Thread: God of Savagery

Did you see the video of the dolphin that had a fishing hook stuck in its fin and swam to some divers for help with it? Amazing! Nothing without consciousness would have known to do that - hell, if my dog gets something stuck in her paw I have to fight with her before she'll let me look at it!!

And of course it's possible not all animism viewed animals with reverence - there's doubtless a lot of Noble Savage romanticizing going on there like there is with saying American Indians would kill only what they need and use every part of the animal. I remember reading a response to that fallacy from an Indian who said it's well known among them that their ancestors would drive entire herds of buffallo off cliffs (impossible to stop them once you get the herd moving) and kill hundreds, then could only drag away maybe a half dozen and leave the rest to rot.

Also, factor in that what we know of animism is the credo itself, not the behavior of the people who supposedly follwed it. If you judge Christianity (for instance) only by the teachings of Christ you'd know nothing of the horrors perperated in its name such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, as well as the crimes of Christian-identifying individuals like pedo-priests, and think the practitioners must have been fantastic to each other.

But yeah, I wasn't implying that only religion allows us to feel superior. The shift from reverence to increasing disregard and outright cruelty is across the board, not only among the religious. (Assuming that shift is real and not just a fallacy as I illustrated above, which it probably is)

And I'm trying to become more truly skeptical myself - I'm often guilty of being more of a hardcore disbeliever than a skeptic. True skepticism takes a lot more effort and thought. Thanks for keeping us on our toes O Slothful One!!

I once watched a documentary about some gruesome slaughters that took place. I'm sorry. I don't remember the place. I don't remember the name of the documentary. I don't remember when it took place. I'm sorry.
Apparently these guys came in and beheaded, raped, burned, and pillaged this town. In fact, there was even a trend, when they saw a pregnant woman, they would
(*very graphic* highlight below to see.)
slice open the woman's stomach, pull the baby out and stomp on it in front of her.

The point of the documentary was to find out how people could be so cruel to one another.. how they could possibly do it, psychologically.

What was concluded in the doc was that the attackers had been told over and over that these villagers were sub-human. They were taught to believe that they were superior to these villagers. Horrible atrocities occurred because people were taught that other humans were sub-human; Not that they are evil. Not that they are deserving of such treatment, or that they are guilty of some crime. Only that they are sub-human.

These are the types of things that happen when we think that we are superior.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

But yeah, I wasn't implying that only religion allows us to feel superior. The shift from reverence to increasing disregard and outright cruelty is across the board, not only among the religious. (Assuming that shift is real and not just a fallacy as I illustrated above, which it probably is)

I wonder if this can be related to our success as a species. Animists were more at the mercy of non-human forces than their less respectful descendents.

Yeah, good point. A healthy dose of narcissism is required to make winners. And once you set off down that path it can be hard to tell when to stop - I suppose that's why our culture stresses narcissism and succsess so prominently.

If there is a god and our souls are immortal than nothing really bad ever happens to us permanently and we move on all the wiser for another experience. We would all die and move on after that anyway. Hopefully we would learn the golden rule and teach others the golden rule.
If there is no god then everything is happening according to cause and effect and the big bang is the first cause so this is all still unfolding of the Big Bang and everything is happening in perfect harmony and balance and there is no intelligence inherent in the universe, it is a 'haunted' universe, unpopulated by souls. Biological organisms do what they do because they have no choice due to their conditioning and cause and effect. Either way it is all perfect.

So a God of Savagery would be a wrathful form of the Divine. He would be the destroyer who brings karmic balance and peace by conquest, purification by fire and by sword. A trickster god who sets up temptations and obstacles, who taunts one. The god of chaos.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Also, factor in that what we know of animism is the credo itself, not the behavior of the people who supposedly follwed it. If you judge Christianity (for instance) only by the teachings of Christ you'd know nothing of the horrors perperated in its name such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, as well as the crimes of Christian-identifying individuals like pedo-priests, and think the practitioners must have been fantastic to each other.

Animism varied as much, if not more, than modern religions do. There was a certain tribe in Southeast Asia where most people didn't make it to an old age because they'd be executed for murder... because they'd be accused of using magic to kill people that died of natural causes. The only way to avoid the guilty verdict was cook a near impossible dish (like cooking a souflet without any modern equipment). The assumption was that if the person succeeded, they must have received help from the spirit.

Animism does stand apart from paganism through the transition into totalitarian farming, though. And there you see many traditions change to suit a totalitarian farming culture as opposed to any of the variations that existed before that. The major transformation was that religions were no longer collection of superstitions and other gambler's tactics meant to help a people make life or death decisions when one choice seemed as good as another. Instead, they became conquering religions because totalitarian farming is a conquering practice. Pre-farming societies still had war but it was more of a war to remind people you weren't to be fucked with. They did not conquer and convert the way post-farming cultures did. You cannot necessarily glorify hunter/gatherer religions... they held a lot of various misconceptions about reality. But I personally prefer their live and let live style to the paganism that followed, or the monotheism that followed that.

Pre-farming societies also had less vitamin deficiencies and did not know famine. There's certain a glorification argument to be made, but it'd be as fallacious as saying farming made everything better.

And somehow the Neolithic peoples had some strange knowledge that we in our prejudiced view don't really recognize as such. Such as the ability of people all over the world on every continent to move impossibly massive boulders many miles and occasionally from one island to another without slaves. Hunter gatherer people didn't have slaves per se, because they couldn't afford it. There were no real political ideologies or conflicts either. Only conflicts over hunting territory.

I'm of the belief that technologically advanced societies did exist before ours. If we were wiped out tomorrow, in 20,000 years only the ancient, granite structures of the ancient world would outlive us. Unless we made our own.

If God did exist, he'd obviously condone abortion since he condones infanticide in animals.

First off. Because of the sin of our first parents, everything that was perfect was made un-perfect and totally
messed up from man to the parts on your car to the metals on airplanes.

And no...God does not tolerate Abortion. Infanticide is the murder of children outside the womb, Abortion is
murder of the innocent. Man is not an animal, "evil-loation" is a lie.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Man is not an animal, "evil-loation" is a lie.

Strong words, now support them.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Man is not an animal

What exactly is your explanation for this? I can't for the life of me wrap my head around the concept that someone with any sort of education can actually believe this, regardless of religious views.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Man is not an animal, "evil-loation" is a lie.

Evolution is not a lie. It is it a scientifically proven fact backed by mounds upon mounds of evidence. We see it happen before our very eyes.

Please...if evolution is a fact then why....

1. Are there no missing links?

2. Why have the so called intermediate man findings, like Peking and Piltdown man, confirmed apes or outright frauds?

3. How can a scientist claim parts of the human body are from evolution and no longer work if sed scientist doesn't even
know their function or prove they no longer have a function?

4. Just because fish have fins, birds have feathers, dinosaurs had claws and men have hands doesn't mean they "evolved".
That's like saying an Audi is a direct line manufacture of a VW bug.

5. Evolution is a "Theory" not a hard "natural law". Gravity is a proven natural law. Evolution isn't even proven scientific law
since it hasn't met all the requirements of the scientific method.

6. The evolution model violates the law of Bio-genesis and the cell theory.

I can't for the life of me wrap my head around the concept that someone with any sort of education can actually believe this

Has an ape ever completed a book on its own in any human language?

Last time I checked, no white mouse has ever built an atomic bomb.

I guess the cats built the great pyramids, that's news to me.

No...humans are not from apes, the fact that primate DNA has never been found to be even close to human genetics
proves that we have no ape ancestry. When you can find a single ape with the exact copy of the human DNA then we'll
talk. Till then you have a 'Theory" not fact.

Strong words, now support them.

I offer a simple analogy...

We know nature created the grand canyon through a process of time and erosion, that is fact.

We know nature can not produce organized structural complexity and explosions don't create
order. So what made the faces on Mount Rushmore?

Explosions provided the beginning rough shapes but it took an intelligent designer to bring the
faces to existence by transmitting complex forms from the state of mind to the hand to the chisel
and hammer. Nature alone can not create complex life, it can only duplicate multiples from a single existing
form and then act on those multiples to help them adapt to certain conditions.

Therefore...evolution does not exist.

I have a different theory on conciousness.
Will write it up, then post on here later in the week.

As for the replies to this topic so far.
Almost every reply looks like it has been copy/pasted into peoples minds first.
There seems to be no original, or new ideas.
All your opinions are what other people have researched, or told you, or what you have watched/read

Try to think along the lines of what you have experienced in your own life. Not what others say.
eg........

If God came down, and chatted with you over dinner, then you should believe in God
If you have seen a UFO up close, then believe in UFOs
If you have developed a skill to control your mind whilst asleep then believe in Lucid dreaming.
But do not quote other peoples experiences as your point of view.
Try to reply from an experiantial point of view.
Opinions matter very much, and I am not trying to shut opinions out altogether
But if we could stick to what 'you know' to be true, then this thread would take on a much more facinating path.
Nobody on here 'KNOWS' God exists, and nobody 'DOESN'T' know.
But what do you actualy know to be true.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Has an ape ever completed a book on its own in any human language?

Last time I checked, no white mouse has ever built an atomic bomb.

I guess the cats built the great pyramids, that's news to me.

No...humans are not from apes, the fact that primate DNA has never been found to be even close to human genetics
proves that we have no ape ancestry. When you can find a single ape with the exact copy of the human DNA then we'll
talk. Till then you have a 'Theory" not fact.

I was disputing the fact that you said man is not an animal himself, not that we came from apes.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Please...if evolution is a fact then why....

1. Are there no missing links?

Not sure what you mean here. Why are there no missing links? There is no such case that we have evidence of one species and evidence of another, but no way to connect them. We have multiple stages of change between organisms. The picture isn't perfect, but that's not due to evolution being false, it's due to fossilization being an imperfect process. Not every species yields fossils, nevermind well-preserved fossils.

2. Why have the so called intermediate man findings, like Peking and Piltdown man, confirmed apes or outright frauds?

Again, not sure what you mean. The Peking Man is a specimen of Homo erectus, which is an evolutionary cousin of ours (we're part the same genus, Homo). The Piltdown man was indeed a fraud. I'm unsure of your point.

3. How can a scientist claim parts of the human body are from evolution and no longer work if sed scientist doesn't even
know their function or prove they no longer have a function?

We know evolution occurs, so any body part will no doubt be a product of evolution. What their function is/was is subject to testing and observation. If it is found in other animals, then we observe what purpose it serves there. If it is even found in animals similar to us, like chimps, then we can hypothesize that it serves a similar purpose in us (if it still functions at all). It could just be vestigial. Maybe you could clear up your sentence since it's a little unclear.

4. Just because fish have fins, birds have feathers, dinosaurs had claws and men have hands doesn't mean they "evolved".
That's like saying an Audi is a direct line manufacture of a VW bug.

What? I don't understand your point.

5. Evolution is a "Theory" not a hard "natural law". Gravity is a proven natural law. Evolution isn't even proven scientific law
since it hasn't met all the requirements of the scientific method.

There's no requirement that in order to be considered factual, something MUST be a scientific law. Both gravity and evolution are facts, but one tells us "what" and one tells us "why." That's the difference between a law and a theory. A law tells us what happens under certain conditions, a theory may tell us why.

6. The evolution model violates the law of Bio-genesis and the cell theory.

Elaborate.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Has an ape ever completed a book on its own in any human language?

Last time I checked, no white mouse has ever built an atomic bomb.

I guess the cats built the great pyramids, that's news to me.

They lack the intellectual capacity to do such things. Just because humans possess that capacity doesn't not make them animals.

No...humans are not from apes, the fact that primate DNA has never been found to be even close to human genetics
proves that we have no ape ancestry. When you can find a single ape with the exact copy of the human DNA then we'll
talk. Till then you have a 'Theory" not fact.

So this can be debunked with just a few well-supported observations:

Chimpanzees share 99% of our DNA. A similar degree of difference occurs in Bonobos. Gorillas differ by only about 2%. 3% for Orangutans. I won't comment further on just how similar we are to our ape cousins.

The requirement that we find an ape sharing 100% of DNA with humans is impossible, and demonstrates an overwhelming misunderstanding of genetics. You won't even find that between yourself and your parents.

Theories can be facts, though they're explanatory facts. Research the context in which the term "theory" is used in scientific research. It's not the same as the colloquial usage, which is often akin to a wild guess or hunch.

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

I offer a simple analogy...

We know nature created the grand canyon through a process of time and erosion, that is fact.

I'm with you so far.

We know nature can not produce organized structural complexity and explosions don't create
order. So what made the faces on Mount Rushmore?

Humans did...I feel I may be losing you.

Explosions provided the beginning rough shapes but it took an intelligent designer to bring the
faces to existence by transmitting complex forms from the state of mind to the hand to the chisel
and hammer. Nature alone can not create complex life, it can only duplicate multiples from a single existing
form and then act on those multiples to help them adapt to certain conditions.

Well, I look forward to you supporting the claim that "nature alone can not create complex life" considering nature creates complex life all the time. Sex, fertilization, and gestation are processes involved in the natural creation of complex life.

it can only duplicate multiples from a single existing form and then act on those multiples to help them adapt to certain conditions.

Not at all clear on what you mean by this. I mean, in some way, it sounds like you're describing what evolution does.

Therefore...evolution does not exist.

Logic teachers are cringing everywhere!

Originally Posted by Daniel1966

Please...if evolution is a fact then why....

1. Are there no missing links?

You worded this incorrectly. Try again.

2. Why have the so called intermediate man findings, like Peking and Piltdown man, confirmed apes or outright frauds?

I've never heard of Peking Man, but BLUELINE says it was Homo erectus, so I'll take his word for it. Besides, for every fraud, there are many more authentic fossils.

3. How can a scientist claim parts of the human body are from evolution and no longer work if sed scientist doesn't even
know their function or prove they no longer have a function?

They can.

4. Just because fish have fins, birds have feathers, dinosaurs had claws and men have hands doesn't mean they "evolved".
That's like saying an Audi is a direct line manufacture of a VW bug.

We aren't saying that. We say they evolved those things because we can see it in the fossil record over time.

5. Evolution is a "Theory" not a hard "natural law". Gravity is a proven natural law. Evolution isn't even proven scientific law
since it hasn't met all the requirements of the scientific method.

The Fact of Gravity is that objects attract/pull one another. The Theory of Gravity has to do with mass and space-time and all that mathematical stuff. The Fact of Evolution is that populations of organisms change over time. The Theory of Evolution has to do with natural selection. In both cases, the fact is what happens and the theory is how it happens.

6. The evolution model violates the law of Bio-genesis and the cell theory.

How so? Also, what is "Bio-genesis"? I think you're referring to abiogenesis, which isn't a law in the least.

The god of savagery has many benevolent loving lessons for us. like how to face death and die, how to grieve, how to move on, how to let go. I wish the nature documentarians wouldn't filter it mostly out.