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.

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1515
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Let TWD39 get a chance . . .

Old Seer wrote:

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

   This THREAD I believe was started by TWD39, and not Old Seer, correct me if I'm wrong. I am now just realizing that I/we will end up hi-jacking this thread pretty soon if we continue on like this. So, I was wondering, if Old Seer could be a dear and continue this conversation(ALL ARE WELCOME of course) in a thread  started by Old Seer.  I forget the title,  the thread is known as Old Seer's Corner, right?  Why not directly invite a few of us to that Thread where we can comment some more , again before this Thread ends-up being Hijacked. It's up to you, but I am sure people would love to be invited over there, if you'd simply do so.  

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

danatemporary wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

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

   This THREAD I believe was started by TWD39, and not Old Seer, correct me if I'm wrong. I am now just realizing that I/we will end up hi-jacking this thread pretty soon if we continue on like this. So, I was wondering, if Old Seer could be a dear and continue this conversation(ALL ARE WELCOME of course) in a thread  started by Old Seer.  I forget the title,  the thread is known as Old Seer's Corner, right?  Why not directly invite a few of us to that Thread where we can comment some more , again before this Thread ends-up being Hijacked. It's up to you, but I am sure people would love to be invited over there, if you'd simply do so.  

 

[/quote)

But if I say search out my posts no one want's to do that. One has to go right by my thread to get here mostly I would think/hope that would happen. What I should do is make my statement on a thread and let it be. But look at the case here. I post in response to the OP and I get questions. I don't know how I cannot respond. If it can be ask of floks to take their questions to my thread that would be appropreate. I'm all for it. I think I've figured out how to handle this---If I respond to a thread make the response and then ask them to go to The Old Seers Corner for discussion, or response to my post on a given thread. 

 

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I didn't realise you

ThunderJones wrote:

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 politicians 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.

you wanted a point by point answer. There's so much negativity going on on the site it's hard to discern who is doing or wants what. I apologize. But---you need to re post on Old Seers Corner. There's I'll be happy to accommodate your request.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"ou prefer being animal over

"ou prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". "

Interesting. I don't recall contempt ever being observed in any species other than humans. Perhaps you can give some examples?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you

Vastet wrote:
"ou prefer being animal over human. You've made the choice---we,re right. The first Item in the animal toolbox is "contempt". " Interesting. I don't recall contempt ever being observed in any species other than humans. Perhaps you can give some examples?

watch primates (of which we physically also are related to) or any animal that are strangers to each other they automatically have a contempt for each other. But in farm animates not necessarily so,as once a herd is used to each other it may not be the case. Any farmer knows that, but that's not every single one in the herd. On the farm I was on as a kid when we let out a brood sow back into the herd we had to put it in a separate cage so the others would accept her in time. It's common on farms. The herd knows the herd. We are no different. It is part of one's defense/protection system. So is paranoia. Paranoia is one's long range radar to suspect upcoming danger. But---our intellect can cause one to go to far. Our main enemy seems to be intellect, or how we choose to use it.

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I haven't the time, nor

I haven't the time, nor interest to research through thousands of lines of cryptic "Smurf" episodes that are your posts.  But as a side note, as a child, I had a naive personal theory that every time someone acted in self interest they were giving into their instincts, or you could say animal side.  Contrary to what I think you are trying to say, it's hard for me to be sure because you never have summed it up, I have always found civilization and society to be the culmination of overcoming the "animal side.  In other words, the more you overcome your instincts, the more social you become.  It would seem that society is really the main drive towards our humanity.  If we remove that forced incentive, we become more animal like.  

I would again, respectfully ask you to ask you to sum up what you are trying to say.  You should be able to sum up your main argument in five sentences or less.  For example:  Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the son of God.  He died for our sins and was crucified.  The only way to get into Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Now you go...

What are you trying to say, you believe that ....  Please enlighten us in 5 sentences or less, you can elaborate on it later.

 

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 768
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
This thread is being

Ktulu wrote:

I haven't the time, nor interest to research through thousands of lines of cryptic "Smurf" episodes that are your posts.  But as a side note, as a child, I had a naive personal theory that every time someone acted in self interest they were giving into their instincts, or you could say animal side.  Contrary to what I think you are trying to say, it's hard for me to be sure because you never have summed it up, I have always found civilization and society to be the culmination of overcoming the "animal side.  In other words, the more you overcome your instincts, the more social you become.  It would seem that society is really the main drive towards our humanity.  If we remove that forced incentive, we become more animal like.  

I would again, respectfully ask you to ask you to sum up what you are trying to say.  You should be able to sum up your main argument in five sentences or less.  For example:  Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the son of God.  He died for our sins and was crucified.  The only way to get into Heaven is through Jesus Christ. Now you go...

What are you trying to say, you believe that ....  Please enlighten us in 5 sentences or less, you can elaborate on it later.

 

taken over by responses to me. I say you post has great merit and spot on in some things. But. if you are interested I'm asking you go the Old Seers Corner in the general discuisson forum --out of respect for the the author of this thread. Thanks.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10554
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:watch

Old Seer wrote:
watch primates (of which we physically also are related to) or any animal that are strangers to each other they automatically have a contempt for each other.

It would make sense that primates would have similar emotions, however, primates are hardly representitive of animal life in general. How about reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals which aren't so closely related?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: So I'm the

TWD39 wrote:

 

So I'm the ignorant one,

Yes. You claim to know what you can't know. You also never back up your claims. That does make you ignorant. 

TWD39 wrote:

but you just admitted that you are not an expert on the subject. 

Yes, and that makes me honest. I then followed that up by throwing out a guess which I admit is probably quite wrong, but is a reasonable step by step process of how it could have happened. I'm certain that experts in the field have more detailed, and more accurate accounts. I was just too lazy to look it up at that time.

TWD39 wrote:

Thanks for playing, but you lose.  

You saying that does not make it so.

TWD39 wrote:

The fact remains is that there is a huge gap between animals grunts and expressing complex thoughts through language,

Yes there is. I offered up one way it the gap could have been filled by gradual increments, and you ignored it.

TWD39 wrote:

and you have NO PROOF to explain how it happened.

Well of course I don't. Nobody wrote it down. Spoken language could have been around for generations before written language, or vice versa. Whichever way it went, I doubt the early writers cared to write down how language came about. 

TWD39 wrote:

   It's a big hole in evolution, but of course,  you will hold onto anything that goes against Christianity, without question. 

No. What if I believe that language could only be scrambled by eating hummingbird eggs? Because that's what the Ticuna people of Brazil believed, and you're going against them!!!

Now, if you see the absurdity of the above statement, perhaps you can understand why I consider your stance absurd as well. If the Tower of Babel was such a problem, why not the Burj Khalifa? Or space travel? Your story suggests that a tall tower pissed off god for getting close to him, so he destroyed it and screwed up people's speech. Now if you are to suggest that the Tower of Babel is anywhere close to the Burj in height, please read up on how much engineering work had to go into building the Burj. You can't just build something that tall without countless years of engineering work going into the design. 

That is why your story is absurd, and demonstrably false (without touching any other part of the bible for this one). Unless you can demonstrate that the story is indeed true (which would necessitate refuting my comparison to the Burj Khalifa, and explaining how they built something that tall), your argument is invalid. 

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.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
 Jabberwocky wrote: No.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

No. What if I believe that language could only be scrambled by eating hummingbird eggs? Because that's what the Ticuna people of Brazil believed, and you're going against them!!!

Now, if you see the absurdity of the above statement, perhaps you can understand why I consider your stance absurd as well. If the Tower of Babel was such a problem, why not the Burj Khalifa? Or space travel? Your story suggests that a tall tower pissed off god for getting close to him, so he destroyed it and screwed up people's speech. Now if you are to suggest that the Tower of Babel is anywhere close to the Burj in height, please read up on how much engineering work had to go into building the Burj. You can't just build something that tall without countless years of engineering work going into the design. 

That is why your story is absurd, and demonstrably false (without touching any other part of the bible for this one). Unless you can demonstrate that the story is indeed true (which would necessitate refuting my comparison to the Burj Khalifa, and explaining how they built something that tall), your argument is invalid. 

 

That's the problem with atheist's narrow minded perspective on the Bible.  You try to overlap modern day society onto the ancient OT times, and if they don't align perfectly, you cry foul!  The judgement for the tower of Babel had to do with man's heart and intent, not the actual structure.

As for demonstrating the story is true, that is an impossible task because anyone can call into question ANY ancient story.  Even if they discovered ruins of the tower, you wouldn't be convinced.  You would just claim that the myth was fabricated around the structure.   The story is accurate on certain accounts like the building material.   Sun dried clay was a common building material in that region and bitumen for mortar was used to give the bricks strength and cohension.  Bitumen was native to this region while stone was  found more in Caanan.  

Assuming you are correct,  for an author who just wanted to fabricate a silly morality tale, they should went to a lot of trouble to add unecessary details.  


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:The tower

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.

 

 

Wow, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tower of babel never happened?  Please present this hard concrete proof!  Oh that's right, atheists don't have to prove anything.  They can simply present bold s tatements as fact to whatever suits their fancy.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1515
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hindus got it over you . . . .

Ms._TWD39 wrote:

 .. an author who just wanted to fabricate a silly morality tale, they should went to a lot of trouble to add unnecessary details.  

 

Ms._TWD39 wrote:
By that standard then you must regard all ancient history as fiction since apparently archaeology does nothing to add validity to the highly detailed accounts.


  Highly detailed accounts?  I may be wrong in assuming, so I'll ask, I am curious. You've never read the Mahabharata, the epic myth, ever ? Details ? Five sons who were sons of gods (no pun intended), their lengthy lives, how they were cheated and their decade and a half exile. Some of the lines in the tail get into the weddings of the great-grand children, in the texts. Admittedly, That has no bearing on the Tower structure, or how high the Babel tower rose nor was it meant to. It is a simple 'check'. At the level of detail the Hindu texts go to; you might want to convert. If you had any knowledge of the Ancient Near East or in this cursory example in the Hindu texts, you'd be far less inclined to make that assertion or think it could possibly add weight to your position. 

 

 

 

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Humans

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.

 

Humans operate on a moral compass.  Animals do not.

Humans make thousands of decisions based on emotions and logic.  Animals decision making is based on instinct.

Human behavior is unpredictable.  Animal behavior is quite predictable.

Humans have a need of self identity.  Animals only care about sleeping, eating, mating etc...

Animals, even ones with larger brains show zero desire for creativity

Humans are the most cruel to their own kind, devising many ways to kill and torture.  Animals only kill by instinct or self-defense.

Humans admire and enjoy beauty in life.  Animals only care if their environment is comfortable. 

Most human behavior must be taught.  Animal behavior is usually learned by instinct.  Ex.  I always found it funny how even kittens suddenly just know that when you take a dump, you must dig a hole and then cover it up in their species.  As a human, my parents had to potty train me.  It didn't come natural.

 

So go on and degrade your humanity, but I'll stay firm in my position that humans are indeed NOT animals.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Wow, you have

TWD39 wrote:

 

Wow, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tower of babel never happened?  Please present this hard concrete proof!

you

cannot

prove

something

did

not

happen

or

exist.

the

burden

of

proof

is

always

on

the

positive

assertion.

does

that

compute?

TWD39 wrote:

They can simply present bold s tatements as fact to whatever suits their fancy.

hmmmm...

TWD39 wrote:

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.

please present hard concrete proof!

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Wow, you have

edit: double post


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek

iwbiek wrote:

you

cannot

prove

something

did

not

happen

or

exist.

the

burden

of

proof

is

always

on

the

positive

assertion.

does

that

compute?

 

What's next, typing in all caps?  And that is the biggest line of crap.  The burden of proof lies on the person who is making blanket statements presented as FACT.   Your side is claiming that the Towel of Babel DID NOT happen.  If you have NO basis for such a claim then it ain't fact.  Now that computes. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: What's next,

TWD39 wrote:

 

What's next, typing in all caps?  And that is the biggest line of crap.  The burden of proof lies on the person who is making blanket statements presented as FACT.   Your side is claiming that the Towel of Babel DID NOT happen.  If you have NO basis for such a claim then it ain't fact.  Now that computes. 

Uh NO.

In the absence of all evidence the default position is non-belief until proven otherwise.

If I assert that an invisible dragon that can not be seen, felt, or detected breathed out the flames that created mankind and separate languages, who would you say the burden of proof is on ?

You would say that the burden of proof is on the one making the ridiculous claim.

You made the assertion that it happened and that is why language exists. Yet, you have no proof and you think that we are supposed to disprove it to YOU ?

Besides, your the one making the blanket statements and calling them FACTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A TOWER OF BABEL.

(There, that is even in all caps for you).

“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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: And that is

TWD39 wrote:

 

And that is the biggest line of crap.

no, that's basic logic.

 

TWD wrote:

Your side is claiming that the Towel of Babel DID NOT happen. 

fuck you, twat, i don't have a "side."  except maybe for the POUM, the IWW, or the RSDLP, and they're all dead.

and no, what "we" are saying is that there is no compelling evidence for the tower of babel "happening."  there is precisely as much evidence for the tower of babel as there is for the events of the mahabharata, the trojan horse, the lost continent of lemuria, and zeus's primordial battle with chronos.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: Uh

harleysportster wrote:

 

Uh NO.

In the absence of all evidence the default position is non-belief until proven otherwise.

If I assert that an invisible dragon that can not be seen, felt, or detected breathed out the flames that created mankind and separate languages, who would you say the burden of proof is on ?

You would say that the burden of proof is on the one making the ridiculous claim.

You made the assertion that it happened and that is why language exists. Yet, you have no proof and you think that we are supposed to disprove it to YOU ?

Besides, your the one making the blanket statements and calling them FACTS.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A TOWER OF BABEL.

(There, that is even in all caps for you).

 

All Caps in a sentence is considered shouting and rude.   But that's par for course with atheists.

 

And I explained perfectly why it is difficult to prove ANY ancient event.  That doesn't prove as fact that the event never occured.  That is YOUR assertion.  You could simply say I doubt it happened due to lack of evidence, but atheists take it further and claim as PROVEN fact that the Bible is all myth.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  That doesn't

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

That doesn't prove as fact that the event never occured.  That is YOUR assertion.

no, look again:

harleysportster wrote:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE TOWER OF BABEL

 

TWD39 wrote:

You could simply say I doubt it happened due to lack of evidence

oops, look again:

harleysportster wrote:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE TOWER OF BABEL

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:fuck you, twat,

iwbiek wrote:

fuck you, twat, i don't have a "side."  except maybe for the POUM, the IWW, or the RSDLP, and they're all dead.

and no, what "we" are saying is that there is no compelling evidence for the tower of babel "happening."  there is precisely as much evidence for the tower of babel as there is for the events of the mahabharata, the trojan horse, the lost continent of lemuria, and zeus's primordial battle with chronos.

 

Funny how the more you challenge atheists, the blood pressure and profanity levels increase.  Certainly not on my side. Smiling  I would challenge that there is certainly more evidence for the Tower of Babel than your other mythologies.  Jesus Christ refered to Genesis as actual events, and there is quite a good bit of evidence that Jesus is real and the Bible is a divine work in origin.

 

Why heckfire, the fact that the first evidences of language occured, yep you guessed it, within the  Mesopotamia region where the Genesis Bible stories take place.   Score one for the Bible, Zero for Zeus.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Funny how the

TWD39 wrote:

 

Funny how the more you challenge atheists, the blood pressure and profanity levels increase. 

dude, i'm as cool as a cucumber.  profanity is half of my vocabulary, regardless of my mood.  so fuck you, dicklicker.  fuck your mother.

and it is pretty much impossible to "challenge" me on the topic of religion, since i give so little of a shit about it.  i even hesitate sometimes to identify myself as "atheist" because to me that reflects too much of giving a shit.  go talk to JesusNEVERExisted if you want to "challenge" someone.  he's pathological about that shit.

i was just callin' you out for being a douche who knows nothing about logic and can't even discern what a person is actually saying.  that your religion is as much of a crock of shit as all the others goes without saying, as far as i'm concerned.

cunt.

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Funny how the

iwbiek wrote:

 

Funny how the more you challenge atheists, the blood pressure and profanity levels increase. 

dude, i'm as cool as a cucumber.  profanity is half of my vocabulary, regardless of my mood.  so fuck you, dicklicker.  fuck your mother.

and it is pretty much impossible to "challenge" me on the topic of religion, since i give so little of a shit about it.  i even hesitate sometimes to identify myself as "atheist" because to me that reflects too much of giving a shit.  go talk to JesusNEVERExisted if you want to "challenge" someone.  he's pathological about that shit.

i was just callin' you out for being a douche who knows nothing about logic and can't even discern what a person is actually saying.  that your religion is as much of a crock of shit as all the others goes without saying, as far as i'm concerned.

cunt.

 

Profanity is the resource of weak minded people, IMO.

 If you really didn't give a rip, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this forum.   Your opinion about my religion falls on deaf ears.  God gave you the freedom to curse his name,  give Him the middle finger and  make up lies.  But history shows time and time again, the Bible is quite right that you reap what you sow.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Profanity is

TWD39 wrote:

 

Profanity is the resource of weak minded people, IMO.

 

   TWD39 said in post #34

 

  

TWD39 wrote:
I'm not a FUCKING idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question."

 

                   Nice to meet you, you weak-minded idiot.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Of course, to think this

Of course, to think this TWD, you have to disagree somewhat with evolution. You are effectively saying animals could never do what we can do, because of some supernatural bonus only we get, a idea with no basis in reality.

You've also made a ton of absolute negative claims. I could not bother to respond because making a absolute negative claim is impossible, because you are claiming omniscience about the subject. I will anyway, though.

TWD39 wrote:
Humans operate on a moral compass.  Animals do not.

You have made the claim that NO animal has any type of moral compass. Prove it.

Many social animals such as monkeys have been observed helping eachother, avoiding harming those in their group. Dolphins often rescue drowning humans. Termites, of their own volition, will sacrifice themselves to defend their hive. None of those things are from a moral compass of some kind?

TWD39 wrote:
Humans make thousands of decisions based on emotions and logic.  Animals decision making is based on instinct.

Humans ALSO make decisions based on instinct. How else would an infant function?

Mice can make plenty of logical choices. They learn from experience, reason out basic logic problems like mazes. How is that any different than a more limited version of what humans do?

Many animals are quite capable of emotions, albeit a more limited range. Dogs are an obvious example.

TWD39 wrote:
Human behavior is unpredictable.  Animal behavior is quite predictable.

Wrong.

Human behavior has many unpredictable aspects, however it has many parts that are quite predictable. Emotional needs and responses to stimuli are very similair across the board, for most people.

Animal behavior is somewhat predictable, given that we have greater intelligence, and lots of data. Predictability is very subjective. Human behavior gets less predictable every day as science learns things about us. Humans are just harder to predict, because we are more complex. This is a relevant difference, but not a sign that we are somehow fundamentally different.

TWD39 wrote:
Humans have a need of self identity.  Animals only care about sleeping, eating, mating etc...

Not true. More social animals desire companionship, pets often desire to please their masters. Animals interact in complex ways not at all covered by sleeping, eating, and mating. a 'need for self-identity' does not prove anything about humans other than the fact that they desire identity.

How does this give credence to the claim that we are not much more intelligent and complex animals?

TWD39 wrote:
Animals, even ones with larger brains show zero desire for creativity

Really really wrong.

Primates have a significant capacity for creativity. They can do many things small children do, such as fit the right shape blocks in the holes, or build with small blocks. They can learn to sing with certain tones they can speak properly, and more than just repeating things they have heard.

Ants, who have very little intelligence, have amazing problem-solving abilities. Problem-solving requires creativity, in case you didn't know. Ants build giant hives, create living-ant bridges and ant super-highways. No creativity? Really?

TWD39 wrote:
Humans are the most cruel to their own kind, devising many ways to kill and torture.  Animals only kill by instinct or self-defense.

Humans also kill by instinct and in self-defense. They protect their own as well. Social animals will defend members of their group.

You would have to prove that traits of violence and cruelty cannot develop naturally as a result of greater intelligence.

TWD39 wrote:
Humans admire and enjoy beauty in life.  Animals only care if their environment is comfortable.

Wrong again. You are just on a roll.

Human desire for aesthetics develops out of having a comfortable environment. When humans lose that they don't really mind the lack of aesthetics anymore. Some primates can create paintings (another blow against animals having no creativity) and enjoy music and many other aesthetics. No differences here except a greater capacity to understand more complex aesthetics, which you would have to prove cannot come from natural increase in intelligence.

TWD39 wrote:
Most human behavior must be taught.  Animal behavior is usually learned by instinct.  Ex.  I always found it funny how even kittens suddenly just know that when you take a dump, you must dig a hole and then cover it up in their species.  As a human, my parents had to potty train me.  It didn't come natural.

You had to learn a complicated social requirement. Big whoop.

Obviously you have never seen dogs or cats teach their children things? Lions and tigers do this as well, with one of the parents bringing the children along on hunts to show them how it is done. Elephants will teach their children how to itch their backs on trees, or shower themselves in water. A kitten has no concept of 'not pooing random places' because it has no reason to. When you teach it not to do that, they are doing the exact same thing you claim humans mostly have to do.

TWD39 wrote:
So go on and degrade your humanity, but I'll stay firm in my position that humans are indeed NOT animals.

I do not have to degrade my humanity to be honest with myself. My humanity does not rely on some false notion that I am somehow fundamentally superior than animals.

I have relevant differences than other animals, like greater intelligence, greater capacity for creativity and emotions, imagination, etc.

You seem to just think animals are fundamentally less than yourself, a idea without basis. A human life is worth more than an animals, but not because of some intrinsic quality, but because of the many relevant differences of a human that grew out of high intelligence and natural selection. Just because a human life is valuable does not mean a human is not an species of animal.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Most human

TWD39 wrote:

Most human behavior must be taught.  Animal behavior is usually learned by instinct.  Ex.  I always found it funny how even kittens suddenly just know that when you take a dump, you must dig a hole and then cover it up in their species.  As a human, my parents had to potty train me.  It didn't come natural.

 

So go on and degrade your humanity, but I'll stay firm in my position that humans are indeed NOT animals.

 

You have never raised kittens from birth, have you?  I have.

Momma cat takes the kittens to the sand box and shows them how to dig and relieve themselves.  If you get a feral kitten or one that was raised outside, you have to teach it how to go in the box.  When the kitten starts to dig at the floor, you have to pick up the kitten, take them to their box, then take their paw in your hand and gently start pushing their paw in the dirt.  That is often all it takes and your kitten is now box-trained.

Kittens have to be potty trained.  So do puppies.  Or have you never raised a puppy?  Momma dog will house train the puppies if they are kept with her long enough.  Dog training is all about teaching dogs - I am not fond of the guy, but watch Caesar Milan's show for a demonstration of how dogs don't learn by instinct but must be taught.

When you type stuff this blatantly wrong, people will correct you.  And look, no caps!

The middle east has been seriously excavated by archaeologists of various religions and nationalities for years.  There is no evidence of any structure tall enough to have been the tower of Babel.  Since we have plenty of other ancient structures we have found, you would think something that tall would have left a lot of brick.  If you have a clue as to where they should start digging for all that brick, I'm sure they would like to hear from you.  Finding something like that would make any archaeologist's reputation and career.

No evidence exists for such a structure.  Find me a pile of ancient bricks that could have been such a tower and I will revise my opinions. 

 

-- 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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  If you get a

cj wrote:

  If you get a feral kitten or one that was raised outside, you have to teach it how to go in the box.  When the kitten starts to dig at the floor, you have to pick up the kitten, take them to their box, then take their paw in your hand and gently start pushing their paw in the dirt.  That is often all it takes and your kitten is now box-trained.

 


 

 

  Funny, I've been rescuing cats since 1991 and I've only had two of them that wouldn't take to the kitty box.  They were both very alpha personality types ( one male named TK and a female named Mako ) and would just go to the door or scratch on the window to tell me they needed to take care of business.  They're stubborn but I love them anyway.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well TWD, the bible's story

Well TWD, the bible's story regarding the tower of babel and the confusion of language is considered myth is because it is not backed by any evidence that it occurred, no one can agree on the dimension of the tower (it varies from 300 feet to 3.5 miles). As well the story that god or gods confused the languages is an old story told by various religions in an around the middle east and various other locations in the world. Like I keep on saying, just because you don't believe in the scientific method and explanations does not mean god did it. You have to back up your claim.....so far nothing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

  If you get a feral kitten or one that was raised outside, you have to teach it how to go in the box.  When the kitten starts to dig at the floor, you have to pick up the kitten, take them to their box, then take their paw in your hand and gently start pushing their paw in the dirt.  That is often all it takes and your kitten is now box-trained.

  Funny, I've been rescuing cats since 1991 and I've only had two of them that wouldn't take to the kitty box.  They were both very alpha personality types ( one male named TK and a female named Mako ) and would just go to the door or scratch on the window to tell me they needed to take care of business.  They're stubborn but I love them anyway.

 

Well, it wasn't so much that they weren't box trained, but that they were really too young to have been already trained by their mom.  I've watched momma cat show the babies where the box is, and how to use it.

I haven't had the problem, but I have heard of people whose cat all of a sudden decided to not use their box.  Maybe they changed litter brands, maybe they moved, maybe nothing was different.  And my husband tells stories of a Siamese who would torture my husband's younger brother by deliberately defecating on the younger boy's bed. 

We are not in a position to rescue cats now.  It is too dangerous at my house with all the dogs.  I miss not having cats.

 

-- 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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And my husband

cj wrote:
And my husband tells stories of a Siamese who would torture my husband's younger brother by deliberately defecating on the younger boy's bed. 

                                   A cat who engages in psychological warfare.  Who says they're dumb animals ?   

                                                                           

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:TWD39

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

Profanity is the resource of weak minded people, IMO.

 

   TWD39 said in post #34

 

  

TWD39 wrote:
I'm not a FUCKING idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question."

 

                   Nice to meet you, you weak-minded idiot.

 

I was merely quoting back the exact terminology that was hurled at me.  It was not a creation of my own expression or thought.   If you are going to hold that ridiculous standard of legalism then a person would be a racist for quoting a racial term used in a speech by a racist. 

The word itself is harmless.  It's the context, intent and heart of the man behind the word which enters the realm of sin nature.   In this instance, the poster used this word to insult my intelligence.

 

 I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  I don't have

TWD39 wrote:

 

 I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

 

So all atheists use profanity and Christians never do?

You love your little stereotypes don't you?

There is nothing wrong with a little bad language. They are just words. It is the attitude behind them that is important.

You sure don't mind threatening us with hell and insulting us constantly, what do you expect? Constant insults usually evokes bad language.

Stop using stupid sweeping statements and most of us will probably stop using profanity, not that profanity is that big of a deal, really.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1515
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Coal off the alter

 

Quote:
Merely quoting back the .. same terminology . .

 You are free to believe that . .


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is just an

 

TWD39 wrote:

Wow, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tower of babel never happened?  Please present this hard concrete proof!  Oh that's right, atheists don't have to prove anything.  They can simply present bold s tatements as fact to whatever suits their fancy.

 

appeal to ignorance. We simply argue the only 'concrete' fact about supernatural intervention is that no one has ever found objective proof it is true.  

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well

TWD39 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

Profanity is the resource of weak minded people, IMO.

 

   TWD39 said in post #34

 

  

TWD39 wrote:
I'm not a FUCKING idiot, and you fail miserably to answer my question."

 

                   Nice to meet you, you weak-minded idiot.

 

I was merely quoting back the exact terminology that was hurled at me.  It was not a creation of my own expression or thought.   If you are going to hold that ridiculous standard of legalism then a person would be a racist for quoting a racial term used in a speech by a racist. 

The word itself is harmless.  It's the context, intent and heart of the man behind the word which enters the realm of sin nature.   In this instance, the poster used this word to insult my intelligence.

 

I don't have to use profanity as a crutch to get a reaction out of my opponent.  On that basis alone, Christians are much better people than atheists.

 

 

It seems we're all guilty of pointless ad hominem insults at times.

One of the things you've implied I have trouble with TWD, is that skeptics of religion make their decisions not to believe because they are evil, or blinded by satan or some other thing that is inevitably an assertion and an insult in lockstep. There are no things I believe in implicitly, except that human understanding is fallible.

To me things like praying are talking to myself. There is no voice of satan. There's just me, in this space. Confused but refusing to be cowed by a cadre of monotheistic religious doctrines that consist of insults (humans are born evil, god hates them!) and threats (believe these improbable assertions or spend eternity screaming in the waters of fire lake!).

While it's obviously not the same for you as a believer TWD, these threats are like me walking up to you rocking on your verandah at home with a bucket of petrol in one hand and a lit match in the other and screaming: "Accept there's no god or die!!!"

If you can manage for even the tiniest second to allow yourself to own how this outrageous, disgusting and unsubstantiated threat would make you feel, and then project that feeling onto us as non believers and equal human beings, then you would go some way to understanding a key element of our position. 

As a country person even though you tend to be conservative, you must also have a sense of community and a feeling of care for those people that live around you. Can you project this sense of oneness onto us, onto all life? Again, despite the mutual frustrations bubbling away here, we would never accept or submit to a power who threatened to harm you, TWD39. Never, ever, ever. 

 

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


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 323
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
A list of my arguments you

A list of my arguments you ignored:

1. Ticuna hummingbird eggs (this should be easy, but perhaps you're afraid that you have to use the same methods to refute this argument as I do to refute yours)

2. Why did god deem the Burj Khalifa ok? Or landing on the moon for that matter? Or landing Rovers on Mars?

3. Engineering the Tower of Babel with the knowledge of thousands of years ago (see? I AM considering how things were back then, not just comparing it to today!)

TWD39 wrote:

 That's the problem with atheist's narrow minded perspective on the Bible. You try to overlap modern day society onto the ancient OT times, and if they don't align perfectly, you cry foul!  The judgement for the tower of Babel had to do with man's heart and intent, not the actual structure.

What?? Overlapping modern day society?? Now unless you think that 5000 years ago you could just build tall buildings with no engineering or planning, whereas today you must engineer these things meticulously, then it is completely appropriate to suggest that a building that tall required much engineering work as it does today. 

As far as man's heart, if that were the case, this forum's server would be constantly failing, and our languages would get randomly translated while typing. No such things happen....sooooo try again. Begin by actually attempting to address my arguments (and even taking a stab at refuting them!)

TWD39 wrote:

As for demonstrating the story is true, that is an impossible task because anyone can call into question ANY ancient story.  Even if they discovered ruins of the tower, you wouldn't be convinced.  You would just claim that the myth was fabricated around the structure.   The story is accurate on certain accounts like the building material.   Sun dried clay was a common building material in that region and bitumen for mortar was used to give the bricks strength and cohension.  Bitumen was native to this region while stone was  found more in Caanan.  

Well, it's not my fault the story is vague. It's you who's claiming the truth of this book without demonstrating it. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". You haven't provided any ruins, let alone ones that you have demonstrated could have come that tower (let alone ones that have a reasonable probability of having come from that tower....which we can't confirm ever existed!)

Now, the story is specific on building material, but it doesn't mean you could build a tower to heaven with that material, and 3000+/- BCE engineering. The fact that the writer stated specific materials says nothing. The bible is often vague, and often specific. It doesn't mean a thing. 

TWD39 wrote:

Assuming you are correct,  for an author who just wanted to fabricate a silly morality tale, they should went to a lot of trouble to add unecessary details.  

The writers of the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon didn't?

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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 I was

 

 

TWD39 wrote:
I was merely quoting back the exact terminology that was hurled at me.  It was not a creation of my own expression or thought.

 

     Since your claimed innocence is that you chose to simply "hurl" it back,.... if the person you targeted uses the same profanity back at you, can they use you as an excuse as well and simply say "Oh mercy, it wasn't a creation of my own expression or thought! I was just taking TWD39's terminology and hurling it back at him.   I'm not actually guilty of using profanity !"

            Christians like you are too weak to even own up to you own guilt so you blame it on someone else. 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

 

     Since your claimed innocence is that you chose to simply "hurl" it back,.... if the person you targeted uses the same profanity back at you, can they use you as an excuse as well and simply say "Oh mercy, it wasn't a creation of my own expression or thought! I was just taking TWD39's terminology and hurling it back at him.   I'm not actually guilty of using profanity !"

            Christians like you are too weak to even own up to you own guilt so you blame it on someone else. 

 

 

 

LOL,  buddy, you just threw out your last ounce of credibility since you are willing to sink to using legalistical games to create hollow points.   I was not using profanity against someone.  I was merely addressing the charge against me.  Anyone with a non-biased brain can see the difference.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: You have never

cj wrote:

 

You have never raised kittens from birth, have you?  I have.

Momma cat takes the kittens to the sand box and shows them how to dig and relieve themselves.  If you get a feral kitten or one that was raised outside, you have to teach it how to go in the box.  When the kitten starts to dig at the floor, you have to pick up the kitten, take them to their box, then take their paw in your hand and gently start pushing their paw in the dirt.  That is often all it takes and your kitten is now box-trained.

Kittens have to be potty trained.  So do puppies.  Or have you never raised a puppy?  Momma dog will house train the puppies if they are kept with her long enough.  Dog training is all about teaching dogs - I am not fond of the guy, but watch Caesar Milan's show for a demonstration of how dogs don't learn by instinct but must be taught.

When you type stuff this blatantly wrong, people will correct you.  And look, no caps!

The middle east has been seriously excavated by archaeologists of various religions and nationalities for years.  There is no evidence of any structure tall enough to have been the tower of Babel.  Since we have plenty of other ancient structures we have found, you would think something that tall would have left a lot of brick.  If you have a clue as to where they should start digging for all that brick, I'm sure they would like to hear from you.  Finding something like that would make any archaeologist's reputation and career.

No evidence exists for such a structure.  Find me a pile of ancient bricks that could have been such a tower and I will revise my opinions. 

 

 

I've raised several cats growing up, even kittens without a mother to teach them.  We kept them outside, and they all performed the same behavior.  They would look for dirt or leaves to do their business, try to cover it up, and then sniff around to make sure they did a good job.  That's instinct.  I've had dozens of cats, and they all pretty much act the same.  They hunt the same way, climb trees the same way and play the same way with small variations.   Training a cat to use a litter box is completely different.  OTOH, every human being is a distinct personality with unpredictable patterns. 

I also noticed how if I threw a piece of meat near the kitten, the mother would smack their kid out of the way, grab the meat and growl if their kid tried to get near the meat.  When it comes to basic survival in animals, you don't see human traits like love and compassion.   Where's the morality?  Oh the morality. 

 

There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas.  How do you explain that our first evidences of language occur in Mesopotamia?  Why not in Central America or China?

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, and what about

Hmm, and what about non-human language?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573048/Scientists-identify-the-language-of-dolphins.html

Simpler perhaps, but language is not a human-only construct. So were dolphins involved in tower building too?

How can you possibly explain this?!

 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:There is still

TWD39 wrote:

There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas.  How do you explain that our first evidences of language occur in Mesopotamia?  Why not in Central America or China?

 

Depends on what you are calling written language.  Symbols, without evidence of grammar, are much older than the Middle Eastern examples -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu_symbols - China 6600 bce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols - Southeastern Europe (Hungary) 6-5 century BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet - Greece about 5300 BCE

What we know is that Sanskrit is the oldest written language with a true written grammar.  This does not mean it was the oldest spoken language.  We don't know what the oldest true grammatical spoken language is and we have no way to find out.  That doesn't mean the biblical story has any truth whatsoever.  And given the lack of archaeological evidence for said tower, it is likely just a myth.  A "Just So" story like many others in the bible.

Linguists do not count collections of words to be languages.  So pidgin, as spoken by non-native speakers, is defined to be not a language as it does not have a grammar.  Creole is a term for languages that have grammar but are an amalgam of other languages.  Hawaiian "pidgin" is an example of a creole language.

http://www.amazon.com/Bastard-Tongues-Trailblazing-Linguist-Languages/dp/0809028166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346177994&sr=1...

Bastard Tongues, by Derek Bickerton

Interesting book even though I found it a little tedious at times.  Bickerton is a linguist and professor emeritus at the University of Hawaii.  I am not saying he is an expert in the Middle Eastern languages, but that his book had a lot of good information about how linguists classify and analyze languages.

 

-- 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.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Hmm, and what about non-human language?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573048/Scientists-identify-the-language-of-dolphins.html

Simpler perhaps, but language is not a human-only construct. So were dolphins involved in tower building too?

How can you possibly explain this?!

 

 

 

Explain what?  All I see is an article making a lot of assumptions with no conclusive proof.  The whistles might mean something.  Yeah, and it may not.  Language involves structure and following a set of agreed rules and syntax.  That's a far cry from animals making different noises.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3284
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:All I see is an

TWD39 wrote:

All I see is an article making a lot of assumptions with no conclusive proof. 

i-ronyyy...

"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


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: A list

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

A list of my arguments you ignored:

1. Ticuna hummingbird eggs (this should be easy, but perhaps you're afraid that you have to use the same methods to refute this argument as I do to refute yours)

2. Why did god deem the Burj Khalifa ok? Or landing on the moon for that matter? Or landing Rovers on Mars?

3. Engineering the Tower of Babel with the knowledge of thousands of years ago (see? I AM considering how things were back then, not just comparing it to today!)

 

 

1.  The fact that they have a FLood myth along with every other major culture gives more credance to the Bible. Therefore, we have more proof to accept the Bible's account than this other ancient belief.

 

2. God wasn't mad at the stucture itself.  It was the heart of man that provoked Him to action.  The tower was a symbol of their desire to be like God, the same sin that created Satan and the fall of man.

 

3.  There are quite a number of ancient structures that baffle scientists as to their construction method.  How did they move the heavy stones to build the pyramids?  

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Well, it's not my fault the story is vague. It's you who's claiming the truth of this book without demonstrating it. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". You haven't provided any ruins, let alone ones that you have demonstrated could have come that tower (let alone ones that have a reasonable probability of having come from that tower....which we can't confirm ever existed!)

Now, the story is specific on building material, but it doesn't mean you could build a tower to heaven with that material, and 3000+/- BCE engineering. The fact that the writer stated specific materials says nothing. The bible is often vague, and often specific. It doesn't mean a thing. 

 

There are hundreds of archaelogical finds that support the Bible.  Do you give it any more credibility?  Of course not.  Atheists have constructed this neat system that basically makes it impossible to prove anything.  If you apply the same system to anything else, you would have to be skeptical about EVERYTHING in life.

 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:3.  There are

TWD39 wrote:


3.  There are quite a number of ancient structures that baffle scientists as to their construction method.  How did they move the heavy stones to build the pyramids?  

Are you saying god built the pyramids now?


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

TWD39 wrote:


There are hundreds of archaelogical finds that support the Bible.  Do you give it any more credibility?  Of course not.  Atheists have constructed this neat system that basically makes it impossible to prove anything.  If you apply the same system to anything else, you would have to be skeptical about EVERYTHING in life.

 

SCIENTISTS have constructed this neat system that basically demands independently verifiable evidence, and makes it impossible to prove things without evidence

If you have the time, would you mind responding to my big point-by-point post which was in response to your criticisms of my 'humans are animals' post?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: LOL,  buddy,

TWD39 wrote:

 LOL,  buddy, you just threw out your last ounce of credibility....

     

              What the fuck ?  As an evil atheist I at one time had an ounce of credibility with you ?  I'm fucking shocked !

 

TWD39 wrote:
...since you are willing to sink to using legalistical games to create hollow points.

 

                                         Are you talking about me, or yourself ?  I'm fucking confused ?

                                                                  These are fucking "hollow points"....

 

     

 

TWD39 wrote:
I was not using profanity against someone.  I was merely addressing the charge against me.

 

               Now it is you who are resorting to "legalistical" games.  That fucking pisses me off.

 

TWD39 wrote:
Anyone with a non-biased brain can see the difference.

 

         Wait, you are inferring that YOU possess a non-biased brain ?  That's fucking hilarious !  Fuck, fuck, fuck !!!

 

  { Oh, by the way, I wasn't being profane by using the word "fuck" over and over because, like you said, I wasn't using it "against someone". Isn't that just fucking hilarious !!! }

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:TWD39

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 LOL,  buddy, you just threw out your last ounce of credibility....

     

              What the fuck ?  As an evil atheist I at one time had an ounce of credibility with you ?  I'm fucking shocked !

 

TWD39 wrote:
...since you are willing to sink to using legalistical games to create hollow points.

 

                                         Are you talking about me, or yourself ?  I'm fucking confused ?

                                                                  These are fucking "hollow points"....

 

     

 

TWD39 wrote:
I was not using profanity against someone.  I was merely addressing the charge against me.

 

               Now it is you who are resorting to "legalistical" games.  That fucking pisses me off.

 

TWD39 wrote:
Anyone with a non-biased brain can see the difference.

 

         Wait, you are inferring that YOU possess a non-biased brain ?  That's fucking hilarious !  Fuck, fuck, fuck !!!

 

  { Oh, by the way, I wasn't being profane by using the word "fuck" over and over because, like you said, I wasn't using it "against someone". Isn't that just fucking hilarious !!! }

 

 

 

WRONG  You are using foul language here as a vehicle to antagonize me and incite an angry response.  Same thing.   You lose again.   


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1515
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of the land between two rivers . . .

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:
  No evidence exists for such a structure.  Find me a pile of ancient bricks that could have been such a tower and I will revise my opinions. 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

 

 

 

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3616
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: WRONG  You

TWD39 wrote:

 

WRONG  You are using foul language here as a vehicle to antagonize me and incite an angry response.  Same thing.   You lose again.   

 

        Yeah, you're spanking the hell out of me with your double standards. LOL !

 

       

                             TWD39 stated in post #81....

TWD39 wrote:
The word itself is harmless

 

     If the word is harmless why do you so strenuously object to it's usage ?  Do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )