Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Because most cultures were

Because most cultures were isolated. China was isolated for the Middle East, separate from the Aztechs etc.. So they developed their own language

 

Or Je ne sais quoi

 

 

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Many theists are generally

Many theists are generally pretty rational but just can't figure out that religion is bullshit. You, on the other hand, are an all-around moron.

Quote:
You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.

Wtf else do you need to get started? Accumulate enough words and you have a language, not complicated. We can also teach gorillas some sing-language so your claim that it requires a god to create language is demonstrably ludicrous. If gorillas weren't less intelligent than us there's absolutely no reason to assume they wouldn't also be able to learn written language. Whether they could properly speak our languages I really don't know as I have no knowledge of gorilla voice chord structure.

Quote:
Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language?

Because the cave man in one part of the world arbitrarily chose a different grunt when he pointed at a boar than the cave man in another part. This is seriously too complicated for you?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4628
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:Here is

TWD39 wrote:

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

Obviously, primitive man had a much harder time communicating than we do today, especially with those outside of their immediate tribe/family group. Language evolves over time as humans attempt to convey their thoughts, even today our language is changing- read any chat room conversation and half the words would not have been understood 50 years ago. 

As for metaphorical or philosophical questions, have you ever tried to learn a second language? Or observed a child learning abstract concepts? It is more difficult than learning "apple" means apple but it is hardly impossible. Although, language is hardly perfect especially when dealing with abstract concepts. No doubt, my idea of "happy" is not identical to your idea of "happy" because we have different life experiences and different frames of reference. Many arguments in these very forums have essentially been over small differences in the understanding of abstract ideas. 

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

? Why would we all speak the same language? Languages all developed separately through the necessity of communicating. That is why cultures that are still tribal have hundreds of languages because the languages were formed within small tribes. The only reason languages like English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic, Chinese and Japanese are so widespread in their use is because they were languages adopted by and spread by large empires. The idea that languages evolved is reinforced by the sheer number of languages. Your idea, would lead one to conclude that all humans should speak the same, or at least strongly similar languages. Yet languages come in as many variations as is imaginable and there is no indication that they stem from any consistent rules. 

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

I know the ability for animals to communicate varies wildly. Some can make only a handful of sounds while others can make dozens or even hundreds of different vocalizations. Their communication is primitive compared to ours, but variance in sounds is used by animals to convey different messages. For example, the wild turkey has about 17 base vocalizations which can appear in a number of various combinations from which one can determine what the turkey is doing, whether it is excited or calm, if it perceives danger and whether it is in a group or alone.

As for the evolution of the larynx, there are probably other people on the site who can inform you much better than I.   

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

You mean like the weak sauce theory you are about to propose? 

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

lol you are amusing at least. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Here is

TWD39 wrote:

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 

How did that hurricane happen if Posiden didn't create it? How did lightening happen if Thor didn't cause it?

Would you buy your own bullshit argument if it were a Muslim or a Jew or a Sikh arguing for a god different than yours?

Yet you argue a book that took over 1,000 years and 40 authors with books left out, not to mention they had no fucking clue of atoms, or DNA or modern medicine written in a scientifically ignorant past. If a god is all it takes then any god will do, and if any god wont do, then the likelihood is that you merely have a pet super hero like Muslims or Jews or Hindus with as much evidence as they do.

If you are willing to take DNA evidence as evidence in a murder trial as a juror, then only an idiot or hypocrite or delusional nutcase would think that it is possible to knock up a 14 year old girl with godsperm.

Without pontificating about how great your pet god is, which I have no doubt you think is the cure all for humanity, and without talking with a hand up your back like a gang minion, if you are brave enough, could you please tell me why you reject all other deity claims besides the one you think is true?

When you understand why you reject Muslim claims of 72 virgins, or multiple armed deities of Hinduism, or the Ancient Egyptians falsely believing the sun was a god, then you should have no problem seeing why I see your pet claim as nothing more than the same childish narcissism of humanity that produces fictional super heros.

Humans make up gods and your claim is not special.

Do you, or any Muslim or Jew really want me to believe that there is a magic man in a white robe, who has no material body, no location, no brain, no neurons, who has magic powers, whose only goal is to get us to stab each other to death in competition to kiss his ass?

Do you really want me to believe that there is a man in a red leotard with a pitchfork whom the super hero allowed in a game the super hero set up, uses his pitchfork to poke my neurons in my brain to get me to do bad things?

Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. Your arguments for your pet god are as silly and superfluous and selfish as any other human who thinks life and the universe is magic.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sure

TWD39 wrote:

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

1- When it comes to language Cpt_Pineapple has it correct, I would say.  And, you're overlooking the application of intellect. Reasoning takes anything a long way.

  You're going by a European interpretation of the book which is Highly faulty. The Euro version is based on their old ancient religious myths which they transferred to their interpretations.  The Hebrew mind and the Western minds are not very compatible. What's happened is- the Euros are trying to make a western religion out of a religion that's not compatible with western thinking. IE- Thor and Moses are two different states of mind and the two religions don't mix. Out of that has come a non-working situation and grave misunderstandings, and consequences. As we understand it in my group of guys---Atheism develops from the inadequacies of the mix. However---you will find in the book where an Apostle points out-First there was the physical and then the spiritual. That means Hawking is correct---the material formed before the spiritual, and that means there is no spiritual (God) needed to create material. The book isn't dealing with where material came from as creation is not a material construction, it's the making of a particular person put in material symbolisms. In essence--it's the making of Adam, not a material universe. At the time of Adam people already existed all around the globe. The book deals with Adam and the descendants, not the whole planet. Europeans are not descendents from Adam. You may have to start over from scratch. The Pope and others are definitely wrong in their interpretations of the book. What the Euros did was simply adapt the Hebrew religion to their already existing which caused centuries of hokus pokus, because even before they got the book their religion was all hokus pokus from the starting gate. 

No- the book does not explain how language came into being. Someone had to write things down before Babylon, and Babylon could not be established by Nimrod without there first being a language. People cannot be assembled unless they can be understood. And, Noah had a language before the flood. He warned the people there was a flood coming-right. He had to be able to speak to people coherently to do that. Language goes way back before the time of Adam.

The tower of Babylon was never started in material form. It's a symbol of the institution of civilization into the Hebrew line of descendents from Adam. The tower is symbolic of man instituted government for the middle east, as all middle easterners are descendents of Adam through Abraham, and Nimrod was also a descendent of Adam and in the line of "Adamites". As civilizations go their,s didn't work any better that any other. They all fail. The confusion of language relates to---they couldn't agree on anything---just as the US government today. Both parties aren't speaking the same language, meaning their thought patterns and goals and directions are different. More-over, no engineering even today could build such a structure. We're having big troubles getting over a quarter of a mile high. Doncha think the "heights of the heavens" are pretty darned high. The symbolic tower represents -a few towering over the many. It's a status thing.

I advise not to be fretting over evolution. Christianity isn't caring one way or another where a body comes from or how it's formed. Christianity is about "what kind" of personage (spiritual direction)one is.  While we on my team find evolution to be quite factual, we also know that it has nothing to do with Christianity. Proper Christianity has no belief in the material or the physical. It's better to let the material sciences decide/find those matters.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
TWD39

 

 

 

                   There is no logical reason for someone in Japan to speak the same language as someone in London [England or Ontario], not today nor 40,000+ years ago when human language evolved.   Let me tell you a story about diversity.  My mother's maiden name is Hourihan,  it means 'hill people' it comes from the hill area in County Cork.  In Canada the family pronounced it 'hour  han' in Cork it's actually pronounced 'whore-ee-han', a few miles away at another set of hills the hill people are named 'Courighan' or 'Corrigan' a few miles beyond that and the hill residents are 'Horrigan' in fact as you move around Ireland, which has a lot of hills and valleys you will run into other hill people who are called 'hill people' but in the local accent; so you end up with  :Harrigan, Carrygan, Carry, Carrighan, Houlihan, Houle, Coolighan,  Hoolighan, Harri, Harrison, there is meny more hills in Ireland I don't have the full list; Don't forget to add O'  'Mac' &  "Mc' to any or all of those names.  Family names came about in Ireland in the 13 & 14 hundreds, at which time the Irish were ethnicly and linguesticly homogenous. They didn't have 50 different words for 'hill people' they had one word with 50 different regional accents.  In a small homogenous land area that breeds that much diversity what makes you think, for one second, the world could ever have one language.

 

 

                  I have more to say on language evolution but I am in Guyana right now and my note books are back in Mississauga Ont.  btw the very first word in the human experience was "wa"  and it does show up in all languages from Japan to London  and it does mean in  general the same thing ::: In Japan it means "come!"  in Chinese it means "I am/I want" in Serbia it is slang for "haul ass now!" in Indo-European languages it evolved into "want, wane, what"; Imagine if you would a low ranking member of a hunter/gatherer group who decided they needed a little more food to eat, rather then risk getting clubed by grabbing at the communal cookout, they sat back on their haunches and said "wa", thus 'expessing an idea with sound' [ a word] everyone knew what the hungrey person ment by "wa" since she was immitating the sound of a baby crying.  Weather that person got the extra food goes unrecorded but the word and its sense of meaning is every where in the world today. 

 

 

 

 

 

                 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3437
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Sure, there

TWD39 wrote:

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.

ah-ha, ah-ha-ha-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!   you son of a bitch!  shutcho goddamn mouth!  you made me spray my bitters out my nose!  you owe me a keyboard, you bastard, godDAMN you for bein'  so funny!    ah-ha-ha...ha...  you crazy, man.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You're going by a

Quote:
You're going by a European interpretation of the book which is Highly faulty.

HELLO MCFLY

You "I am not like the others"

This is stupid, you arguing over what constitutes the "real" god is like going to a si fi convention an listening to a Star Wars fan argue with a Star Trek fan.

You, and they and every Muslim and Jew argue a disembodied magical super brain with no material, that is where your claims all start even before you get to the multitudes of comic books you argue over.

It is like watching circus clowns argue over what color scheme on their faces will make the kiddies happy and wont scare them and convince them they are not clowns.

If I write a book right now and claim that I knocked up Angelina Jolie without sticking my dick in her vagina, does that make her a virgin? If I write a book today that claims that blowing yourself up will get you  countless pussy in an afterlife makes Allah real?

If I write a book about George Washington and claim that he can fart a Lamborghini out of his ass, because Lamborghinis are real and George Washington is real, that means it is possible?

YOU ARE IN THE SAME FUCKING BOAT, you both believe in a non material cognition . Arguing over the details does not change the fact that neither of you have any lick of evidence for your invisible sky friend.

You can have your stupid internal beef of what constitutes a "real" Jesus fan, but DNA kinda fucks up for both of you the claim that you don't need sperm to make a baby. And rigor mortis kinda fucks up the claim that you can survive death.

How about this for a dose of reality. YOU ARE WRONG, AND ALL JESUS FANS ARE WRONG, and anyone claiming any god/s past or present are wrong.

HOW ABOUT humans make up gods because we are, and have been in our entire species history, unfortunately drawn to our own fantasy, and mostly and unfortunately unwilling to give up on our self inflicted superstitions?

When you argue with other believers it might as well be an argument between Harry Potter fans as to which novel was the best.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3685
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:  OTOH, the

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 

 

    This is on the same level as Hovind's young Earth theories.    ...it's just too dumb to even reply to.

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Not going to bother. We'll

Not going to bother. We'll just get some "oh noes, all these atheists are dogpileing me *cry*".

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
By the gaming gods, this

By the gaming gods, this topic is ridiculous. A 5 second google search would answer the vast majority of the leading questions in the OP.

Someone wasn't paying attention in school.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Sure, there

TWD39 wrote:

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.

was the "UNIVERSAL" language that existed pre- Noah ? English ?

And do please tell me why god had to "confuse" the languages and scatter everyone all over ?

Like an old saying I once heard : If someone wants to dig themselves a hole, throw them a shovel.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Dear, oh dear

 

TWD39 wrote:

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

 

What happened was that sinful man in his pride was building a tower up to heaven using mud bricks, a construction method renowned for its spectacular compression strength. As they got up to the 3rd floor of the Burj Al Mudpie; god, who suffers from a range of Woody Allen-like neuroses; naturally began to worry that these smartarse bastards might actually build a mud brick tower 80,000 metres high and gain access to the kingdom of heaven which as we all now know, is just up there in outer space where there is plenty of oxygen to breathe.

In order to stymie the efforts of these marvellous engineers, god used magical powers to afflict them with different languages. Chattering like monkeys and quite unable to communicate, the builders took their leave of the magic faraway tree and scattered far and wide, presumably in order to avoid the confusion of not being able to speak to one another.  

 

TWD39 wrote:

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

Are you the founder of Landover Baptist Church? If so, congratulations, Poe's Lord. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I believe you have been

I believe you have been answered on the topic of the evolution of language.

 

For the physical evolution of the voice box, there is plenty of voice boxes extant in the animal kingdom to provide us with a variety of sounds that animals make.  Even though the bones of our voice boxes are tiny and almost never fossilize, anthropologists have discovered the voice box of a Neanderthal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. evidence used to undermine the bible, not prove it.

TWD39 wrote:

.. Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?  

..Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

   As already alluded to, language changes over time. Why aren't we all speaking in  a  Mother tongue?. Perhaps because there are seven billion of us, not seven,. Unwittingly, The OP has paired a series of questions that are very involved. As Man developed, the complex interplay between the social and environment complexities demanded a greater and more sophisticated use of verbal communication to (forgive the term) 'evolve'. Anything before written language is on the fringes of the knowable

 p.s. -- Ironically,  human immigration  and language are used as evidence to undermine the bible, not prove it.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Buybull Babel Boulderdash

The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?


The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


hbmbc30
hbmbc30's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2012-06-16
User is offlineOffline
LOL

ya know i enjoy seeing a theist pwned on a regular basis for sharing nonsense with no real ammo/evidence to back it up.. as an atheist im at peace with the fact that i dont know if their is a god or not.. i honeslty dont think their is a god BUT if their is a god its not the god of the bible in my opinion... i learn alot from these back and forths... and look forward to seeing more in the future.... far as language goes i agree with the atheists totally... im not a linguistic evolution expert by any stretch of the word.... love these forums...

Chris


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
With this OP are you

With this OP are you freaking kidding me? Can you not do simple fucking research instead of looking like a fucking idiot? Really asking this question makes you look like an uneducated bumpkin. Have you never even bothered to even do basic google research of languages? Ok lets go with the romantic languages, french, italian, portugues, catalan and spanish. All five evolved from........latin. There is enough history, documented history to understand how they "evolved". From one common language, latin, we get 5 different languages each separate enough that they are completely different from each other and I personally can speak spanish and italian, I do not understand french, portuguese or catalan that well at all, and if spoken I am lost, unless there are similar sounding words, like good (bueno [spanish], bo [catalan], bon [french], buono [italian] and bom [portugese]) if you cannot understand how we get different languages from a common language then I am sorry I cannot educate you on this then, if you are going to use the bible as evidence that language comes from god, then you have closed your mind already, and from what I have read already it doesn't seem like you even care to learn.

Look at the english language, it all comes from one common area, england, yet we have "american" english, austrialian english, new zeland english, south african english, canadian english, all of these are the same language per se, english, yet how some words are pronounced or the meaning of certain words are completely different. For example the following words that have different meanings in british english (be) and american english (ae)

bender: a more derogatory term for a gay man (BE) or it can be a bing drinking or drug use spree (ae)

block: a building (be) the portion of a street between adjacent intersections or an informal rough unit of distance derived from the length of the same (ae)

then there is the pronunciation of words, which even though we can understand each other, sometimes how it is pronounced, makes it harder to understand what they are saying. Even in america, the difference say between texas and new york and how words are pronounced is huge at times. If you cannot understand how language evolves, then go to school and learn.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?

The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

 

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well CJ

cj wrote:

I believe you have been answered on the topic of the evolution of language.

 

For the physical evolution of the voice box, there is plenty of voice boxes extant in the animal kingdom to provide us with a variety of sounds that animals make.  Even though the bones of our voice boxes are tiny and almost never fossilize, anthropologists have discovered the voice box of a Neanderthal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM

 

 

I won,t be getting to Az when intended. I can't get a VA appointment until the 29th of Oct. The forces I'm under won't allow my plan to work. That's understandable---the VA is God too. Ain't God neat---sometimes not. I'll just have to live with it won't I.     Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I just have one comment to

I just have one comment to make regarding this argument. 

LMAO!

Smiling keep up the good work, you are most entertaining.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ex-minister

Old Seer wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?

The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
correct, I'm not

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You're going by a European interpretation of the book which is Highly faulty.

HELLO MCFLY

You "I am not like the others"

This is stupid, you arguing over what constitutes the "real" god is like going to a si fi convention an listening to a Star Wars fan argue with a Star Trek fan.

You, and they and every Muslim and Jew argue a disembodied magical super brain with no material, that is where your claims all start even before you get to the multitudes of comic books you argue over.

It is like watching circus clowns argue over what color scheme on their faces will make the kiddies happy and wont scare them and convince them they are not clowns.

If I write a book right now and claim that I knocked up Angelina Jolie without sticking my dick in her vagina, does that make her a virgin? If I write a book today that claims that blowing yourself up will get you  countless pussy in an afterlife makes Allah real?

If I write a book about George Washington and claim that he can fart a Lamborghini out of his ass, because Lamborghinis are real and George Washington is real, that means it is possible?

YOU ARE IN THE SAME FUCKING BOAT, you both believe in a non material cognition . Arguing over the details does not change the fact that neither of you have any lick of evidence for your invisible sky friend.

You can have your stupid internal beef of what constitutes a "real" Jesus fan, but DNA kinda fucks up for both of you the claim that you don't need sperm to make a baby. And rigor mortis kinda fucks up the claim that you can survive death.

How about this for a dose of reality. YOU ARE WRONG, AND ALL JESUS FANS ARE WRONG, and anyone claiming any god/s past or present are wrong.

HOW ABOUT humans make up gods because we are, and have been in our entire species history, unfortunately drawn to our own fantasy, and mostly and unfortunately unwilling to give up on our self inflicted superstitions?

When you argue with other believers it might as well be an argument between Harry Potter fans as to which novel was the best.

 

Again you make an assumption. You are all the evidence you'll need. I don't say that in a negative manner. You can be human or animal at will can you not. As far as can be discerned the end product of the brain "you" is not material. Your body is not you. So I understand the "invisible"--me. From that I understand and see you, you and I are no different. We each will to use/apply the "being" differently. Why should that be so strange---everyone does the same.  If I apply the knowing differently then others because of the understanding then I'm not like the others. You can do it also if you want to.  But if you don't---then you remain at odds---correct. There's no Poseidon on my side of the fence.   Smiling 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Humans ARE animals, a fact

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
And all your kind

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?

The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

aren't is that correct. No, I deal with facts that floks are unfamiliar with. I see a terribly high amount of arrogance going on here that's not me. I only point out the hypocracy of your statement. You have to be somewhat arrogant to make the statement, correct yes/no. don't discount arrogance to much, a little of it in the mix is helpful.  I say this because I understand "the being".  That's the same as ----I understand "God". You're in  it whether you agree or not. The situation of life has you, me and everyone else by the neck and it's not going to let go. You have to live with it. To rebel only brings harm to one's self<----Oooops I said self   Again--the more you hate me the more you will learn.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Half of the people on earth

Half of the people on earth speak Indo-European languages that can be traced back to a common linguistic ancestor:

Proto-Indo-European language

If everyone were speaking the same language and then God confused them and made it into completely different languages then that wouldn't be possible. Those languages would appear to have separate origins but they don't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/researchers-identify-present-day-turkey-as-origin-of-indo-european-languages...

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?

The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

aren't is that correct. No, I deal with facts that floks are unfamiliar with. I see a terribly high amount of arrogance going on here that's not me. I only point out the hypocracy of your statement. You have to be somewhat arrogant to make the statement, correct yes/no. don't discount arrogance to much, a little of it in the mix is helpful.  I say this because I understand "the being".  That's the same as ----I understand "God". You're in  it whether you agree or not. The situation of life has you, me and everyone else by the neck and it's not going to let go. You have to live with it. To rebel only brings harm to one's self<----Oooops I said self   Again--the more you hate me the more you will learn.    Smiling

What facts?! You have yet to  give me a single 'fact' that you 'deal with' despite repeated requests. You just fancy yourself as some kind of superior, wise man, educating us poor ignorant atheists. You are so full of shit.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Nope

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
waity wait hold it

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

I have a right to choose what God/standards of life  is for myself---do I not. You're telling me what God is or isn't. You are merely trying to undo one and install another. OK, By whose authority do you say there is or isn't a god etc.----your own---yes/no. Then why can't I have mine which is me you and everyone else. So- you want to civilize me and create me your way/god--whatever that is. It's one way or another. I could say you are being arrogant, right. You can  have material as God---that's what materialism is. If you prefer to be under materialism then what's god/way   for you. But there again---it'll be very convenient for you to disagree---I suspect. I'm not saying your way is right or wrong-I'm saying you have your "way". If so---then I can have my way.   Alpha Smurf can plainly see you way has been highly destructive. If the Pope is materialistic and you also are----why kick him around, you then think the same as he. Alpha Smurf can kick him around if so needed because we don't believe him or you. Whether or not you say god this that or the other---you still advocate the same as he. We don't.   He believes in the human animal idea also. That shows Atheism cannot change the world. So why is all this complaining about everyone else. Removing the term "god" from society isn't going to change anything. yes/no.       Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
well gee TJ

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? Doesn't that make this ancient myth look ridiculous?

The true story is about a boy named Jack who traded the family cow for some magic beans. You show look that real story up. I would trust Jack over some weak sauced multiple gods story. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

aren't is that correct. No, I deal with facts that floks are unfamiliar with. I see a terribly high amount of arrogance going on here that's not me. I only point out the hypocracy of your statement. You have to be somewhat arrogant to make the statement, correct yes/no. don't discount arrogance to much, a little of it in the mix is helpful.  I say this because I understand "the being".  That's the same as ----I understand "God". You're in  it whether you agree or not. The situation of life has you, me and everyone else by the neck and it's not going to let go. You have to live with it. To rebel only brings harm to one's self<----Oooops I said self   Again--the more you hate me the more you will learn.    Smiling

What facts?! You have yet to  give me a single 'fact' that you 'deal with' despite repeated requests. You just fancy yourself as some kind of superior, wise man, educating us poor ignorant atheists. You are so full of shit.

I prefer you to be what you want. But the "fact"<----is. One can be humane or inhumane at will. You yourself are a factual proof of what I,m saying. You're overlooking or disagreeing with the "facts" of yourself. Alpha Smurf isn't trying to change your mind.
we're giving you "facts" so you cam change your own. Isn't the Atheist movement doing what you accuse us of---stuffing it onto other people (it won't work, people don't stuff easily and may be an impossibility) The Smurfs are a movement of a small degree and ones who attempt to give to others what they understand. We don't stuff anything on anyone. Life to us is voluntary. If we understand this site corrctly others are invited to comment---right. So---we're commenting---what's the war for. We're not here to war with anyone. I've been advised by Alpha Smurf to highly regard the site rules. They know I'm a US Marine and it scares the hell out of'em. We can be unpredictable) The site operators are only asking we treat each other humanly. yes/no  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
The tower of babel is the fake story. Read Genesis 11. Obviously heaven is not just a few thousand feet above sea level. Also the gods talk to themselves and are afraid man will now be able to do any and everything. Are you aware that we have landed on the moon? .. How did the gods learn to talk to each other and why does a god need a committee to talk over his fear of man. So silly.

The more you hate me the more you will learn. Gunny Hartman-Full Metal Jacket. Been there, done that. It works.  Smiling

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

 She's a woman on a mission; a common pitfall is this with an all pervasive sense of being "special" coupled to that. Yes, We've all noticed. Though it's not my place to be too hard with people on a mission. Better to try to understand them. It might not be intentional/purposeful in this case on her part.

 

 

:


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

1) Actually yes I am 'the body'. Everything that makes me me is in my body. There is no evidence that there is a soul, or spirit (as those words are commonly, if vaguely, used.)

2) If I make a specific effort to act a certain way to someone, than, yes Captain Obvious, I've made a conscious decision to do that.

3) Humans are humans, and animals are animals. However, Humans are also animals. You seem to be using some special definition for those things, so you should define 'animal' and 'human'.

4) Not sure when my world (my life? I'm not sure what you mean)started being in trouble, do you have an example of such a thing? What exactly are you talking about?

 

Old Seer wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

I have a right to choose what God/standards of life  is for myself---do I not. You're telling me what God is or isn't. You are merely trying to undo one and install another. OK, By whose authority do you say there is or isn't a god etc.----your own---yes/no. Then why can't I have mine which is me you and everyone else. So- you want to civilize me and create me your way/god--whatever that is. It's one way or another. I could say you are being arrogant, right. You can  have material as God---that's what materialism is. If you prefer to be under materialism then what's god/way   for you. But there again---it'll be very convenient for you to disagree---I suspect. I'm not saying your way is right or wrong-I'm saying you have your "way". If so---then I can have my way.   Alpha Smurf can plainly see you way has been highly destructive. If the Pope is materialistic and you also are----why kick him around, you then think the same as he. Alpha Smurf can kick him around if so needed because we don't believe him or you. Whether or not you say god this that or the other---you still advocate the same as he. We don't.   He believes in the human animal idea also. That shows Atheism cannot change the world. So why is all this complaining about everyone else. Removing the term "god" from society isn't going to change anything. yes/no.       Smiling

1) You can choose they way you want to live, and you can influence your beliefs, but your beliefs are not all of your making. You should believe what you have good reason to believe.

2) I say that there is no evidence that there is a God, therefore there is no good reason to believe there is a God, and therefore you should not believe it. I do not give a rat's ass if you follow my philosophies exactly, and if you are saying atheism is my replacement for religion, or that it is some kind of 'conversion to atheism', you are dead wrong. I am not trying to replace your beliefs, I am trying to show people, including you, that your beliefs have no good reason to exist at all, and therefore should not. There does not have to be a 'replacement'. Religious beliefs are not just a 'way' or a 'philosophy' that are all equally valid. They have no evidence, they are lies.

3) You are trying to equate a philosophy on life with religion, and it is not the same. Unless you have evidence for your views, you should not hold them.

4) Your views and mine are not equal. If you believe a God exists, or anything else without evidence your beliefs are automatically irrational. If no one affected their lives with their beliefs THEN we could all believed whatever we wanted, unfortunately that is not the case. All beliefs effect eachother, especially religious ones, which claim superiority and inerrancy, as well as often demanding everyone else adhere to their rules.

5) Atheism is not a movement to change the world. ALL atheism is is lack of belief in one or more gods which is the default position to a theist's claim that one or more gods exist. If certain atheists go on to say they see no evidence that ANY gods exists, they are strong atheists. If they claim to KNOW that no gods exist, they are Gnostic Atheists, and are just as bad as theists, since know they are holding the untenable position that they have hard evidence that no gods exist. You can't prove a negative in most contexts. If a atheist wants to remove religion from the world, whether by force or by changes in culture, they are probably considered a Anti-theist.

6) Removing the term God will get rid of the insidous superstition and other baggage that comes with it. If you want to claim that your believe humans have a spirit, or a soul, and there is multiple states of mind called animal states and human states, then fine. Make that claim. Do not label it as God. That makes no sense. It is asinine and useless for discussion. That is like me saying I am a pineapple. Oh but wait, I don't mean a pineapple like EVERYONE else uses the definition of a pineapple, I mean my own special little definition of a pineapple. Causes unnessecary confusion, and it just a way to cling to this stupid term of 'god'.

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

What facts?! You have yet to  give me a single 'fact' that you 'deal with' despite repeated requests. You just fancy yourself as some kind of superior, wise man, educating us poor ignorant atheists. You are so full of shit.

I prefer you to be what you want. But the "fact"<----is. One can be humane or inhumane at will. You yourself are a factual proof of what I,m saying. You're overlooking or disagreeing with the "facts" of yourself. Alpha Smurf isn't trying to change your mind.
we're giving you "facts" so you cam change your own. Isn't the Atheist movement doing what you accuse us of---stuffing it onto other people (it won't work, people don't stuff easily and may be an impossibility) The Smurfs are a movement of a small degree and ones who attempt to give to others what they understand. We don't stuff anything on anyone. Life to us is voluntary. If we understand this site corrctly others are invited to comment---right. So---we're commenting---what's the war for. We're not here to war with anyone. I've been advised by Alpha Smurf to highly regard the site rules. They know I'm a US Marine and it scares the hell out of'em. We can be unpredictable) The site operators are only asking we treat each other humanly. yes/no  Smiling

1) What facts? You are not presenting them, you are asserting that the facts are there, I am just ignoring them. That is as absurd as saying 'you have to believe a religion to truly get it'. Show me the facts. The fact that one can choose to be naughty or nice to some extent is nothing that helps your beliefs. What are you beliefs anyway? Was I right in thinking that you belief humans have animal mind and human mind? If so, what evidence do you have for this?

2)I can choose to be kind or offensive, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't think it is helpful, or nessecary to walk on eggshells around such a pervasive belief like religion. I do not intend to offend people, but I am not going to go to great lengths to avoid offending someone who will no do the same for me. You have gone around accusing me of ignoring evidence, of being inhumane, etc, and yet you have not given any examples of such things. All this is in response to you. I have no desire to attack and offend religious people, unless they ignore my points and continue blathering on about their baseless views. You don't even respond to what I say, just post another paragraph of evasive doubletalk.

3)The site asks that we behave in a reasonable manner. This does not include never getting angry. It does not include never insulting someone. It does include not using ad hominen attacks, or spewing obscene garbage for no purpose. That is not what I am doing. I think you are full of it. That is not an ad hominen, or else I would be ignoring what few points I can glean from the murky, muddled things you call posts. It is my opinion, and you have done plenty to support it.

 

In closing I would say, you can develop your little philosophy if you want, but you are an idiot if you expect people to buy into this 'God is us' thing. You should really be getting to the specifics of your beliefs, where you get them from, what evidence you have, and stop labeling things God. It is pointless, and harmful to discussions. Reclaiming a word is one thing, trying to overthrow the definition into something completely different is totally another ball game.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Not going

ThunderJones wrote:

Not going to bother. We'll just get some "oh noes, all these atheists are dogpileing me *cry*".

 

If you can't answer my questions, or provide a good counter-argument then don't bother.   Calling me stupid and degrading my Lord with terms like "pet god" instead of offering clear premise explanations is another example of atheistic arrogance and stupidity.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:With this

latincanuck wrote:

With this OP are you freaking kidding me? Can you not do simple fucking research instead of looking like a fucking idiot? Really asking this question makes you look like an uneducated bumpkin. Have you never even bothered to even do basic google research of languages? Ok lets go with the romantic languages, french, italian, portugues, catalan and spanish. All five evolved from........latin. There is enough history, documented history to understand how they "evolved". From one common language, latin, we get 5 different languages each separate enough that they are completely different from each other and I personally can speak spanish and italian, I do not understand french, portuguese or catalan that well at all, and if spoken I am lost, unless there are similar sounding words, like good (bueno [spanish], bo [catalan], bon [french], buono [italian] and bom [portugese]) if you cannot understand how we get different languages from a common language then I am sorry I cannot educate you on this then, if you are going to use the bible as evidence that language comes from god, then you have closed your mind already, and from what I have read already it doesn't seem like you even care to learn.

Look at the english language, it all comes from one common area, england, yet we have "american" english, austrialian english, new zeland english, south african english, canadian english, all of these are the same language per se, english, yet how some words are pronounced or the meaning of certain words are completely different. For example the following words that have different meanings in british english (be) and american english (ae)

bender: a more derogatory term for a gay man (BE) or it can be a bing drinking or drug use spree (ae)

block: a building (be) the portion of a street between adjacent intersections or an informal rough unit of distance derived from the length of the same (ae)

then there is the pronunciation of words, which even though we can understand each other, sometimes how it is pronounced, makes it harder to understand what they are saying. Even in america, the difference say between texas and new york and how words are pronounced is huge at times. If you cannot understand how language evolves, then go to school and learn.

 

 

 

   Yes, I did research.  I read a nice article by three PHD's who asked the same questions.  Even wikipedia had this to say:

The fact that empirical evidence is limited, has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

 

So now you are telling me the problem has been answered by atheists, wikipedia is lying here,  and us poor ignorant country folk are just too un-educated?  LOL   I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question.  How did the first languages originate?  You only demonstrate how other languages are built on the foundation of other languages.  I'm talking about the first language.  Where did the Chinese language come from, or where did its ancesteral language come from?   Why did evolution give us this ability but not in other animals?  On a different note,  which evolved first,  unique human faces or the human brain's ability for facial recognition? 

 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:ThunderJones

TWD39 wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Not going to bother. We'll just get some "oh noes, all these atheists are dogpileing me *cry*".

 

If you can't answer my questions, or provide a good counter-argument then don't bother.   Calling me stupid and degrading my Lord with terms like "pet god" instead of offering clear premise explanations is another example of atheistic arrogance and stupidity.

This is rich coming from you. You ended up ignoring my last post and running away from your own thread, remember? I didn't call you stupid in this thread, and neither did I say pet god. You are projecting.

There are already a dozen good counter-arguments in this thread, so It is not nessecary. Given your track record I am not going to waste my time on this ridiculous claim of yours that language proves your Bible.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3685
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote:  I'm not a

TWD39 wrote:
  I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to...

 

 

                                               Did God invent the word "fuck" too ?

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 339
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Now this is

Now this is entertainment!

TWD39 wrote:

 

   Yes, I did research.  I read a nice article by three PHD's who asked the same questions.  Even wikipedia had this to say:

The fact that empirical evidence is limited, has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

Your ignorance is staggering.  God of the gaps again. We don't know, therefore God. But you take it a step further! You actually say that it must have been the whole Tower of Babel thing! You're trying to plug explanations into those gaps, that are from a demonstrably fictitious book.

TWD39 wrote:

So now you are telling me the problem has been answered by atheists, wikipedia is lying here,  and us poor ignorant country folk are just too un-educated?  LOL   I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question.  How did the first languages originate?  You only demonstrate how other languages are built on the foundation of other languages.  I'm talking about the first language.  Where did the Chinese language come from, or where did its ancesteral language come from?   Why did evolution give us this ability but not in other animals?  On a different note,  which evolved first,  unique human faces or the human brain's ability for facial recognition? 

 

No, that's what you're saying.

We're not sure, but there are people who study it, and it would be exciting if they were able to make new discoveries regarding this. Without any special knowledge on the topic, I can even say a little bit about it. Language is a form of communication. It is our most specific and sophisticated way of communicating. Now we know that other animals also communicate, but they don't do it using language. Clearly at some point in most species, a need to communicate arises. Once people discovered the vast amount of sounds we are capable of making, they used that to make words. My personal guess is that most likely it began with just identifying objects. It could have gone on to actions, then adjectives, and all the way until we get to storytelling, philosophy, poetry, etc. This is a very basic and un-detailed description, but it's probably somewhat on the mark. 

Interesting to note on the whole discovering we can make many unique sounds and using those to create unique words, in English (and European languages in general) our inflection typically changes to denote what type of sentence it is (such as, to indicate a question). In Chinese, they have words with identical phonetic pronunciation, but different inflection, which changes what word you're actually saying. I was told this by a friend who, while at dinner at his girlfriend's house trying to speak a phrase he was taught, mistakenly referred to his girlfriend's mother as a horse. Horse and mother are both pronounced the same way, but with different inflection (and I don't remember which is which, so I'll steer away from that). It's incredible how in isolation, different cultures used different features to do the same thing. I don't understand, TWD, how you could want to plug in a crap story about the origin of language, rather than investigating it. Instead of searching through a sea of fascinating parts of our history as a species, you say that a bunch of people built a tower, then troll god confused the crap out of them. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:ThunderJones

TWD39 wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Not going to bother. We'll just get some "oh noes, all these atheists are dogpileing me *cry*".

 

If you can't answer my questions, or provide a good counter-argument then don't bother.   Calling me stupid and degrading my Lord with terms like "pet god" instead of offering clear premise explanations is another example of atheistic arrogance and stupidity.

The irony of a theist pretending he knows better than decades of scientific research calling an atheist arrogant is priceless.

Or it would be, if theists weren't the most arrogant and pretensious people on Earth.

You've done NO research, and you've proven it with this thread. You've been directly refuted, but you ignore it and keep spouting bullshit. You're a perfect example of an irrational theist. Grats. I guess.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Listen

TWD39 wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Not going to bother. We'll just get some "oh noes, all these atheists are dogpileing me *cry*".

 

If you can't answer my questions, or provide a good counter-argument then don't bother.   Calling me stupid and degrading my Lord with terms like "pet god" instead of offering clear premise explanations is another example of atheistic arrogance and stupidity.

 

You've threatened all of us with a contrived lake of fire based on no proof and now you sulk because we scoff when you suggest the tower of babel was real and men were actually trying to get to heaven and that god definitely put a stop to it creating language and this all happened because you read it in the bible.

Your lord is made up, TWDry. Your truth is a fabrication based on ancient myths and legends all of which are too silly for the credence of adults. Talking snakes, dragons, people in whales, zombies in Jerusalem. Perhaps god is not your pet god but he's definitely TWDry's imaginary god concept. Give us a single coherent characteristic of your god. One thing that can be defined, measured, known to be true. 

And while you're frothing at the mouth in front of your computer try to remember that it's your contrived god that you believe is justified in torturing us. None of us would ever worship, or follow, or embrace, aggrandise or serve any being, real or imagined, who planned on the basis of arbitrary justice for which no precedent existed, to torture or kill you, TWD39. If you cannot reciprocate, then publicly accept you are morally inconsistent and arguably guilty of peddling hate crime.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:     Yes, I

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

   Yes, I did research.  I read a nice article by three PHD's who asked the same questions.  Even wikipedia had this to say:

The fact that empirical evidence is limited, has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

congrats you can copy and paste, however your question was not just what the first language was, I answered the reason we have MANY languages and not just one. Reading comprehension is a problem for you I see. But that's ok, you asked a loaded question, which was the first language? Really no one knows probably wasn't written down. However there are lots of explanations in regards to the evidence we have, with both the voice box (which is not the big part in speech, but the lips, and the tip of the tongue.) how the brain evolved (which also has lots to do with speech and reasoning. However any hypothesis given is far far superior than god did it, because god did it has ZERO evidence to back it up. Scholars and scientists will probably always debate this topic because simply put it's impossible to know exactly what the first language was.

Quote:

So now you are telling me the problem has been answered by atheists, wikipedia is lying here,  and us poor ignorant country folk are just too un-educated?  LOL   I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question.  How did the first languages originate?  You only demonstrate how other languages are built on the foundation of other languages.  I'm talking about the first language.  Where did the Chinese language come from, or where did its ancesteral language come from?   Why did evolution give us this ability but not in other animals?  On a different note,  which evolved first,  unique human faces or the human brain's ability for facial recognition? 

 

No the answer is being seeked by science, and not just by linguists, but biologists as well. Since we evolved the bigger brain which helped out with reasoning, with the bigger brain than the primates, it may have been a byproduct of having a larger brain that allows better reasoning skills. As well like other primates that understand behavioral language, frown, smile, certain gestures, we naturally understand them as well, spoken language may have been part of expressing those behaviors or to indicate danger, after all if  you can speak it you can warn them without them having to see you. As for your daft question, seeing that other animals can recognize facial expressions, that was already there when humans came to be, well proto humans. Your question seem to be much on the ignorant side for such arrogance that you are trying to portray. As for the chinese it would be the sino tibetan which consists of about 250 other languages.

However if you bothered to read any of that wikipage you would have read the timeline even that simplified timeline is far far superior answer than god did it. So yes you are an uneducated bumpkin if all you are going to do is dismiss what science has uncovered and simply go with god did it. As for failing, no I did not fail at all, you are simply  ignoring the answer I gave you. Because it answers WHY we have many different languages. But that's ok, keep on ignoring, it's what theist do best Laughing out loud


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Old Seer

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

1) Actually yes I am 'the body'. Everything that makes me me is in my body. There is no evidence that there is a soul, or spirit (as those words are commonly, if vaguely, used.)

2) If I make a specific effort to act a certain way to someone, than, yes Captain Obvious, I've made a conscious decision to do that.

3) Humans are humans, and animals are animals. However, Humans are also animals. You seem to be using some special definition for those things, so you should define 'animal' and 'human'.

4) Not sure when my world (my life? I'm not sure what you mean)started being in trouble, do you have an example of such a thing? What exactly are you talking about?

 

Old Seer wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

I have a right to choose what God/standards of life  is for myself---do I not. You're telling me what God is or isn't. You are merely trying to undo one and install another. OK, By whose authority do you say there is or isn't a god etc.----your own---yes/no. Then why can't I have mine which is me you and everyone else. So- you want to civilize me and create me your way/god--whatever that is. It's one way or another. I could say you are being arrogant, right. You can  have material as God---that's what materialism is. If you prefer to be under materialism then what's god/way   for you. But there again---it'll be very convenient for you to disagree---I suspect. I'm not saying your way is right or wrong-I'm saying you have your "way". If so---then I can have my way.   Alpha Smurf can plainly see you way has been highly destructive. If the Pope is materialistic and you also are----why kick him around, you then think the same as he. Alpha Smurf can kick him around if so needed because we don't believe him or you. Whether or not you say god this that or the other---you still advocate the same as he. We don't.   He believes in the human animal idea also. That shows Atheism cannot change the world. So why is all this complaining about everyone else. Removing the term "god" from society isn't going to change anything. yes/no.       Smiling

1) You can choose they way you want to live, and you can influence your beliefs, but your beliefs are not all of your making. You should believe what you have good reason to believe.

2) I say that there is no evidence that there is a God, therefore there is no good reason to believe there is a God, and therefore you should not believe it. I do not give a rat's ass if you follow my philosophies exactly, and if you are saying atheism is my replacement for religion, or that it is some kind of 'conversion to atheism', you are dead wrong. I am not trying to replace your beliefs, I am trying to show people, including you, that your beliefs have no good reason to exist at all, and therefore should not. There does not have to be a 'replacement'. Religious beliefs are not just a 'way' or a 'philosophy' that are all equally valid. They have no evidence, they are lies.

3) You are trying to equate a philosophy on life with religion, and it is not the same. Unless you have evidence for your views, you should not hold them.

4) Your views and mine are not equal. If you believe a God exists, or anything else without evidence your beliefs are automatically irrational. If no one affected their lives with their beliefs THEN we could all believed whatever we wanted, unfortunately that is not the case. All beliefs effect eachother, especially religious ones, which claim superiority and inerrancy, as well as often demanding everyone else adhere to their rules.

5) Atheism is not a movement to change the world. ALL atheism is is lack of belief in one or more gods which is the default position to a theist's claim that one or more gods exist. If certain atheists go on to say they see no evidence that ANY gods exists, they are strong atheists. If they claim to KNOW that no gods exist, they are Gnostic Atheists, and are just as bad as theists, since know they are holding the untenable position that they have hard evidence that no gods exist. You can't prove a negative in most contexts. If a atheist wants to remove religion from the world, whether by force or by changes in culture, they are probably considered a Anti-theist.

6) Removing the term God will get rid of the insidous superstition and other baggage that comes with it. If you want to claim that your believe humans have a spirit, or a soul, and there is multiple states of mind called animal states and human states, then fine. Make that claim. Do not label it as God. That makes no sense. It is asinine and useless for discussion. That is like me saying I am a pineapple. Oh but wait, I don't mean a pineapple like EVERYONE else uses the definition of a pineapple, I mean my own special little definition of a pineapple. Causes unnessecary confusion, and it just a way to cling to this stupid term of 'god'.

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

What facts?! You have yet to  give me a single 'fact' that you 'deal with' despite repeated requests. You just fancy yourself as some kind of superior, wise man, educating us poor ignorant atheists. You are so full of shit.

I prefer you to be what you want. But the "fact"<----is. One can be humane or inhumane at will. You yourself are a factual proof of what I,m saying. You're overlooking or disagreeing with the "facts" of yourself. Alpha Smurf isn't trying to change your mind.
we're giving you "facts" so you cam change your own. Isn't the Atheist movement doing what you accuse us of---stuffing it onto other people (it won't work, people don't stuff easily and may be an impossibility) The Smurfs are a movement of a small degree and ones who attempt to give to others what they understand. We don't stuff anything on anyone. Life to us is voluntary. If we understand this site corrctly others are invited to comment---right. So---we're commenting---what's the war for. We're not here to war with anyone. I've been advised by Alpha Smurf to highly regard the site rules. They know I'm a US Marine and it scares the hell out of'em. We can be unpredictable) The site operators are only asking we treat each other humanly. yes/no  Smiling

1) What facts? You are not presenting them, you are asserting that the facts are there, I am just ignoring them. That is as absurd as saying 'you have to believe a religion to truly get it'. Show me the facts. The fact that one can choose to be naughty or nice to some extent is nothing that helps your beliefs. What are you beliefs anyway? Was I right in thinking that you belief humans have animal mind and human mind? If so, what evidence do you have for this?

2)I can choose to be kind or offensive, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't think it is helpful, or nessecary to walk on eggshells around such a pervasive belief like religion. I do not intend to offend people, but I am not going to go to great lengths to avoid offending someone who will no do the same for me. You have gone around accusing me of ignoring evidence, of being inhumane, etc, and yet you have not given any examples of such things. All this is in response to you. I have no desire to attack and offend religious people, unless they ignore my points and continue blathering on about their baseless views. You don't even respond to what I say, just post another paragraph of evasive doubletalk.

3)The site asks that we behave in a reasonable manner. This does not include never getting angry. It does not include never insulting someone. It does include not using ad hominen attacks, or spewing obscene garbage for no purpose. That is not what I am doing. I think you are full of it. That is not an ad hominen, or else I would be ignoring what few points I can glean from the murky, muddled things you call posts. It is my opinion, and you have done plenty to support it.

 

In closing I would say, you can develop your little philosophy if you want, but you are an idiot if you expect people to buy into this 'God is us' thing. You should really be getting to the specifics of your beliefs, where you get them from, what evidence you have, and stop labeling things God. It is pointless, and harmful to discussions. Reclaiming a word is one thing, trying to overthrow the definition into something completely different is totally another ball game.

Good post TJ Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The "fact" is

Ktulu wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

1) Actually yes I am 'the body'. Everything that makes me me is in my body. There is no evidence that there is a soul, or spirit (as those words are commonly, if vaguely, used.)

2) If I make a specific effort to act a certain way to someone, than, yes Captain Obvious, I've made a conscious decision to do that.

3) Humans are humans, and animals are animals. However, Humans are also animals. You seem to be using some special definition for those things, so you should define 'animal' and 'human'.

4) Not sure when my world (my life? I'm not sure what you mean)started being in trouble, do you have an example of such a thing? What exactly are you talking about?

 

Old Seer wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Humans ARE animals, a fact you fail to understand. The only things that set us apart are greater intelligence, sentience, imagination and creativity, greater range of emotions and so on. Those things are not God, and no matter how much you try to define them as such, all you are doing is adding extra baggage and nonsense that is completely unnessecary.

If you mean the body is animate---agree. But you are not the body. The mind/person contains both naturally human and animal concepts--or-- is capable of using either. If your info were true you would regard all others the same. If you regard your family from a humane mental stance and others from an inhumane mental stance then you've made a choice to be one kind to one and another kind to the other. Then you've made a conscious decision toward each-----yes/no.    Human is human----animal is animal    From that one can understand/discern why your world in in trouble.     Alpha Smurf knows.     Smiling

I have a right to choose what God/standards of life  is for myself---do I not. You're telling me what God is or isn't. You are merely trying to undo one and install another. OK, By whose authority do you say there is or isn't a god etc.----your own---yes/no. Then why can't I have mine which is me you and everyone else. So- you want to civilize me and create me your way/god--whatever that is. It's one way or another. I could say you are being arrogant, right. You can  have material as God---that's what materialism is. If you prefer to be under materialism then what's god/way   for you. But there again---it'll be very convenient for you to disagree---I suspect. I'm not saying your way is right or wrong-I'm saying you have your "way". If so---then I can have my way.   Alpha Smurf can plainly see you way has been highly destructive. If the Pope is materialistic and you also are----why kick him around, you then think the same as he. Alpha Smurf can kick him around if so needed because we don't believe him or you. Whether or not you say god this that or the other---you still advocate the same as he. We don't.   He believes in the human animal idea also. That shows Atheism cannot change the world. So why is all this complaining about everyone else. Removing the term "god" from society isn't going to change anything. yes/no.       Smiling

1) You can choose they way you want to live, and you can influence your beliefs, but your beliefs are not all of your making. You should believe what you have good reason to believe.

2) I say that there is no evidence that there is a God, therefore there is no good reason to believe there is a God, and therefore you should not believe it. I do not give a rat's ass if you follow my philosophies exactly, and if you are saying atheism is my replacement for religion, or that it is some kind of 'conversion to atheism', you are dead wrong. I am not trying to replace your beliefs, I am trying to show people, including you, that your beliefs have no good reason to exist at all, and therefore should not. There does not have to be a 'replacement'. Religious beliefs are not just a 'way' or a 'philosophy' that are all equally valid. They have no evidence, they are lies.

3) You are trying to equate a philosophy on life with religion, and it is not the same. Unless you have evidence for your views, you should not hold them.

4) Your views and mine are not equal. If you believe a God exists, or anything else without evidence your beliefs are automatically irrational. If no one affected their lives with their beliefs THEN we could all believed whatever we wanted, unfortunately that is not the case. All beliefs effect eachother, especially religious ones, which claim superiority and inerrancy, as well as often demanding everyone else adhere to their rules.

5) Atheism is not a movement to change the world. ALL atheism is is lack of belief in one or more gods which is the default position to a theist's claim that one or more gods exist. If certain atheists go on to say they see no evidence that ANY gods exists, they are strong atheists. If they claim to KNOW that no gods exist, they are Gnostic Atheists, and are just as bad as theists, since know they are holding the untenable position that they have hard evidence that no gods exist. You can't prove a negative in most contexts. If a atheist wants to remove religion from the world, whether by force or by changes in culture, they are probably considered a Anti-theist.

6) Removing the term God will get rid of the insidous superstition and other baggage that comes with it. If you want to claim that your believe humans have a spirit, or a soul, and there is multiple states of mind called animal states and human states, then fine. Make that claim. Do not label it as God. That makes no sense. It is asinine and useless for discussion. That is like me saying I am a pineapple. Oh but wait, I don't mean a pineapple like EVERYONE else uses the definition of a pineapple, I mean my own special little definition of a pineapple. Causes unnessecary confusion, and it just a way to cling to this stupid term of 'god'.

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

What facts?! You have yet to  give me a single 'fact' that you 'deal with' despite repeated requests. You just fancy yourself as some kind of superior, wise man, educating us poor ignorant atheists. You are so full of shit.

I prefer you to be what you want. But the "fact"<----is. One can be humane or inhumane at will. You yourself are a factual proof of what I,m saying. You're overlooking or disagreeing with the "facts" of yourself. Alpha Smurf isn't trying to change your mind.
we're giving you "facts" so you cam change your own. Isn't the Atheist movement doing what you accuse us of---stuffing it onto other people (it won't work, people don't stuff easily and may be an impossibility) The Smurfs are a movement of a small degree and ones who attempt to give to others what they understand. We don't stuff anything on anyone. Life to us is voluntary. If we understand this site corrctly others are invited to comment---right. So---we're commenting---what's the war for. We're not here to war with anyone. I've been advised by Alpha Smurf to highly regard the site rules. They know I'm a US Marine and it scares the hell out of'em. We can be unpredictable) The site operators are only asking we treat each other humanly. yes/no  Smiling

1) What facts? You are not presenting them, you are asserting that the facts are there, I am just ignoring them. That is as absurd as saying 'you have to believe a religion to truly get it'. Show me the facts. The fact that one can choose to be naughty or nice to some extent is nothing that helps your beliefs. What are you beliefs anyway? Was I right in thinking that you belief humans have animal mind and human mind? If so, what evidence do you have for this?

2)I can choose to be kind or offensive, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't think it is helpful, or nessecary to walk on eggshells around such a pervasive belief like religion. I do not intend to offend people, but I am not going to go to great lengths to avoid offending someone who will no do the same for me. You have gone around accusing me of ignoring evidence, of being inhumane, etc, and yet you have not given any examples of such things. All this is in response to you. I have no desire to attack and offend religious people, unless they ignore my points and continue blathering on about their baseless views. You don't even respond to what I say, just post another paragraph of evasive doubletalk.

3)The site asks that we behave in a reasonable manner. This does not include never getting angry. It does not include never insulting someone. It does include not using ad hominen attacks, or spewing obscene garbage for no purpose. That is not what I am doing. I think you are full of it. That is not an ad hominen, or else I would be ignoring what few points I can glean from the murky, muddled things you call posts. It is my opinion, and you have done plenty to support it.

 

In closing I would say, you can develop your little philosophy if you want, but you are an idiot if you expect people to buy into this 'God is us' thing. You should really be getting to the specifics of your beliefs, where you get them from, what evidence you have, and stop labeling things God. It is pointless, and harmful to discussions. Reclaiming a word is one thing, trying to overthrow the definition into something completely different is totally another ball game.

Good post TJ Smiling

you prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". The Alpha Smurfs are not wrong. You're not going to fool them by any means. That means you are made up of nothing more then a polititians mind and determination and you don't understand how to be you except "their" way, which is not you naturally---I can see it. Your parents didn't raise you the State did. You,re parents merely paid for it. Would that be correct  Human verses animal is a fact. yes/no.  You may have your way also, We don't hate another simply because they are different, that would put us back in your society We're only relaying what we understand, it is for you to keep or throw. You haven't fooled me---you have learned something today have you not, I can see it.      Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Oooops sorry

I thought it was TJ,s post  Smiling


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't care to

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
  I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to...

 

 

                                               Did God invent the word "fuck" too ?

get into every fight everywhere but--I we on our side see people as God then yes----God made it. I only post this as an examp-le of "us". To us, the key is people. It's people that make the world  (not the material) so it has to be people that change it. The thing themn is---what is needed to make the changes.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Good post TJ

Ktulu wrote:

Good post TJ Smiling

Thanks Ktulu.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:you prefer

Old Seer wrote:

you prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". The Alpha Smurfs are not wrong. You're not going to fool them by any means. That means you are made up of nothing more then a polititians mind and determination and you don't understand how to be you except "their" way, which is not you naturally---I can see it. Your parents didn't raise you the State did. You,re parents merely paid for it. Would that be correct  Human verses animal is a fact. yes/no.  You may have your way also, We don't hate another simply because they are different, that would put us back in your society We're only relaying what we understand, it is for you to keep or throw. You haven't fooled me---you have learned something today have you not, I can see it.      Smiling

Typical.

You've just proven my point. I made a real effort to have a genuine discussion, and it's like you didn't even read it. I won't make that mistake again.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Now this

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now this is entertainment!

TWD39 wrote:

 

   Yes, I did research.  I read a nice article by three PHD's who asked the same questions.  Even wikipedia had this to say:

The fact that empirical evidence is limited, has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

Your ignorance is staggering.  God of the gaps again. We don't know, therefore God. But you take it a step further! You actually say that it must have been the whole Tower of Babel thing! You're trying to plug explanations into those gaps, that are from a demonstrably fictitious book.

TWD39 wrote:

So now you are telling me the problem has been answered by atheists, wikipedia is lying here,  and us poor ignorant country folk are just too un-educated?  LOL   I'm not a fucking idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question.  How did the first languages originate?  You only demonstrate how other languages are built on the foundation of other languages.  I'm talking about the first language.  Where did the Chinese language come from, or where did its ancesteral language come from?   Why did evolution give us this ability but not in other animals?  On a different note,  which evolved first,  unique human faces or the human brain's ability for facial recognition? 

 

No, that's what you're saying.

We're not sure, but there are people who study it, and it would be exciting if they were able to make new discoveries regarding this. Without any special knowledge on the topic, I can even say a little bit about it. Language is a form of communication. It is our most specific and sophisticated way of communicating. Now we know that other animals also communicate, but they don't do it using language. Clearly at some point in most species, a need to communicate arises. Once people discovered the vast amount of sounds we are capable of making, they used that to make words. My personal guess is that most likely it began with just identifying objects. It could have gone on to actions, then adjectives, and all the way until we get to storytelling, philosophy, poetry, etc. This is a very basic and un-detailed description, but it's probably somewhat on the mark. 

Interesting to note on the whole discovering we can make many unique sounds and using those to create unique words, in English (and European languages in general) our inflection typically changes to denote what type of sentence it is (such as, to indicate a question). In Chinese, they have words with identical phonetic pronunciation, but different inflection, which changes what word you're actually saying. I was told this by a friend who, while at dinner at his girlfriend's house trying to speak a phrase he was taught, mistakenly referred to his girlfriend's mother as a horse. Horse and mother are both pronounced the same way, but with different inflection (and I don't remember which is which, so I'll steer away from that). It's incredible how in isolation, different cultures used different features to do the same thing. I don't understand, TWD, how you could want to plug in a crap story about the origin of language, rather than investigating it. Instead of searching through a sea of fascinating parts of our history as a species, you say that a bunch of people built a tower, then troll god confused the crap out of them. 

 

 

So I'm the ignorant one, but you just admitted that you are not an expert on the subject.  Thanks for playing, but you lose.   The fact remains is that there is a huge gap between animals grunts and expressing complex thoughts through language, and you have NO PROOF to explain how it happened.    It's a big hole in evolution, but of course,  you will hold onto anything that goes against Christianity, without question. 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No-

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

you prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". The Alpha Smurfs are not wrong. You're not going to fool them by any means. That means you are made up of nothing more then a polititians mind and determination and you don't understand how to be you except "their" way, which is not you naturally---I can see it. Your parents didn't raise you the State did. You,re parents merely paid for it. Would that be correct  Human verses animal is a fact. yes/no.  You may have your way also, We don't hate another simply because they are different, that would put us back in your society We're only relaying what we understand, it is for you to keep or throw. You haven't fooled me---you have learned something today have you not, I can see it.      Smiling

Typical.

You've just proven my point. I made a real effort to have a genuine discussion, and it's like you didn't even read it. I won't make that mistake again.

 I am also attempting a discussion and might I say---I see it as such. There's no intentional negativity on my part---that would be inhuman. You're taking me as negative ---I'm not. I'd be in trouble with Alpha Smurf if I did. No, we don't control each other by authority, we are controlled by the understanding of not to be harmful, and not create a bad impression of the Smufdom. I "am here representing them also. To be deliberately harmful would be immoral in our world. You may be assuming our social values are as yous, not so. I admit I did take you wrongly there for a bit, you may not be as negative as you seem. That's a problem with written word, there's little to use for proper or intended expressions     Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:So I'm the

TWD39 wrote:

So I'm the ignorant one, but you just admitted that you are not an expert on the subject.  Thanks for playing, but you lose.   The fact remains is that there is a huge gap between animals grunts and expressing complex thoughts through language, and you have NO PROOF to explain how it happened.    It's a big hole in evolution, but of course,  you will hold onto anything that goes against Christianity, without question. 

Man, you are really stupid. Double standard much?

You call him ignorant and dismiss his points because he is not an expert?

You are not a fucking expert either, yet you keep spouting your bullshit and insisting it is true.

You don't have to be an expert to have good evidence and arguments. Argue against the actual points, not the person. Someone's logic, evidence, and arguments are not any different just because the person does not have credentials.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

you prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". The Alpha Smurfs are not wrong. You're not going to fool them by any means. That means you are made up of nothing more then a polititians mind and determination and you don't understand how to be you except "their" way, which is not you naturally---I can see it. Your parents didn't raise you the State did. You,re parents merely paid for it. Would that be correct  Human verses animal is a fact. yes/no.  You may have your way also, We don't hate another simply because they are different, that would put us back in your society We're only relaying what we understand, it is for you to keep or throw. You haven't fooled me---you have learned something today have you not, I can see it.      Smiling

Typical.

You've just proven my point. I made a real effort to have a genuine discussion, and it's like you didn't even read it. I won't make that mistake again.

 I am also attempting a discussion and might I say---I see it as such. There's no intentional negativity on my part---that would be inhuman. You're taking me as negative ---I'm not. I'd be in trouble with Alpha Smurf if I did. No, we don't control each other by authority, we are controlled by the understanding of not to be harmful, and not create a bad impression of the Smufdom. I "am here representing them also. To be deliberately harmful would be immoral in our world. You may be assuming our social values are as yous, not so. I admit I did take you wrongly there for a bit, you may not be as negative as you seem. That's a problem with written word, there's little to use for proper or intended expressions     Smiling

And yet you did not respond to a single point I made as far as I can tell. You aren't seemingly interested in a real discussion, you only apparently wish to throw out your rambling mysticism.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker