apparent needs for existing.

    The default stance outside of our singular society is this: nothing. Do the plants have a stance that god exists? Do the birds, the bees, the bears, the tribal humans? And before you might want to get into animism there, I will stop that and say that animism is a philosophical version of science in which no one literally believes in an omniprescent god or a place called heaven. Everyone believes they are part of the circle of life. That's science.

    So the default stance is nothing. This is actually a small relevation in our culture for only the past few hundred years it seems. Before Darwin, before archaeology... what evidence did England in the 1500's have to prove that they WEREN'T part of the only civilization on this planet. Who was anyone to have a better explanation for life as they knew it than the bible? Ceph put it pretty nicely on where you go once the default stance is nothing, so I will quote him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    What frustrates atheists about this argument is that it is special pleading for the thing you want to believe. Do you not see that "because God" suffers from the same weakness as the God-free explanation? It's exactly the same argument, in fact--with the word "God" substituted for "nature". However, it suffers from the additional weakness of requiring a fantastically complex being whose existence and intelligence can't be explained, which the naturalistic explanations do not. It is actually much more of a logical leap to posit "a timeless, all-powerful and all-knowing mind exists and intentionally created the entire Universe" than it is to posit "a mindless substrate with a given set of simple physical properties exists and gave rise to the universe mechanistically through an increasingly well-understood physical process of random fluctuation coupled with spontaneous organization". One leads to an infinite regress that requires ever more elaborate underlying rationalizations, whereas the other also leads to what might be an infinite regress, but at least the underlying constructs get simpler and more elegant as you go, and therefore easier and easier to accept as existing ex nihilo, rather than as the intentional product of intelligence.

    So: Whence God, how and why?
    If you have the correct default stance, how would you ever get to the point that you are at today? That is, believing in this 'god' in the heavens.


    PS- Ceph, let's just ignore Grok now. I think he's definitely trolling.

  6. #136
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    The only way you believe in the religion of our society (in any of its many forms) is if you think "people are flawed", "I am exceptional" (knowing the one right way to live), and "more of anything will solve the problem of not enough."

  7. #137
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    I believe God exists, due to life experiences that I have trouble explaining in known scientific ways, and I'm a bit of a research geek. I'm not trying to prove God exists to anyone because it's pretty pointless. I'm merely trying to prove that you can't really prove God doesn't exist either. And that the idea that there's no good reason for God to exist is a really terrible argument for God's non-existance.

    I honestly don't care whether anyone else think's there's a God or not. I full support each individual's right to believe whatever they want. Doesn't bother me a bit. I'm merely stating that saying there's no need for a God-figure will not prove God doesn't exist.

    What I find amusing is that the stereotypical Christian is always shown as proselytizing left and right, trying to convert everyone within the sound of their voice. Seems every time we have one of these threads, it goes completely the other way.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  8. #138
    Uncephalized's Avatar
    Uncephalized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Grok View Post
    Why do you think there was such a scarcity of women such that gangs of men would have to invade tribes who had a few precious women?

    And I don't think the women would be fighting the ostriches for their eggs and climbing fifty feet up a treacherous trees to get at birds nests, etc. Remember, we are talking about before the domestication of animals some 30,000 years or so ago. Do you really think eggs were so easy to come by that you could just pluck them off the ground as you walked by? How easy do you think fishing was back in the day? I'm sure they weren't kicking back sipping a brew while casting a line on a fishing pole and a worm on a hook.
    Why do YOU assume that simply because a particular food-gathering task is more difficult than driving to the grocery store, that women would necessarily be unable or unwilling to do it? Have you never heard of ground-nesting birds? Snare traps? Rock traps? Basket traps? Tickling for fish? Nets? Fishing baskets? Fish corrals? Pit traps? Paleolithic peoples had all of these things and more besides. Their technology was rich and sophisticated and their knowledge and skills advanced. You have a distinct lack of imagination when it comes to what people, male or female, are capable of.

    My thought that men were more necessary for defense than they were for sustenance comes from my knowledge of reports of contemporary hunting-gathering societies, in which murder is a leading cause of death among males, inter-group raiding, rape, and kidnapping are common, and a significant proportion of men's mental time and energy is spent on the state of perpetual background warfare that exists with their neighbors. It's not necessarily about a "shortage" of women in one group. It's about playing a millennia-long survival game, and any stable strategy in that game involves preparations for violence. Any group that abandoned violence entirely would gain a short-term advantage in productivity but would run a much higher risk of being annihilated in one fell swoop by their more-violent neighbors.

    And that's where men come in. One of the few areas where men have a true advantage over women is fighting and warfare. The other is likely in big-game hunting, which not-coincidentally shares much of its skillset with warfare, especially primitive warfare. Teamwork, cooperation, bravery, skill with weapons, stealth, intelligence and tracking all overlap between the two. My theory, then, is twofold:

    One, men are not necessary to the day-to-day operation of a tribal society. Women can competently and efficiently care for children, build fires and shelters, gather plant food, fish, hunt small game, etc. without any men at all. However, because men exist, and are good at violence, it is necessary to have them around for protection from non-related men. In order to effectively defend the tribe, however, the men must be capable of fighting in coordinated groups and possess both weapons capable of taking down large animals (other men) and the skills to use them. The manufacture of weapons and the training necessary to employ them, however, is time that is NOT spent obtaining food, caring for children, building shelters, or otherwise providing for daily needs. So the men, while necessary, are a resource hog. They also require more food than women to supply their larger bodies, making the problem even worse.

    Enter hunting, the second half of the equation. Weapons that can kill people can also kill other large animals. And as I mentioned above, hunting requires many of the same skills as guerilla warfare. It is less efficient than gathering if you are looking at it strictly as a way to obtain food. But that is not all it does. It also builds the hunting party into a cohesive unit, builds bonds of trust, encourages bravery for the sake of the group, and hones the skills necessary for hunting and war. So if you pull back and look at it from a broader perspective, it's actually a very efficient strategy that allows men to train and prepare for their most essential role, fighting, while simultaneously reducing the load on the women by occasionally providing additional high-quality food.

    In this light it also makes complete sense that the most skilled hunters are often the ones held in high esteem by the women and have the most mate opportunities--because the women are breeding the men to be effective fighters, and the best way to do that in lieu of actually getting into lots of fights (which it is rational to avoid as much as possible), is to test them by their hunting prowess.
    Last edited by Uncephalized; 06-23-2012 at 12:44 PM.
    Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

    My Primal Journal

  9. #139
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    I believe God exists, due to life experiences that I have trouble explaining in known scientific ways, and I'm a bit of a research geek. I'm not trying to prove God exists to anyone because it's pretty pointless. I'm merely trying to prove that you can't really prove God doesn't exist either. And that the idea that there's no good reason for God to exist is a really terrible argument for God's non-existance.

    I honestly don't care whether anyone else think's there's a God or not. I full support each individual's right to believe whatever they want. Doesn't bother me a bit. I'm merely stating that saying there's no need for a God-figure will not prove God doesn't exist.

    What I find amusing is that the stereotypical Christian is always shown as proselytizing left and right, trying to convert everyone within the sound of their voice. Seems every time we have one of these threads, it goes completely the other way.
    I don't like the politically-correct attitude of just being quiet when everyone talks about what they believe in. I speak up not because I want to control their lives or their thoughts. I speak up because their beliefs end up perpetuating a cycle that causes damage to the world and to me.

  10. #140
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    -Snip-

    In this light it also makes complete sense that the most skilled hunters are often the ones held in high esteem by the women and have the most mate opportunities--because the women are breeding the men to be effective fighters, and the best way to do that in lieu of actually getting into lots of fights (which it is rational to avoid as much as possible), is to test them by their hunting prowess.
    That was really well put. It kind of makes me feel sad...

    Just kidding. The only thing I would add is that women evolved to have men doing work and living in their tribe. If women became capable of having babies without sex and kicked all men out, I think they would struggle and most groups would fail. Despite them not needing men conceptually in a survival game, they need men in a societal game.

    Let's also not downplay the role of fighting and protection from other tribes. Random, "give as much as you get" violence is our species method of inter-species competition. Good or bad, it's necessary for us to function in the long term.

    Let's also not downplay the role of protection from other predators (like sabertooth tiger reaching max sizes up to 1000 pounds, which existed from 3 million years ago to just 10,000 years ago). Man was not merely a hunter. He was hunted.
    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-23-2012 at 01:05 PM.

Page 14 of 44 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •