• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Religious Animal

Man is a religious animal

gcvHb3T.jpg


Just as Man is a social animal,

Just as Man is a political animal,

Indeed just as Man is a rational animal

So too is Man a religious animal

AxHWAMTm.jpg


From the primitive cave painting to the Sistine Chapel,

Man has tried to connect with Divinity

Before the later revelations,

Before the visions and covenants that came later,

Before the tribal organization of religion,

From the very beginning

Man sought connection (religare, to bind fast) to the Spirit


Religion is in Mankind's DNA

Religion is in the nature of Man

To deny the religious impulse in Man
To decry the religious experience in Man
To defy the institution of religion
Is the Height of Folly
Is the Depths of Despair

Religion is the Signature of Man

Our conscious perception allows us to wonder and speculate what is beyond that perception.

I seem to remember reading of the psychologist/philosopher who came up with a list of things he felt were innate in man. Those things would appear eventually in any human society. The 2 I remember were religion and music. I thought it might be Jung, but that doesn't seem to be the case.:peace
 
What is "neither the 'height of folly' nor the 'depth of despair'"? Show your bona fides and provide a subject, yes?

Huh? It's from your own OP. They're simply bare assertions. That you have to pretend otherwise is just more dishonesty.
And the "signature of man" is a characterization, not an "unsupported bare assertion" as you would have it.

It's an opinion that you tried to pass of as fact and, yes, it's an unsupported bare assertion.
By the way, is there an opinion on the OP theme anywhere within your ken, are will you be posting about me exclusively in this thread?

I've already given it. Not even remotely surprised you try and pretend otherwise.
 
Which religion?
 
Quote his posts (if you know which ones you're talking about) and let's examine its semantics together in the open. That'll settle this non-issue.

Oh, please. Just go back to where you responded to him. You laughably, dishonestly and hyperbolically misrepresented what he stated.

He said, "so its not inherent to being human even though lots of people are and always have been

surprised you did not put that together"

To which you replied, "Because blarg is devoid of religious sensibility, everyone is devoid of religious sensibility, and has been for fifty thousand years and more. "

No one is buying the bull**** you're selling. What's settled here is your rank dishonesty, although that's been settled for quite some time now.
 
No, it's neither the 'height of folly' nor the 'depth of despair' nor the 'signature of man;, but your need to pretend that it is is understandable.

I find more interesting that so many feel the need to say they know that it is wrong.
 
Oh, please. Just go back to where you responded to him. You laughably, dishonestly and hyperbolically misrepresented what he stated.

He said, "so its not inherent to being human even though lots of people are and always have been

surprised you did not put that together"

To which you replied, "Because blarg is devoid of religious sensibility, everyone is devoid of religious sensibility, and has been for fifty thousand years and more. "

No one is buying the bull**** you're selling. What's settled here is your rank dishonesty, although that's been settled for quite some time now.
You appear to get a kick out of calling others "dishonest," though it is clearly unconscious projection on your part.

Here is a fuller reproduction of my exchanges with blarg:

#5
nope still dont believe in any of them

#8
so its not inherent to being human even though lots of people are and always have been

surprised you did not put that together

Let me see. Because blarg is devoid of religious sensibility, everyone is devoid of religious sensibility, and has been for fifty thousand years and more.
Wow.
If I didn't know what a humble fellow you are, blarg, I'd be drawn to a rather different surmise by your post.
Peace out, brother.


(For anyone interested in this unimportant contretemps, see posts #5 & #8)

Here's an analogy which may buffer your self-awareness, blarg.

The tone deaf person who denies the inherent musicality in the rest of mankind.

Get it now?

If you don't get it now, you're the only one who doesn't. He posts that he's a non-believer and doesn't need religion (#5); then extrapolates and asserts that religious sensibility is not inherent in man (#8). Plain as the nose on your face, pilgrim.
Peace out.
 
All religion.

Thank you. Then this:
Our conscious perception allows us to wonder and speculate what is beyond that perception.

It is in the nature of our very large brains to try to understand the world we live in...it's how all animals survive but our big brains give us the advantage of critical thinking, imagination, hypothesizing, etc.

Religion is just one convention by which to a) explain the unexplainable and b) create and enforce laws that enable a social animal to live together more peacefully and increase the survival of the tribe and individuals.

It is not genetic.
 
Huh? It's from your own OP. They're simply bare assertions. That you have to pretend otherwise is just more dishonesty.

...
What is the subject of "is the height of folly" and "is the depths of despair"? I'm not surprised that you are nonplussed by the question, but those predicates have a subject in the OP. Look for it.
 
What is the subject of "is the height of folly" and "is the depths of despair"? I'm not surprised that you are nonplussed by the question, but those predicates have a subject in the OP. Look for it.

And, as predicted, a total dodge on your part. Nice.
 
You appear to get a kick out of calling others "dishonest," though it is clearly unconscious projection on your part.

Huh. A lame attempt at projection. WHAT a surprise!
Here is a fuller reproduction of my exchanges with blarg:

#5

#8



If you don't get it now, you're the only one who doesn't. He posts that he's a non-believer and doesn't need religion (#5); then extrapolates and asserts that religious sensibility is not inherent in man (#8). Plain as the nose on your face, pilgrim.
Peace out.

Wow. Your rationalizations are coming fast and furious, but they still don't cover for the rank dishonesty of yours that I pointed out. You utterly mischaracterized what he stated. It's all there in simple English for anyone to read.

Again, why be so dishonest and feign genuine interest in rational dialog? What's the point?
 
Huh. A lame attempt at projection. WHAT a surprise!

Wow. Your rationalizations are coming fast and furious, but they still don't cover for the rank dishonesty of yours that I pointed out. You utterly mischaracterized what he stated. It's all there in simple English for anyone to read.

Again, why be so dishonest and feign genuine interest in rational dialog? What's the point?
My surmise about your bad faith cut dead center of the mark, T. The posts are laid out for all to see.
When you actually have something to say, I'll be happy to hear it.
Peace out, brother.
 
And, as predicted, a total dodge on your part. Nice.
You don't even know what the subject is of the statements you are criticizing, and I'm the artful dodger! That's rich!
Is your affected contrarian dudgeon over, or must we carry on with this nonsense?
 
Thank you. Then this:


It is in the nature of our very large brains to try to understand the world we live in...it's how all animals survive but our big brains give us the advantage of critical thinking, imagination, hypothesizing, etc.

Religion is just one convention by which to a) explain the unexplainable and b) create and enforce laws that enable a social animal to live together more peacefully and increase the survival of the tribe and individuals.

It is not genetic.
I have no quarrel with your analysis, Lursa, except that I would prefer a word like "means" instead of "convention," and I would say that the pragmatic effects of religion are just that -- effects. The religious impulse precedes both logically and temporally whatever benefits for survival it proved to have. And when I say that religion is in the DNA of Man, I don't mean to be taken literally, as if there is a religious gene to be discovered, anymore than saying politics is in the DNA of Man. It is a commonly used figure of speech meant to suggest that whatever one is talking about is part of the nature of Man.
 
Have you ever experienced an existential crisis?
Does the phrase "dark night of the soul" mean anything to you?
Do you know what "the sickness unto death" is?

been worried and death is depressing but im not in despair most of the time over it

just try to enjoy live and if it turns out against all evidence that death is not a big deal then so much the better
 
You appear to get a kick out of calling others "dishonest," though it is clearly unconscious projection on your part.

Here is a fuller reproduction of my exchanges with blarg:

#5

#8






If you don't get it now, you're the only one who doesn't. He posts that he's a non-believer and doesn't need religion (#5); then extrapolates and asserts that religious sensibility is not inherent in man (#8). Plain as the nose on your face, pilgrim.
Peace out.

yes when a man is not religious that means being a man dosent make you religious
 
been worried and death is depressing but im not in despair most of the time over it

just try to enjoy live and if it turns out against all evidence that death is not a big deal then so much the better
A very healthy attitude.
 
My surmise about your bad faith cut dead center of the mark, T. The posts are laid out for all to see.
When you actually have something to say, I'll be happy to hear it.
Peace out, brother.

I accept your admission of your rank dishonesty.
 
You don't even know what the subject is of the statements you are criticizing, and I'm the artful dodger! That's rich!
Is your affected contrarian dudgeon over, or must we carry on with this nonsense?

But, of course, I do. To claim otherwise is to lie.

Why continue to be so dishonest?
 
yes when a man is not religious that means being a man dosent make you religious
If one man has an auto-immune deficiency, does that mean that being a man does not come with an immune system?
 
I have no quarrel with your analysis, Lursa, except that I would prefer a word like "means" instead of "convention," and I would say that the pragmatic effects of religion are just that -- effects. The religious impulse precedes both logically and temporally whatever benefits for survival it proved to have. And when I say that religion is in the DNA of Man, I don't mean to be taken literally, as if there is a religious gene to be discovered, anymore than saying politics is in the DNA of Man. It is a commonly used figure of speech meant to suggest that whatever one is talking about is part of the nature of Man.

Where is your proof of the bold? I disagree. It stems FROM the needs of a social, hierarchical group of humans. It is a 'means' to use your word, and only one of several similar strategies.

and thank you for clarifying the genetic part.
 
If one man has an auto-immune deficiency, does that mean that being a man does not come with an immune system?

not at all just means its not inherent to being a man

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/Submit
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
 
not at all just means its not inherent to being a man

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/Submit
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
And in your world a human being's immune system is not essential or characteristic of human being? C'mon, blarg.
 
Where is your proof of the bold? I disagree. It stems FROM the needs of a social, hierarchical group of humans. It is a 'means' to use your word, and only one of several similar strategies.

and thank you for clarifying the genetic part.
In your scenario primitive man assembled and brainstormed and came up with religion.
In my scenario primitive man had religious impulses and these later proved beneficial to his survival.

Which scenario seems more plausible to you?
 
In your scenario primitive man assembled and brainstormed and came up with religion.
In my scenario primitive man had religious impulses and these later proved beneficial to his survival.

Which scenario seems more plausible to you?

Er, no.

Men & women imagined (often with the use of hallucinogens) 'magic' explanations for things they couldnt understand and sometimes imagined a higher, unseen authority that engineered such things.

They also made rules that served the greater good of the tribe. In order to coerce or convince the tribe to obey these laws, they also invented the higher, unseen authority and then invented or used random events to create an atmosphere of fear and magic and attributed *giving and taking* (lives, sustanence, rain, etc) to the higher authority. A number of things along these lines.

The rules eventually became religious precepts and laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom