the beginnings of religion

Dee

@maxx





                                                             MAXX ARGUMENT TOPIC :

MAXX THINKS HINDUISM DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTROL MILLIONS YET THIS VILE BELIEF SYSTEM STILL HAS A CASTE SYSTEM WITH DALITS ( UNTOUCHABLES) , THESE UNFORTUNATES CANNOTBE TOUCHED BY OTHER CASTES AS THEY ARE DEEMED UNCLEAN.

India's "Untouchables" Face Violence, Discrimination

More than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.

On another post, someone had the audacity to make the claim that religion began as a way to control people, with out any proof or logic.

Emotional Maxx as usual says the first ridiculous thing that comes to his mind and then straight out with the personal attacks, so be it.

On this post someone has the audacity to deny the obvious without proof ot logic ( as usual it's Maxx) 

The simplest of concepts is so  difficult for you to grasp so accusing me of not  using logic is pretty amusing  considering you don't believe the caste system is a system of contol

Ever hear of the 10 commandments , what do you think they're about? Social control.. What about Islam? Would you not say their belief system is about control?

Are you that dense you thiink women are not treated as equal under Islamic law?

The idea is highly unlikely.

Is it? The first man who claimed to commune with the gods held power over many would you deny such?

Let us look at the history. It is obvious a belief in gods or spirits began in ancient history as simple cause and effect. something happens that they did not understand and they attributed it to some unseen force that controlled it

Yes Captain obvious , can you make an actual point now?

. People believed in many gods and spirits; a sun god, the moon god, wind rain and so on. Even animals had spirits and they worshiped them for the food they provided. These people believed in a form od magic and had many rituals. These rituals were the earliest form of religion; they painted animals on cave walls to bring back the animals. They would dance and yell and bang on rocks in order to get the attention of the sun god during winter to bring back light and warmth so the food would return. Everything centered upon survival. In times of famine, they believed the gods were responsible and did what they could to appease them and bring back the food and days of abundance. It is not hard to understand that this was the beginnings of religion; which began long before the organized religions of the hindus or summerians.

Again Maxx doing his usual by saying nothing new.

 The earliest religion did not begin as a way to control people,

Nonsense a holy man had ultimate power over people of all ranks .

 it began as a matter of superstition and survival.

It began as a way to explain phenomena that was a mystery to our ancestors, those who claimed to explain it were all powerful.

Food, warmth and comfort, as well as how the beliefs in gods and spirits brought the tribe closer together, ensuring a tighter knit group.

Yes Captain obvious , and ?

 The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, and i defy anyone to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people

Seriously?  Even you cannot be that dense to have never heard of the caste system which is still in operation and used to abuse and control millions.

. I do not want anyone to fly off into a tangent and start talking about today and how churches and how corrupt religion is as of today. I am simply showing how the earliest relgion did not began as a way of controlling others.  

Just proved your infantile ill thought out options on such are truly ignorant and without basis.

Seriously buddy your ignorance and lack of even a basic education is truly astonishing in this day and age.

maxx

i said we are not to go off into a tangent and not talking about the way religion is today. read and understand that statement!!! i am talking about the beginning of religion. are you not capable of understanding that???? Evolutionary origin of religion - Wikipedia if you are not capable of sticking to the subject, do not debate it. Prehistoric religion - Wikipedia  you state the beginning of religion was for those to control others; i suggest you read the links and you may learn something.  Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion - PMC (nih.gov)   here is three links on the discussion of early religion; let me see a quality link on how prehistorical religion began because someone wanted to control others.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


                                                                         ARGUMENT TOPIC 

MAXX CAUGHT IN HIS LATEST ATTEMPT AT DENYING HIS OWN STATEMENTS AND AS USUAL ATTEMPTING TO DENY HIS OWN WORDS

i said we are not to go off into a tangent and not talking about the way religion is today.

No you never said that stop lying. You actually said "The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, and i defy anyone to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people"

You've just said " the earliest form......I've proved your assertions wrong yet again , what's your next lie?


 read and understand that statement!!! i am talking about the beginning of religion. are you not capable of understanding that????

You actually stated below do you deny it?

The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, and i defy anyone to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people



 Evolutionary origin of religion - Wikipedia if you are not capable of sticking to the subject, do not debate it. Prehistoric religion - Wikipedia  you state the beginning of religion was for those to control others; i suggest you read the links and you may learn something.  Hunter-Gatherers and 

EVEN YOUR OWN LINKS YOU DIDNT READ AS THEY DISAGRES WITH YOUR NONSENSE

But I am sticking to the subject you asked me to answer  "The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, and i defy anyone to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people"


EVERYTIME YOU DO THE EXACT SAME DANCE AS IN ASK YOUR OPPONENT TO ANSWER A QUESTION AND EVERYTIME ITS ANSWERED IT PROVES YOU WRONG AND YOU ATTEMPT TO DENY YOU ASKED IT AND CREATE A NEW ARGUMENT THAT NO ONE IS MAKING.

maxx

maxx said:

On another post, someone had the audacity to make the claim that religion began as a way to control people, with out any proof or logic. The idea is highly unlikely. Let us look at the history. It is obvious a belief in gods or spirits began in ancient history as simple cause and effect. something happens that they did not understand and they attributed it to some unseen force that controlled it. People believed in many gods and spirits; a sun god, the moon god, wind rain and so on. Even animals had spirits and they worshiped them for the food they provided. These people believed in a form od magic and had many rituals. These rituals were the earliest form of religion; they painted animals on cave walls to bring back the animals. They would dance and yell and bang on rocks in order to get the attention of the sun god during winter to bring back light and warmth so the food would return. Everything centered upon survival. In times of famine, they believed the gods were responsible and did what they could to appease them and bring back the food and days of abundance. It is not hard to understand that this was the beginnings of religion; which began long before the organized religions of the hindus or summerians. The earliest religion did not begin as a way to control people, it began as a matter of superstition and survival. Food, warmth and comfort, as well as how the beliefs in gods and spirits brought the tribe closer together, ensuring a tighter knit group. The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, and i defy anyone to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people. I do not want anyone to fly off into a tangent and start talking about today and how churches and how corrupt religion is as of today. I am simply showing how the earliest religion did not began as a way of controlling others.  YOU WANT TO READ IT AGAIN DEE??IT IS RIGHT THERE!!it says for the reading impaired" i do not want any one to fly off into a tangent and start talking about today ETC"  learn to read..  prove to me that prehistoric religion began as a way to control others. you made the statement, so back it up. as for answering me, bullcrap, all you did is say nonsense.  some answer.  its no wonder no one wants to debate with you. you are wrong, my links back me up, you can not simply agree. your answer of nonsense is nothing. I backed my statements up with quality links, and all dee can say is "nonsense"  Heck with you. You do not debate. you just run on about nothing. even bardolt debates better than you. bye.@Dee

Dee

@maxx

Argument Topic: Maxx doing his usual dodging,  swerving and blatant lying , Maxx defies me to answer his assertion .......

The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, AND I DEFY ANYONE  to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people


Wow! Calm down you nut , I've destroyed your contentions about Hinduism, now you're on a different tack fair enough  , lets play , your contention remains ........

You did start out by saying ..."On another post, someone had the audacity to make the claim that religion began as a way to control people, with out any proof or logic. The idea is highly unlikely "

Prove it?

MayCaesar

At what point a religion begins, that is something becomes a religion, is not an answerable question as far as I can tell. It is like saying, "At what precise moment does a person transition from being a child to being an adult?" It is a continuous process, and as it occurs, a proto-religion accumulates various attributes, including the controlling aspect.

Here is how I see the origins of religious mythologies. Suppose you are a member of a small Slavic tribe 1,500 years ago. Your model of the world is very basic, unable to explain most phenomena around you. For example, you have no idea what lightning is and what causes it. You may have noticed certain correlations: for instance, lightning is almost always accompanied by heavy rain, it tends to hit isolated peaks, it is followed by a thunder, it can sometimes cause fires - but there is nothing in your knowledge and experience that would allow you to even remotely start a serious investigation of the nature of the phenomenon. 
For that matter, you notice a more general pattern: everything that comes from the sky is, first, unreachable to you, and second, is extremely powerful and potentially destructive. It appears that there is something about the sky that makes is "stronger" than the earth, and it is also not something you can control in any way. When a thunderstorm comes, it comes, and there is nothing you can do to avert it.
Well, you do need some way to think about lightning; just letting it be without any understanding of it is extremely uncomfortable and, for that matter, deadly. You need to have some model of lightning, no matter how flawed, so that you can, at least, work on refining various elements of that model - anything is better than complete chaos. So you posit something like this: "The beings that control the sky are much more powerful than us; let us call them gods. Since the phenomena occurring in the sky is so seemingly diverse, there are probably multiple gods up there, each an expert in their particular craft. One of the gods, let us call him Perun, is clearly more powerful than other gods, and he throws lightning at us sometimes for whatever reason. The best we can do is to try to please him by demonstrating our obedience and respect for him, so we will make regular sacrifices to him, and we will have a shaman who will specialize on communing with him and conveying his will to us.

Notice how logical all of this sounds at the first glance. For a tribesman with virtually no knowledge of the outside world coming up with such a theory is an incredible feat of imagination and storytelling.

Here is the problem though. By establishing that there are forces in the Universe to which humanity should be subservient to, servitude itself becomes glorified as a noble pursuit. If a human is a mere servant to a god, then why would a human also not be a servant to those who are "closer" to god than him? There is a clear hierarchy that the acceptance of servitude implies. So now the shaman becomes the spokesman for gods and, therefore, a master of said servants. And as the societal structure becomes more and more complex, powerful institutions are built that preserve, enhance and empower this hierarchy. The shaman becomes the archbishop running an all-dominating church, and even the king is a mere executor of the church'es will, which, in turn, is bestowed down from the sky by gods. In turn, the conception of gods evolves, and a single "arch-god" is assembled from individual pieces, and hence monotheism is born.
And another obvious problem is that, as science evolves and these previously unexplainable phenomena become very much explainable in the scientific framework, a conflict between religious and scientific claims arises. The religious power groups obviously try to preserve the social dominance of their claims, so they engage in acts of extreme and systematic violence against those who push science forward - and sometimes it backfires, the religious lobby is overrun by oppressed intellectuals who now take the opposite stance and start building a crazy scientific-inspired utopia while butchering religionists and anyone else who does not get in line with the new, "scientistic religion".

As you can see, there are intrinsic elements in religion that make it prone to deteriorating into a totalitarian hierarchical movement. Is it possible for a religion to not go down that path? It is, provided some conditions are met. One of them would be a solid philosophical foundation already existing in the society, so that the newly born religion is held back by them, much like the newly born American government in 1776 was kept in check by the system of checks and balances. However, since that philosophical foundation itself is likely to have been built on a religious quicksand, it does not seem possible to escape from this conundrum.
It seems to me that for a religion to be inherently non-controlling, it has to not be literal, but metaphorical. It should not posit that there are actual gods/spirits/afterlife/whatever existing in the Universe, but that it is all just a mythological framework aimed at illustrating certain moral ideals and values. And at that point it is reasonable to ask whether it deserves to be called a religion at all, or if it is just another Tolkienist fantasy that millions of people can subscribe to, but that does not involve any service to anything other than the human himself.

maxx

i understand about the "eventual" shaman and hierarchy, yet one has to have the religion before hand in order to have such shamans. This shaman may eventually control the ideas of the tribe by claiming the status of the one who can talk to theses gods. Yet i am sure this must wait until the tribe itself believes in these spirits and gods. In the earliest evolution and beginnings of such beliefs there is not going to be some individual who will suddenly decide to demand favors from the tribe because he is the only one who can command the presence of these gods. eventually , perhaps. We are talking about prehistoric beliefs. superstition cause and effects. People whose sole survival is upon food, shelter and water. Perhaps again; eventually they may designate someone to talk to these gods; but continued failed to produce results would probably resort in quick removal. There is a very strong scientific idea that other mammals such as chimps and apes have some sort of idea of "gods", and if this is true, then prehistorical humans were genetically pre-disposed for such beliefs. The main point of my debate is to show that religion did not "begin" as a way to control others. @MayCaesar

John_C_87

@maxx
You do understand it is a figure of speech to say sun "GOD" people have worshiped the sun as a belief, people had worshiped the moon, people have even worshiped fire, water, air, and earth. people ahve worshiped deitieswho are said to be God who are in charge of these limited things as well. A shaman is a type doctor....Religion is a shared belief so yes it is a means of control of people.

Dee

@maxx


This shaman may eventually control the ideas of the tribe by claiming the status of the one who can talk to theses gods. Yet i am sure this must wait until the tribe itself believes in these spirits and gods

Our ancestors most likely trembled when thunder and lightening took place , when the sun rose , when the moon appeared nightly all this natural, phenomena was a mystery to them the one who claimed to know was in a postion of power why you find the obvious so impossible is beyond me.

. In the earliest evolution and beginnings of such beliefs there is not going to be some individual who will suddenly decide to demand favors from the tribe because he is the only one who can command the presence of these gods. eventually , perhaps.


Who is making that argument? You always come up with arguments that no one is making. I said the person who claimed to commune with the gods was in a postion of power.


 We are talking about prehistoric beliefs. superstition cause and effects.

Read again what I said stop deflecting.


. Perhaps again; eventually they may designate someone to talk to these gods; but continued failed to produce results would probably resort in quick removal.

What are you even talking about? What results? Who is mentioning results?  Yet again you'e nvented an argument no one is making.

My point remains as in the one who claimed to commune with the gods was in a postion of power.

Barnardot

@maxx ;On another post, someone had the audacity to make the claim that religion began as a way to control people, with out any proof or logic. The idea is highly unlikely. Let us look at the history. It is obvious 

What post was that or did you make that up. and what gives you the audiacy to say that the idea is highly unlikely without any evidence or reason and that it is obviously some thing to do with cause and affect. Have you ever heard of hypocricy.

If there was another post the poster wood have been totally right any way and you need to look at reel history not that dum stuff you get off wired lame web sites. If you care to read reel history and research properly you will see in proper history books that the first religious institution was set up by a government which also put together the Bible from menu scrips translated from Greek. From then on all churches were completely run by the state as a way for the governments to rule the people. Most people then were so uneducated and superstitious that they did exactly what they were told other wise they would get there buts burned for ever in Hell. And even then they were made to pay taxes to the government to pay for God which really was building humungus churches made of gold and paid the preachers high sums of pay. If people deared say one word against God they would have there heads cut off and there families banished to the desert. And then there were the which hunts and the inquisitions. 

And your trying to say that some one had the audiay to say some thing thats 100% right and 100% proveable and that theres 100% evidence. But hay dont take my word for it and dont read the 100% accurate and proven accounts of it. Why dont you go on a holiday to the Middle East and see for yourself. Then if you manage to survive and get back how about you report back here on Debateisland how women are made to cover their hole bodies and faces and they are not allowed to go out and not allowed to drive cars and if your gay you get pushed off a roof and if you dont point your but twice every day to the East you will get the crap beaten out of you and if a woman gets rapped by some one she gets banished to the desert and if she will fully gets done then she is berried up to her neck and all the men in the village throw rocks at her until her brains spew out of her head. 

And when you do get back may be you could look at women are told not to have abortions by there church and old people who are dying in pain are told by there church that there not allowed to put a plastic bag over there heads and say good bye with dignity. And then look at the church telling there members not to associate or do business with non Christians. And then why little kids have the crap beaten out of them if they dont do what there told because it is the ion rod of God. And worse if they do any things that the church doesn't want them to do then they will die and go to hell and get there nuts roasted off for eternity.

And then tell us all why you think religion was not invented to control people.

maxx

read the links, i gave my evidence @Barnardot

Barnardot

@Dee ;What are you even talking about? What results? Who is mentioning results?  Yet again you'e nvented an argument no one is making.

Were got to stay united on beating Macks on this issue because its to important to quibble over the whys and where fors. We both know that Macks has made this up and that hes going to quotes crap taken out of Marvel comics that say totally nothing and we know that hes the only one on this site that does that.

So watch out because hes going to be doing the old trick of conflatting religion and belief and all the usual stuff like saying he didn't actually say some thing that he actually did in realty. So lets get on the top level of this one and beet the sucker and I say bring it on.

maxx

fyi i am talking yto may and i am answering his points. @Dee

maxx

if you read my OP i said the beginnings of religion was not a means to control others. i am NOT talking about religion of today. @John_C_87

maxx

if neither one of you can understand the post as written, if you are that much reading impaired then go elsewhere. @Barnardot

Dee

@maxx


fyi i am talking yto may and i am answering his points. @Dee


I'm just correcting you. Your whole opening sentence  was a personal attack on me and one you couldn't back up.

Then you clearly stated .....The earliest written form of religion was hinduism, AND I DEFY ANYONE  to find and show where this religion began as a way as the control of people


I proved it was a way to control your response was as usual make new arguments no one is making , you need to grow up instead of acting like a sulky child

Dee

@Barnardot

Maxx gets beaten on every issue as he ties himself in knots then pretends he never said what he said.

maxx

no, all you can say is nonsense. wow . what a strong debater. Religion did not "begin" as a way to control others. control them how? answer that .@Dee

Dee

@maxx

no, all you can say is nonsense. wow

Yet another typical lie from Maxx, I said a lot more which is why you're  lying.


. what a strong debater.

I know which is why i'm still top ofthe pile on the leader board  , you're still way down the list with christ warrior, Micky g and the other losers.....ouch

Religion did not "begin" as a way to control others.

Prove it?



 control them how? answer the question?


Already answered in my opening address which of course you pretended not to see so you could keep asking people the one question non stop hoping they may answer differently.

maxx

you did not. you simply said a shaman controlled others through religion back then; in which by the way there was no shaman in all tribes, nor any at the very beginning of religion. of course if you do not have the intellect to answer the question then i understand. how did the shamans control others? how do you even think religion started? where did the idea come from? even Cro-Magnon buried their dead. so do many elephants, along with fruit and food and flowers. Religious behavior in animals - Wikipedia   if you do not like that link, then..  Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion - PMC (nih.gov)   @Dee

Dee

@maxx



Enough with the lies Maxx....I said  to your " theory " that ........The idea is highly unlikely 

Is it? The first man who claimed to commune with the gods held power over many would you deny such?

You still refuse to answer , no surprise there 

maxx

  when you first began on debate island, dee, you used to actually create decent replies to the debates of others; yet now you can hardly formulate a logical and cohesive paragraph. Which leads to an escapable conclusion. Either you gotten to the point where you value the points and trophies more that this site gives out, regardless of the quality of the answers; or senility has set in.  being on top of the pack as you state; with lots of points and trophies means nothing if you simply achieve them by how many posts that you comment in. I suggest that you return to quality; perhaps then you points may be worth something. @Dee

Barnardot

@maxx ;
if neither one of you can understand the post as written, if you are that much reading impaired then go elsewhere. @Barnardot

There you go as usual straight off the staring bloke with your diversions as soon as someone completely smashes your totally dum and sents less argument.

Barnardot

@maxx ;read the links, i gave my evidence

Oh okay then I’ll take your word for it because I think that the VPN on my pc filtered out the evidence about religion not being made to control. So yes on that basis your totally right and you totally win the debate and everyone with reasonable sents is wrong. Well I’ll be.

maxx

What are you.even talking about barnadolt. What exactly are you sayingthat i am making up?@Barnardot

John_C_87

@maxx
In Amarica maxx the united state held by the 1st Amendment decribes a path of the link to all religions. It is pointed out as a freedom of religion in the self-evident truth of the unbroken 1st Amendment. The latest connection by observation is made over understanding the factual difference between right and crime which are the two basic principles in the established American Justice System.

if you read my OP i said the beginnings of religion was not a means to control others. i am NOT talking about religion of today. 

If I did not understand, I would state clearly " I do not understand" then ask or wait for a period to ask question and seek answers so I can understand and make a point clear. Maxx, my thoughts are not targeted against the liberties of religion, though the meaning of religion between myself and many in an organized educational institution are not the same. Religion is simply a word created to describe a shared belief system as a united state even though we do agree religion as a word is not a self-evident truth. As it is most often used by people, and we are not just talking about people on one side of what should be a balanced debate wrong. Fire was a early religion and was by fact a shared belief system to control people, animals, and even insects. Fire is warm, fire hurts, fire potects, fire can be shared.

What you point out is that crime and sin are very close to the same thing and we are talking about neither here. We would be talking about the basic principle which connect Holly law and Criminal law together. When you say "not modern reigions" which is really a liberty on simple truth of licensed reigion. Thorough.

maxx

John. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. @John_C_87

John_C_87

@maxx

John. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. 

I was sure the bold and italicized comment that I answered in my reply was your post. Are you claiming it is not?

maxx

the only bold lettering was one of my statements and one of yours, saying the united states. MY post reflects upon one thing in where you did not answer; that the beginning of religion; in which was created in ancient times, pre-historical time, was not created as a means to control others, @john_c_87 ;

John_C_87

maxx said:

the only bold lettering was one of my statements and one of yours, saying the united states. MY post reflects upon one thing in where you did not answer; that the beginning of religion; in which was created in ancient times, pre-historical time, was not created as a means to control others, @john_C_87 ;

John-C_87 Said " If I did not understand, I would state clearly " I do not understand" then ask or wait for a period to ask question and seek answers so I can understand and make a point clear. Maxx, my thoughts are not targeted against the liberties of religion, though the meaning of religion between myself and many in an organized educational institution are not the same. Religion is simply a word created to describe a shared belief system as a united state even though we do agree religion as a word is not a self-evident truth. As it is most often used by people, and we are not just talking about people on one side of what should be a balanced debate wrong. Fire was a early religion and was by fact a shared belief system to control people, animals, and even insects." Fire is warm, fire hurts, fire potects, fire can be shared.

Barnardot

@maxx ;What are you.even talking about barnadolt. What exactly are you sayingthat i am making up?

Your making up a conclusion from some thing that didn't come near meaning or saying any thing like that in the first place like you usually do thats what. For example an example is oh yeah right diddly doo lets put this link from Wikapedia in because it must be right. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religion . So yes what they say is right but they dont say one single thing about religion not being invented to control people. And thats why I was just being sarcastic about my pc filtering out that part. In realty there was no such thing written in that article was there.

And any way the point that Im pointing out any way is that okay heres the scenario and see what you think about this then. Fred Flinstone gets drunk on some fermented cactis juice one day and looks up at the sky and sees a funny shape cloud and thinks derr thats God. Then he thinks about it for a couple more minutes and that God must have made every thing and is the ultimate power full master over every thing and every one. So we can pretty well go along with how religion started okay and it is all lovey dovey and all airy ferry hole some.

Okay so all is good now so you win your argument no question about it. But then wait for it and this is the twist because humans being humans or cave men here. Fred starts to get a tingling sensation in his doolie then all of a sudden he yells out WILMA WILMA then he goes in side and drags Wilma by the hair and drags her in to the bed room and rapps the bejesus out of her then says God told me to do that. Then he tells her and God told me to tell you that your got to cook me a brontosaurus stake right now. And he told me to tell you that your got to mow the lawn after that and do the dishes otherwise hes going to punish you real big time. Oh and God told me to go next door and get Betty and......

So you see what Im getting at. Sure we know how religion proberly started but the window of time that it elevated into a totally new level of controlling others wood have been like a nano second at the longest. So in all practicality religion has always been used to control and manipulate others except for one nano second and that matters diddly doo any way.

Dee

@maxx

MAXX THINKS LAUNCHING NON STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS IS DEBATING , ALL THIS BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO ADDRESS ARGUMENTS AGAINST HIS NONSENSE 

When you first began on debate island, dee, you used to actually create decent replies to the debates of others; yet now you can hardly formulate a logical and cohesive paragraph.

Well we both know that's not true and the proof is I've asked you 6 different questions on this topic and you cannot address even one, your only defence is to constantly ask for your original question to be answered even though it was answered from my first statement,  even member on this site says the same about you and you're doing the very same with May at the moment by constantly pretending yor nonsense hasn't being answered.



Which leads to an escapable conclusion

Yes that being you have comprehension issues.


. Either you gotten to the point where you value the points and trophies more that this site gives out, regardless of the quality of the answers; or senility has set in.

Says every loser ever born, regards senility this from you is hilarious where you pretend " oh I never said that or you're taking it out of context"


  being on top of the pack as you state; with lots of points and trophies means nothing

It sure does it means I'm one of he best debaters and you're one of the worst.


 if you simply achieve them by how many posts that you comment in

More sour grapes from Mad Maxx


. I suggest that you return to quality; perhaps then you points may be worth something

Pretty obvious tactic by you who cannot defend their ridiculous claims regards the origins of religion where  even your own links agreed with my theory not yours ,bet your excuse is the usual " I only skimmed the links" 

Barnardot

@maxx @Dee ;when you first began on debate island, dee, you used to actually create decent replies to the debates of others

This is totally right and I remember that. But its just lately hes gotten in to some anger management issues and life management issues. And he knows very well that he just invites others to push his buttons which is what I do because he puts all that dweeby baloney out there the hole time now.

maxx

bye dee. get back to me when you decide to debate instead of talking in circles.   @Dee

maxx

the worship of fire was a religious belief, the fire itself was not a religion. and again you are not in-line with my post; the earliest religion(s) were not a means of control of others. Its goals were survival; to bring back food, warmth, better living conditions. @John_C_87

maxx

The means of controlling others with religion came about  with the idea that a certain person claimed he could communicate with the gods direct, and used this reasoning to gain better food and his choice of females. There was nothing else back then to gain. before that however, religion was a group of prehistoric people who shared the same beliefs that cause and effect and other superstitions, were the result of gods, and they did not so much as worship, but accepted their power, and believed in the control these gods had the ability to control food, weather, light and so on. These early people did not believe in such gods just to find a way for some to control others. They saw gods as a power that controlled their lives. Hence, religion began as a way for survival of the tribe(s) since these gods controlled their lives; they used simple rituals to appease the gods. you stated that my links did not say that religion was not a means (originally) of control; but it also did not say it was. If it were created as such a way, then it would have said so. here is a link that has three ideas on why religion was created; and not one states it was a means of control.  Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia   @Barnardot ; @Dee ;   of course if dee reads it at all, his reply will be nonsense, you are lying, and so on; in which he thinks he is actually debating the issue. 

Dee

@maxx

Says the guy who refuses to back his bull up

Barnardot

@Dee ;Says the guy who refuses to back his bull up

Eventually he does back up his bull in the end but the problem is that he just goes to those sites that actually say nothing but pretend to say some thing and get paid  for every hit from dum aces who get suckerd in to logging on. And hes totally the only one on this site who does that and I have never seen any one else who does that. Haave you.

Dee

@Barnardot

What you're on about is beyond me, as usual you're making no sense.

Dee

@maxx

MAXX SAYS RELIGION WASNT A WAY TO CONTROL PEOPLE THEN SAYS IT WAS USED AS A MEANS TO CONTROL PEOPLE ......The means of controlling others with religion came about  with the idea that a certain person claimed he could communicate with the gods direct, and used this reasoning to gain better food and his choice of female




If you cared to read your own article it states......However, there is disagreement on the exact mechanisms that drove the evolution of the religious mind. .......

So no one can say for sure.

Barnardot

@Dee ;What you're on about is beyond me, as usual you're making no sense.

Well yes thats right and thats right that it is proberly beyond you.

So what was happening was that I was taking a dig at Macks because he quotes all those wired web sites that say a heap of stuff but when you analize it in the end it actually says totally nothing at all.

Like for example an example wood be garlic may have health benefits. Like ...may...what the. and Evolutionary religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religion because what it says is right but it doesn't say anything about his argument. Like what the again.

And like theres another poster on this site and I cant remember who it is but it doesn't matter any way because he cant argue properly any way. Any way if I recall he was making these totally lame claims that psychologists are no better than the man on the street about what they do. So you think what the. Then you look at the web sites he posts and you have to pay to see them for some funny reason. Then you log in and find out what the funny reason is in realty.  

They are all bogus editorial web sites put on by anti psychologists and pay doctors to write articles like psychologists may do this and like it is known that psychologists do this and that but they never actually say any thing of sub stance. And when you trace the sites back they all doctor lol the papers they put on there but not enough to get sewed. But when you see the hit rate on those sites you then realize how much money  those scums make out of pushing out bogus made up baloney that looks like its official but it is all scam baloney. So yep your got to be eary of people making totally dum illogical nasty claims and saying they have evidence which is totally floored 100%.

Dee

@Barnardot


Just to let you know carry on ranting , I don't read your nonsense so knock yourself out.

maxx

the exact mechanism that drove the  evolution of the human mind. do you even have an idea of what that means? It means that they have no dure idea of "what led up to the idea of religion" they have no idea of what actually led to speech either, yet both speech and religion came about. It does not mean the beginnings of religion  were a means of controlling others.  i done agreed that  after religion became a solid footing in tribes, there probably was a shaman who used it got his benefit; yet that was long in the future. The beginnings of religion began with the idea of gods that controlled their daily lives. If you do not agree with that statement, then tell me how religion began.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx

In my opening remarks I said how relgion began you agreed , you also agreed religion was used to control , so what are you ranting about?

maxx

are you really that reading impaired? I said "eventually" religion became as a way for some to control others; i did not say the beginning of religion were such a means. Why do you keep acting like a jack A**? you are talking in circles and you keep grabbing lines out of context with what i say. You also do not answer my question; hence the last one i asked; so i will re-ask it in a way you may be able to understand. Why and how do you think religion began?  and of course dees answer is to grab that line out of context with the rest of what i said and re-quote it with out showing the entire quote. In doing so, you are no better than many religious people of today who grabs a line out of the bible with out regard to the entire paragraph, then re-phrase that line in a way that is not true.  pathetic. @Dee

Barnardot

@Dee I don't read your nonsense.

Well that’s cool because I don’t have any nonsense to read any way but obviously you don’t read your own nonsense that you post as evidence but if you did you would actually see how much nonsense your nonsense is any way.

Dee

@Barnardot

You never stop whining Barndoor , ease up relax .....had you another bad day at work?

Dee

@maxx

***are you really that reading impaired? I said "eventually" religion became as a way for some to control others; i did not say the beginning of religion were such a means.***

Well thank you for admitting your posts are usually incoherent, I agree.

** Why do you keep acting like a jack A**? you are talking in circles and you keep grabbing lines out of context with what i say**

Maxx back with the personal attacks and now his new defence is bible thumpers favorite " it's out of context "

.*** You also do not answer my question; hence the last one i asked; so i will re-ask it in a way you may be able to understand. Why and how do you think religion began? ***

But I told you the why and how at the beginning but as usual as everyone knows you keep asking the same question again thinking the answer might be different.

BTW dummy you agreed with what I said about the why and how.



 ***and of course dees answer is to grab that line out of context with the rest of what i said and re-quote it with out showing the entire quote. In doing so, you are no better than many religious people of today who grabs a line out of the bible with out regard to the entire paragraph, then re-phrase that line in a way that is not true.  pathetic***

Stop acting like a whiny b.tchh you big pansy

maxx

fine by me if you think you answered the question on how religion began; i doubt it though; you just keep saying it began as a way to control others; and i repeat :BEGAN" and you refuse to show logic or evidence to back up that statement. can you even show one link that backs that up? not a link that says religion led to a way for those to control others, but how prehistoric humans developed religion as such a means. Like some shaman decide to create religion out of the thin air just so he can control others? @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Well it should be easy for you to prove it didn't begin as a way to control people so prove it ......