Possible Evidence of Chimp Temples and "Proto-Religious" Rituals- VIDEO

a reply to: luthier

I honestly don't think religion had anything to do with the development of architecture, construction, writing, art, language or any of that. Art pre-existed long before human religion as did language. Just because a religious person originally proposed the big bang, doesn't make religion part of it, nor does it make it a product of religion. In the same light it is 100% separate from evolution. Religion has nothing to do with alelle frequency.

Religion is separate from all of that, so to attribute all that stuff to religion is laughable to me. Just because religion was there first, doesn't mean it created or led to any of that. Sure it had an influence on many of those things, but it's definitely not the direct cause. The intelligence of humans created that stuff. Religion is just a crutch that people have been leaning on for centuries to come to grips with the fact that everybody dies at some point. Religion held us back from science if anything.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

This all seems very Satanic to me.

Yah that chimp anti-christ is a real stinker but. He not only scratches and bites but throws poop like a mother.

Kev

a reply to: Barcs

You hold a pretty bitter view of religion which has existed in every known modern culture in one way or another.

If you don't think religion had anything to do with architecture, art, writing and printing, astronomy your a poor cultural anthropologist.

What were the pyramids, cathedrals, temples, statues, etc? They were religious. Hindu temples use a geometry that they consider sacred and often follow astronomy. Religion offered a way for people to come together with similar beliefs, observe reoccuring natural phenomenon together, they pooled entire schools of the most talented people known to build artifacts, to defend artifacts. Bach was inspired by Jesus. Valyat Khan by Vishnu. The entire form of classical Indian dance comes from religion as does their music both Hindustani and karnatic.

Seriously if you don't think religion had benefits that helped expand human knowledge you just are too upset with your own personal history to see this.

Sure it did plenty of damage and the need for it for social constructs are no longer necessary. But it's only the backwoods fundamentalists that are the real problem even now.

Religion is not seperate from the work of Laimatre or Mendel. It was what inspired them to search for answers. So technically yeah they didn't use the bible to decode secrets but God had everything to do with who they were as people and scientists. Including their training. Jesuit schools like Fordham are still some of the best higher Ed places on earth. Especially for scholarships to poor people.

I don't believe but I can't dispute that religious people who are nutters are not the majority (accept where I live). They are every bit as scientific as an atheist. Which is your comment I was talking about.

I could find you a conspiracy theory atheist every bit as ignorant to science as a religious nut.

Go back in history and you find the earliest buildings of grand scale engineering are religious. The early fertility godess figurines and many forms of early art are religious. Meaning that inspired people to create. They brought the town together and that's the important part about working through problems. The communion.

a reply to: luthier

Correlation does not imply causation. Sorry.

Also I said it had nothing to do with the development or origins of those things. Obviously it influenced some buildings and some art, but it isn't responsible for the origin of art in general or the origin of architecture as you suggested.

The pyramids were marvels of human intelligence. Just because the ancient Egyptian worldview partially (and that's being generous) influenced them to be built doesn't mean religion created the architecture or science/math behind the design. You want them to be related on that level, but they aren't. Unless religion taught them how to design a pyramid, it has nothing to do with the equation. They wouldn't have built them or even attempted to if they had no idea how to do it.

Religion itself didn't expand anything. Human intellect did. To attribute human ingenuity to religion is simply wrong. You sound like a Christian apologist in your response. Religion isn't directly responsible for the origins of any of that stuff, sorry. I'm not saying it has no influence whatsoever on specific designs and certain places, but to credit it when it contributed absolutely zero to the math and science behind the concepts is a slap in the face to human intelligence.

Seriously if you don't think religion had benefits that helped expand human knowledge you just are too upset with your own personal history to see this.

Name a benefit of religion that directly helped expand human knowledge. Just stop. Humans are inquisitive. They want answers to everything. To act like religion is the reason that Mendel discovered genetics is nonsensical.

Religion is not seperate from the work of Laimatre or Mendel. It was what inspired them to search for answers.

Yes, religion is separate. Are you seriously claiming that if Mendel was not religious, he would have never been inspired to search for answers? Religion isn't what led him there, it was his own curiosity. What he discovered was based on his methods, not his religious faith.

Honestly, that's like claiming atheism is responsible for us learning so much about evolution. They aren't related. Humans want answers to everything, it's in our nature. That's why they created religion in the first place. To answer the questions that they could not.

a reply to: Barcs

The go to reply to bitter atheism is you sound like an apologist.

I don't believe in Jesus. I have said absolutely nothing that implies Christian apologetics.

Correlation and causation are not terms you would use in cultural anthropolgy. Sorry.

Nothing is that cut and dry when examining human culture over 10's of thousands of years.

Can you prove architecture was not created to design religious buildings? Because you just said that is the case.

None of your post has anything to do with the fact that religion was a stepping stone to assimilate groups of people to work for a common goal. There is mass amounts of evidence of this being true and very little disproving this.

The probability of religion being a cause for technological and art advancement in the early world is far higher than not. There are many times over more religious artifacts than any other. I am sorry you don't see the utility it provided but anthropolgy surely does.


Religion taught them to build a pyramid? What are you actually argueing here. Its a poor arguement. Religion is a man made thing and many different forms of religion have math, engineering, physics, philosophy etc.

Religion definitely did include architecture and measurement in Egypt. The pyramid was specifically for religion. As were ziguarats and every other massive structure pre Roman era.
Hindu temples are based on religious math.

I think this article only proves my point. It is simply an evolutionary stage.

Religion also held things back but that isn't a good arguement either. Nor is a world where religion never existed since we don't have any clear evidence of a technological society without religion it's fair to say with all the evidence it played an important role of bringing people together creating a common language and belief system and definetley had a positive large role in technology and art advancement.

So again I am an Athesit. Therefore can't be a Christian apologist. A Christian would never say he doesn't believe.

I just don't think we make the jump from look a rock...to geology without wondering what created this. The first obvious easy hypothesis was something greater than me. The greatest thing in the universe. What happens when you die ...you hang out with your dead ancestors etc...

a reply to: luthier

PS I see your having trouble with this arguement and having serious logic flaws. Mendel was a priest. To say God had nothing to do with him as a scientist is absolute ignorance. What got him to work when he was sick? What got him to work when he wanted to give up? What got him to work after tragedy? You can not seperate the drive from the work results.

Yes I honestly believe if he was not a priest he would never have came up with his theories or possible even been a scientist at all. You can't seperate beliefs from peoples behaviour and work ethics.

What does atheism have to do with evolution? Do think young earth are the only type if religious ideas? Was Darwin an atheist? Do I think atheism had something to do with Richard Dawkins work? Yeah i do. Not the technical part but the drive and personality that makes him who he is as a scientist.

a reply to: luthier

There's nothing bitter about giving humans the credit they deserve for coming up with and inventing designs that shaped the foundations of architecture. You are attributing it to an inanimate religious belief system, rather than their own ingenuity and desire to learn things. That is where your argument falls off a cliff.

I'm not talking about cultural anthropology, I'm talking about human intelligence. And yes, correlation to causation fits the bill here because you are claiming religion CAUSED all of those developments. It didn't. It was there and it dominated society, but a belief system can't come with new ideas and designs, so your argument is invalid. You have no reason whatsoever to assume that without religion, none of those designs would have been implemented or used as humans developed into a society.

Religion definitely did include architecture and measurement in Egypt. The pyramid was specifically for religion.

citation needed.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I think because it offers an explanation to deal with or acknowledge fear. Ritual obviously has very powerful effects. Some nefarious and others enlightening. The ritual is a sort of early social contract of a culture. Recognizing seasons, time, weather making a belief system to explain and teach what it is known to the next generation.

Not so much just fear,. all creatures have fear but an intellectual process of figuring out why and how to overcome it without just pounding the chest.

Or maybe it is something else.

Like there is a God and they know it.

Makes ya wonder what they are thinking, IF it is a shrine.

I wonder if jane goodall has/had anything to say about this. (not sure if she is still with us)

a reply to: Barcs


If not for religion, there would be no science.

Why aren't the chimps writing equations?

originally posted by: Barcs
So basically religious people are like chimps. Good to know and perfectly explains why so many cannot comprehend incredibly basic concepts in science.

Why this hate, why this fear barcs?

Why are you so intimidated by fear

Look monkeys piling rocks on top of each other, next to a tree

That must prove that they worship a monkey god

The intelligence of the average evolutionist amazes me, anything to confirm their bias. Purely ludicrous is evidence

originally posted by: luthier
PS I see your having trouble with this arguement and having serious logic flaws. Mendel was a priest. To say God had nothing to do with him as a scientist is absolute ignorance. What got him to work when he was sick? What got him to work when he wanted to give up? What got him to work after tragedy? You can not seperate the drive from the work results.

Now you are being ridiculous. You are seriously saying that his belief in god is the sole motivator in everything he did, and without belief in god, none of his work would have happened? That's a bit of a bit assumption there.

It's was HIS drive, not a religion's drive. I can definitely separate them. The fact that you can't has me scratching my head, especially as an atheist.

Yes I honestly believe if he was not a priest he would never have came up with his theories or possible even been a scientist at all. You can't seperate beliefs from peoples behaviour and work ethics.

LOL okay. Scientists separate their personal beliefs from their work everyday, but since you say so, I guess it can't be separate. It must be ingrained into them and magically improves their intellectual abilities and creates their passions. If religion didn't exist, Mendel would have done it on his own, based on his own wonderment and amazement of the universe and to find out what drives it. You don't need religion to have that curiosity.

What does atheism have to do with evolution? Do think young earth are the only type if religious ideas? Was Darwin an atheist? Do I think atheism had something to do with Richard Dawkins work? Yeah i do. Not the technical part but the drive and personality that makes him who he is as a scientist.

That was my point. It has nothing to do atheism at all. Just like religion has nothing to do with evolution. I don't know if it's something that philosophy guys like to do but you sure like to force concepts together and muddy the waters to do it. If it wasn't religion it would have been something else or somebody else that influenced people to give their lives meaning and create art and innovative building designs.

There's a reason technology has skyrocketed since religion was separated from the process. If anything, religion led to slower development of technology and innovations over time, rather than it being the cause of it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: luthier

There's nothing bitter about giving humans the credit they deserve for coming up with and inventing designs that shaped the foundations of architecture. You are attributing it to an inanimate religious belief system, rather than their own ingenuity and desire to learn things. That is where your argument falls off a cliff.

I'm not talking about cultural anthropology, I'm talking about human intelligence. And yes, correlation to causation fits the bill here because you are claiming religion CAUSED all of those developments. It didn't. It was there and it dominated society, but a belief system can't come with new ideas and designs, so your argument is invalid. You have no reason whatsoever to assume that without religion, none of those designs would have been implemented or used as humans developed into a society.

Religion definitely did include architecture and measurement in Egypt. The pyramid was specifically for religion.

citation needed.

It's all about "inspiration"

Ever hear computer generated "music"?

Religion?

Another possibility is that they are making ART. Chimp aesthetics for the sheer pleasure of creation of something "new" I have heard that chimps will decorate their bodies with flowers and grass and dance. Self expression at a basic level, but still dealing in abstractions and creativity.

a reply to: Barcs

I honestly don't think religion had anything to do with the development of architecture, construction, writing, art, language or any of that.

Normally I would agree that religion brings nothing to the table but it did influence quite a lot of Renaissance art in Europe and many other cultures around the globe.

You also have the ancient Greeks whose mythos influenced many architectural wonders.
Same with the Egyptians,Romans and the American civilizations.
Is religion the sole cause? Probably not,I would like to think the Egyptians would've been masters at masonry regardless of their religious influences. Although to exclude its influence on innovations in human history is a skewed perspective my friend.

However do the benefits of religion out weigh its negatives? This is a matter of opinion...

Perhaps they found religion after "Discovering" the White Hairless ape and its magic...like Lightening sticks (guns), mobile metal Rhinos that breath fire (Land Rovers with smokey diesels) strange sounds. (talking) etc.

The Black Negroes they encountered for eons, are just Hairless weak Gorillas, with no magic and cant climb trees....the Chimps feel sorry for them.

a reply to: Barcs

Barcs your being extremely obtuse.

Have you ever read anything about this subject at all? I suggest Robert Bellah he is an authority on the issue. Try
Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Philosophy teaches you to think through the problem before responding. Not to muddy things up. I assume your an applied science guy. Thats cool. But you don't figure out people by thinking they are machines.

I am being rediculous by saying the sole reason a priest does everything was because of God? Maybe you need to read a bit more about priests and nuns particularly Christian ones. What their oath is and what it means to be a priest.

Never did I imply that religion was the sole responsible cause of all of humanity. If you were a better philosopher you would read my arguement, think about what it means and respond. Not just react emotionally. Which is ironic coming from a science guy.

To sum it up.

Religion caused people to have a common cause, belief system, morality, and language among many other things. It was the first working on explaining what the first cause and reality are. You don't just jump to string theory from picking fleas off your partner. The fact that huge structures were created for religion and ceremony caused engineers and thinking to go further than mud huts. Making huge advancements in artifacts because of the need, power, enslavement, and money. The same with filling those structures with art and wares. Some of our earliest sculptures are of fertility goddesses.

Citation needed seriously?Maybe you should read more. The Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese Daoist and Budhists among others all have a form of science within them. Some very crude but not for the time. From units of measurement to sacred geometry structure to medicine. Auryvedic and Chinese having some actual scientifically proven results.

Religion is not the sole cause and never did I say that it was. I explained it brought people together. It made braintrust universities etc. Made people think bigger made people scared so the reached deadlines, made them develop better techniques.

There is zero proof any of that is possible without religion as an evolutionary step. I am not saying it's needed now but as our thinking evolved the structures of keeping record and building educational places allowed the men to do their part. It was a symbiotic relationship. Being inspired by "God" certainly had an effect.

Oh and as an atheist I don't have any particular views. I am an agnostic atheist. I do think about deism and pantheism being interesting as well. I didn't know I had to have certain beliefs to be an Atheist.

I was taught how to have valid arguements by an atheist who was pretty good at debating apologists. The way he did it was by examining the meaning of the arguements his opponents made and by crediting the truths they argued rather than just sticking to an agenda. This is why I think Sam Harris is so much better at debating than Dawkins.

Also barcs religion has been separated since the founding of the US. Technology skyrockets because of Moore's law. I was argueing as I have said about its effect on our evolution in the past. Specifically citing very early time periods. Like I said I don't think it's the case anymore or has been for quite a while.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Could be. I certainly am willing to spend a while thinking about it. Ultimately I believe it's just an evolutionary step of consciousness. I think even though I try to be neutral I am too biased against theist scriptures to be a believer in that way. Even if we found evidence of God I wouldn't justify religion as having been right (unless it was actually the exact same description as some ancient text).

a reply to: PhotonEffect

While I find this an interesting hypothesis--and I'm gland that you included the point that the researchers are not 100% sure of the hypothesis--I just get really tired of behavior that "[doesn't] seem to serve any particular function" usually being classified as ritualistic/religious.

Sometimes things that seem to have no purpose are done just for that reason--to pass time, or "just because."

Also, just because we don't know a reason behind behavior does not mean that the default thought should be 'ritual.' That seems to be the default answer for a finding of 'we don't know,' and I think that's lazy.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I wasn't aware that so many discovered behaviors were being classified as ritualistic. What are some of the one's that come to mind for you?

And yeah, I meant to say that these behaviors don't seem to serve a purpose for "survival".

originally posted by: luthier
Philosophy teaches you to think through the problem before responding. Not to muddy things up. I assume your an applied science guy. Thats cool. But you don't figure out people by thinking they are machines.

Actually, yes, we do. Science is a method that goes by what can be observed and verified. There is no room for emotion or religion in the work itself. I see you trying to fit the proverbial square peg in the round hole in your argument here, much like you did in the last thread we butted heads in. Philosophy guys don't like me because I'm an empiricist. If there isn't a direct connection, it doesn't count in my book. Sorry if that bothers you, but it's the only way to stay honest, IMO.

I am being rediculous by saying the sole reason a priest does everything was because of God? Maybe you need to read a bit more about priests and nuns particularly Christian ones. What their oath is and what it means to be a priest.

Yes, that is a ridiculous stance, and your argument here is a red herring. Maybe you need to read a bit more on human drive and passion. Some people have it, some don't. It's a personality trait, not the product of a religion. Mendel followed the scientific method, which mean all biases must be put to the side to follow the data and results. I'm not saying he wasn't deeply religious, but that doesn't mean it made him do the work he did. You are assuming he wouldn't have the drive without which is an utter load of presumptive bull.

Never did I imply that religion was the sole responsible cause of all of humanity. If you were a better philosopher you would read my arguement, think about what it means and respond. Not just react emotionally. Which is ironic coming from a science guy.

I'm not a philosopher. I believe in what can be proven, not what ifs. I wasn't reacting emotionally. I was stating the obvious, that you are making a big leap in logic to assume religion was responsible for most of those things you mentioned.

Religion caused people to have a common cause, belief system, morality, and language among many other things. It was the first working on explaining what the first cause and reality are. You don't just jump to string theory from picking fleas off your partner. The fact that huge structures were created for religion and ceremony caused engineers and thinking to go further than mud huts. Making huge advancements in artifacts because of the need, power, enslavement, and money. The same with filling those structures with art and wares. Some of our earliest sculptures are of fertility goddesses.

Religion didn't design the buildings, humans did. Religion didn't do anything to contribute to that aside from forcing people into a common belief system. I'm not saying that it had no influence, I'm saying that it wasn't the primary cause for any of those things you mentioned. Massive neolithic structures were built in the past before any known religions.

Citation needed seriously?Maybe you should read more. The Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese Daoist and Budhists among others all have a form of science within them. Some very crude but not for the time. From units of measurement to sacred geometry structure to medicine. Auryvedic and Chinese having some actual scientifically proven results.

Can't back up your claims? You said that the Egyptian mythology gave measurements for the pyramids. Can you please quote me the religious doctrine or mythology that states this. I would back up anything you asked, so please give me the same courtesy, I'm not going to go extensively searching google, when you claim to already know the answer, so you must be familiar with it and should be able to give me a source easily.

Religion is not the sole cause and never did I say that it was. I explained it brought people together.... Made people think bigger made people scared so the reached deadlines, made them develop better techniques.

It's nice to believe that, but it's still an assumption.

There is zero proof any of that is possible without religion as an evolutionary step.

There is zero proof any of that is impossible without religion.

Religion is not an evolutionary step. Will you please stop equivocating words and concepts, when they have nothing to do with each other. Religion is 100% completely separate from evolution.

I was taught how to have valid arguements by an atheist who was pretty good at debating apologists. The way he did it was by examining the meaning of the arguements his opponents made and by crediting the truths they argued rather than just sticking to an agenda. This is why I think Sam Harris is so much better at debating than Dawkins.

Been there, done that. Debating apologists is easy, they never make logical arguments.

In order to make a sound argument there must be a logical connection or facts that you can fall back on. You say religion was there, so it is responsible for our big developments as a society because it "brings people together" but that's not enough. Heck, I'd even argue that is has done a much better job keeping people apart. Imagine if the world was united right now, instead of the whole Christian vs Muslim fiasco. There would be competition for technology on a worldwide scale, hence we would develop much faster as a civilization.

Also barcs religion has been separated since the founding of the US.

Separate in name only. It wasn't until this past century that you could openly express alternative views without being burned as a witch or shunned.

Technology skyrockets because of Moore's law.

No. Moore's law applies to computer circuitry ONLY, and it's not an actual law of science. It doesn't cause anything. It's an observation of how quickly the number of transistors (and other components) have increased on the circuit board over time. Intel recently has demonstrated that the rate is actually starting to decelerate now, and very likely the "law" will soon be a thing of the past.

I was argueing as I have said about its effect on our evolution in the past. Specifically citing very early time periods. Like I said I don't think it's the case anymore or has been for quite a while.

Fair enough, I just don't agree that it ever affected evolution. I could see it being a survival "trait" (not a real trait) during the middle ages where you had to be religious to avoid persecution, torture and/or death. I just don't see how it could affect allele frequency. Maybe you could demonstrate this for me.