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

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar


My arguement with barcs that you replied to was first religious people are not unscientific just because there are morons out there. Thats why I brought up Mendel, Einstein, and Laimatre.

That's simply not true. You brought up Mendel, Einstein and Laimatre to support your opinion that religion is a major/primary cause for the majority of scientific and architectural development in the past. Plus, I do not recall myself or Peter saying that all religious people are unscientific just because some are morons. In fact, I specifically argued that many scientists today are religious, they just understand how to separate the beliefs from their scientific endeavors.

I don't know if either of you were ill effected by religion but it stands to reason it still has control over you if it makes you make hasty emotional arguements. The best way to get rid of religion is to let it go all together. Thats easy for me to say I wasn't raised religious.

You have stated this quite a few times now, but I have kept emotion out of my arguments. You and I are both arguing our respective opinions here, so neither of us are definitively right or wrong. Just because you don't agree with my stance, doesn't make my argument hasty or emotional.

a reply to: Barcs

Automatically prescribing the world's problems to religion is shallow and emotional. You can find just as many if not worse cases of decimation of life and freedom that have nothing to do with religion.

Also. Strawman again.

I never once stated religion was a primary cause for everything. I stated that for Mendel it was. That is it.

The other things I referred to are stepping stones to figure out social organization as well as setting an imparitive. Since religeon seemed to have happened universally throughout the entire world even without contact with each other (as far a we know) it's not really a stretch to say it was a social and knowledge evolutionary step. The probability that it was is pretty high.

I also stated several times now I was primarily talking about our transition from animal to civilization. I feel personally religion is unnecessary to social orginazitaion today and for centuries now. However science does not teach how to act. If you aren't getting that from religion it's not innate. It should be taught through philosophy/ethics. Science is like religion in the sense that the person using the system is the one who makes the action good or bad. Some religions do have aggressive damaging teachings. But most people completely ignore them, the bad apples make the news and leave a bad taste in your mouth.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

Automatically prescribing the world's problems to religion is shallow and emotional. You can find just as many if not worse cases of decimation of life and freedom that have nothing to do with religion.

I didn't argue that. In fact, in one of my responses I mentioned that attributing most wars to religion was a flawed viewpoint.

I never once stated religion was a primary cause for everything. I stated that for Mendel it was. That is it.

I never once stated that you said religion was a primary cause for everything. You need to calm down with the constant accusations of straw mans, when you are misrepresenting my argument this badly.

Religion was an important step in developing architecture, construction, writing and printing, exploration, art, language, and even science.

In my response I clearly said major OR primary OR direct cause. If this statement isn't saying that religion is a major cause, then I don't know what to say, we are just nitpicking word meanings, since you have never actually clarified how big of a factor it was.

How about this to end the bickering: On a scale of 1 to 10, how important was religion in the development of architecture, construction, writing, printing, exploration, art, language and science?

This way I can be exact in understanding where you are coming from and we can avoid semantics arguments about the meaning of primary, major, or direct causes for things. If you are just saying it had an influence on designs, I have no issue with that. I thoroughly broke this all down in the past 2 responses that were not addressed and explained precisely what my argument was.

a reply to: Barcs

That's simply not true. You brought up Mendel, Einstein and Laimatre to support your opinion that religion is a major/primary cause for the majority of scientific and architectural development in the past. 

I didn't say religion is a primary cause. I said it was a stepping stone. I meant in creating a social organization and pedagogy as well as an imparitive.

In a scale of one to ten I don't know how to answer that. I would say at least a 5.

However if you argued that religion was an effect of an expanding human consciousness I would have had a tougher arguement. That is a very real possibility.

The fact it possibly occurred in apes and was all over the early world makes me believe it was inevitable and a part of asking and answering what the world around them was, why it was, and how it was. The low level answers were a result in the lack of consciousness and method of learning. Religion was really one of the first pedagogical systems, record keeping, and story telling mechanisms. A lot of methodology was developed within it. Obviously by man's learning and understanding but the forum was religion.

originally posted by: luthier
In a scale of one to ten I don't know how to answer that. I would say at least a 5.

Thanks. Now I have a much better idea of the level of influence you think religion has had on those factors. So major/primary/direct isn't the proper description. In that case, our viewpoints aren't really that different. I'd say 2.5-3 at the highest, but I respect your opinion. It was fun jousting with you.

Lego for apes.

And when we have a nuclear war (doubt it will happen, because some people would go broke) the chimps will tell of stories of a war among gods during the events of creation, and will have fears of humans flying and be viewed as sky gods when they had adapt to the radiation.

Then the whole first sin starts all over again due to radiation sickness and they will be like there is no such thing as humans. They are fairy tales of the boogeyape.

a reply to: Barcs

Same here. Enjoyed it.

a reply to: Specimen

O and the gods were amazed at the marvelous structure and the celestial knowledge of that ape called moses that they stayed for days, that the ape thought he summoned all the gods to his shrine to show their appeasement. ..and not get shot or eaten by them too.



Also it by a tree because it doesn't know anything about balance the rock or carving them out since it the only way it can stand up. Also how protected is it by the ape called moses.

a reply to: Specimen

It really makes you wonder. Let's say humans get eliminated somehow and a million years or so go by. Another species develops higher level intelligence over time. What would they think about our artifacts? Would they attribute them all to religion? If they found a preserved copy of a star wars novel, would they consider these texts to be sacred and start following what they think is our belief system? Instead of God vs devil, it would be Luke vs Vader.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I don't know about religion. My own opinion is aesthetics. The chimps just like the way it looks. Perhaps they are in competition as to who builds the best looking rock pile.

a reply to: Barcs

Lol. Battle between father and son, and the gods must be crazy movie.

Idk, it could ether be a play thing that would fight over, or if they ever somehow get the idea of it.

It might just learning how to be tactile with objects, and is impressing itself. It almost like building block for ape, like how kids have the alphabet on there their blocks, but it tossing it or chewing on it.

It will be religion if they start fighting over it. Mine mine mine.

a reply to: Specimen

I think the article goes beyound the making of the structure of you read it. It also doesn't take religion to fight over objects. Animals do it all the time. My dogs in fact just did.

There are also other examples of chimp worship. www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: luthier

Depends on what their fighting about, we humans fight over territory and looks, and we think we are so far.

But what about their communication verbally, or even body language that they already use. Them learning to be tactile might be the start of them learning to construct. It not like the rocks are actually stackable on their own, which is why they are beside trees, and in between roots of the base of the trunk.

They could have learned to respect fire, rain, these things from us for all we know.

Artistic, to spiritual, or supersitious maybe but if another ape touches it, and it becomes an ape pile it will be religion...Or tribe considering religion just a bigger number.

a reply to: Specimen

The ritual part is what I am referring too. Chimps going through ritual practices for waterfalls is beyound respecting fire.

a reply to: Specimen

Haha, yeah it's fun to think about. The new intelligent species would likely have trouble at first with the language. It would be like our experts when they first discovered the Sumerian tablets or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. There would be no question that some words would not be translated properly. I believe this is the case for a lot of the ancient texts as well including the bible. There's always a level of interpretation involved, it's nearly impossible to get it all perfect.