The Origins of Religion

[back to earth]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I think i already covered this  I do not have or posses any of these traits or characteristics although i can understand why others might perceive them  inme  

I have a totally appropriate sense of my own importance  I am the most important man on earth   yet no more nor less important than you  

LOL i dnt even think of myself as superior  so why should any one else think that i think of myself that way.    I have the achievements and if compelled to, could provide eyewitness statements and documented to prove any real world achievement i have claimed on UM. 

What a load of crap !    How many times have you been asked for such proof   ... and how much have we ever got ?

 

ZILCH   NADA   0       thats how much ! 

 

Another  lie !  

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 I have Never once exaggerated  or   consciously lied about my achievements or talents on UM What would be the point ?

Another lie !      Just the other day, you said you never lie ... unless its a joke or exaggeration .  Now you are denying that. 

 

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Disbelief is a problem with acceptance of difference, by others. 

No, its nothing to do wit that .   Thats your main fall back ... "oh, its just that I am different ."   No, its not that at all .

 

Its just that you been well busted  for  BS  ! 

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I have plenty of fantasies but unless directly relevant (ike the triple breasted amazon space alien)   i don't discuss them on UM. Fantasy has a legitimate and constructive place in person's life but it must be kept in its place 

Well i dont KNOW why some have trouble with understanding me (wait a minute wasn't it you who accused frank of being to dumb to understand  your writing style?)  (if not i apologize)  Many do seem incapable of reading and sorting out more than a couple of sentences of text  or  understanding  complex compound concepts  

Like angels and apples being similar ... or the BS idea you tried to float when cornered that any word can mean whatever the user decides it means.        

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't require admiration from others i have enough love  and admiration for myself not to need any more  

Thats an exaggeration. 

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

Because  of the gifts of life and god freely bestowed on me,  i dont need to take advantage of others, but it would be against the code of chivalry and honour instilled in me as a child  I am a samurai and a knight of the round table  (just kidding that is fantasy) but i do apply those codes to how I Live my life.

You live  NOTHING  like  a Samurai  -  you wouldnt even know  what that means !   

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

Finally, a narcissist would be incapable of responding to you like this, using humour .  

We can see how full of narcissism it is .   Just becuse you cannot, does not mean it is not there !

[back to earth]

15 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

In my discussion of narcissism, Walker was not who I was thinking of and I can't imagine why he would get defensive.  It may be that I put it in a place where Walker was already active, but that is hard to avoid.  I don't generally read what he posts but right now I'm not interested in investigating it.  I would thing it obvious enough I was talking about Trump.

 

Wait   !      Walker   isn't  Trump !   ?     

[back to earth]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yea that is what happened frank It appeared to be referencing me (and i think another poster used it in that way)  and i accept your word that  it was not. But as you can see from the correspondence, it has long been an issue of perception that i must be incredibly narcissistic

. I am not  For example i don't even use a mirror to dress or groom. I don't brush my hair, or clean my shoes, until my wife makes me. I only shave about  once a year  and my clothes are 10 years old, repaired and patched several times   This is because, for me, who we are is about the inside character not the outside appearance . 

and it is the inside man we are talking about ... not the  outer issue of your hair loss .

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

You are the only poster who debates using himself as the evidence, this is not debate. Come on, you know this. 

For example, you claim an education you do not demonstrate in your arguments, this is not to suggest you didn't get an education, it is just saying it isn't obvious in your posts, simply because you focus on things that do not matter, not because you don't have potential.

People are going to give an opinion when you post silly, outrageous things insisting they must believe you on your word,, try to stop doing that, let people have their of point of view, you have an incredible opportunity to let your argument stand for itself and when it doesn't work on bringing more facts and stick to the topic. 

I have been a poster who was disliked about as much as you, and I didn't engage in others assessments of me, why would I it wasn't about me, there was no reason to defend myself. This is what a self confident, mature adult does.  And the times (and there were a few of those) I reported the posts that would bring the kind of drama you instigate all the time. Part of integrity is to be mindful of your part in the problem. And, you are a big part of the issues you have, Use your "classic education"and change things and you might  find that your time on here is a lot more productive, and perhaps even rewarding. 

 

I have no problem with inability to believe my narratives. That is expected, but after a year or so on UM people stopped debating issues, beliefs, opinions, etc and even just stopping a t saying i was lying. They began to construct and state opinions such as that i was uneducated, (because only the uneducated believe in the paranormal ) that i was deluded, hallucinating, or misperceiving reality This flows from their own inability to accept, even theoretically, or hypothetically,  that the things i talk about are real and as accurately described a s i can make them  ( there are also peole who dont believe simple real life stories from my life, like being pursued by a great white shark while water skiing or that i could hold my breath underwater for five minutes or that i can plan and construct controlled lucid dreams  for myself.   You yourself get me entirely wrong because in order to bolster your own beliefs you have to attribute motivations to me which do not exist.  eg i imagine angels and gods because of some need in my life.  

You see if everything i say is true then it is not silly or outrageous EXCEPT in your mind, and the minds of those who haven't had those experiences and refuse to believe they can be real . 

 So when people say i am mentally ill I explain that i have proof tha t i am not.  When they say i misperceive things i explain how one can check perception and the objectivity of observations ( I suspect many people were never taught these skills ,and cannot apply them in their own lives and so don't think it is possible to scientifically check if a ghost or an angel has independent solidity exactly as one would check if a dog does.

 Then the more i dismiss those arguments, using facts and logic, the more those who fear the unknown begin to get nasty This is a well known psychological pattern of verbal intimidation by people who fear an opinion and are trying to silence the source.   I dont tolerate it in real life and i wont tolerate it online   

People are "entitled" to a point of view  EXCEPT when, if that view is acted upon it will hurt themselves or others   While i can't impose my view on others.  i can express and explain it as a warning that other beliefs and lifestyles are less constructive/produtive and creative and CAN be destructive and harmful. 

I even had one poster here saying i had no right to present an anti smoking argument supported by figures. He smoked and i think he really believed this would not harm him or society.  it is just possible he might be right as an individual But if that pov was allowed to go unchallenged and was widespread then many people would die and society would suffer greater costs The same is true of those who are anti vaccination  There are many other examples where a personal belief cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in public because of the harm acting on that belief can cause. 

Maybe one difference between us is that i neither want , nor  need to be liked.  Validation comes from within not from others.  However there are rules on this forum and in life and IMO the y are there for a purpose and should be obeyed.

i dont have to tolerate personal and sometimes vicious attacks based on lies  without responding to them,   not because of wanting to be liked, not because of ego, but because this form of debate is ethically and morally wrong and if allowed, diminishes society, and does harm.  Think the sort of effects facebook attacks have on those who dont have the confidence or self esteem to shrug them off. 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

What a load of crap !    How many times have you been asked for such proof   ... and how much have we ever got ?

 

ZILCH   NADA   0       thats how much ! 

 

Another  lie !  

Another lie !      Just the other day, you said you never lie ... unless its a joke or exaggeration .  Now you are denying that. 

 

No, its nothing to do wit that .   Thats your main fall back ... "oh, its just that I am different ."   No, its not that at all .

 

Its just that you been well busted  for  BS  ! 

Like angels and apples being similar ... or the BS idea you tried to float when cornered that any word can mean whatever the user decides it means.        

Thats an exaggeration. 

You live  NOTHING  like  a Samurai  -  you wouldnt even know  what that means !   

We can see how full of narcissism it is .   Just becuse you cannot, does not mean it is not there !

Here's the thing. i don t have to produce the evidences. such as my degree and diploma or my teaching background  or witnesses to my narratives   The fact that i have them is enough to establish truth   This is about whether i tell the truth NOT about whether you believe me.  It's about MY honesty not your credibility  As long as i know i am honest that is what counts. 

Let us also be clear. I said i have never consciously  lied on UM That is  true A lie is an attempt to deceive  I do exaggerate and tell stories  for fun but include smilies or other contextual material to show this is not meant to be taken seriously (eg i might claim to be the most handsome man on earth   is that a lie?  am i attempting to deceive?   is it an exaggeration ?  Being subjective there is no  correct answer . I also only use exaggeration for humorous purposes OR in a debating style to make a point clear

A real apple and a real angel are very much the same.  So is a real dog and a  real god. How COULD things which are physically real actually differ greatly in physical nature.

 Ps 6 months of my uni history course of 3 years was on traditional japan and the meiji restoration  the opening of japan and twentieth century japan  I have an academic understanding of traditional and modern japanese society  However i also watched every episode of the japanese show the samurai in the 1960s. and tom cruise.s film the last samurai .   

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mr Walker

[XenoFish]

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i dont have to tolerate personal and sometimes vicious attacks based on lies

Then quite telling them. How many have you been caught in now? I don't keep count.

[Mr Walker]

28 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Then quite telling them. How many have you been caught in now? I don't keep count.

 Then you must be innumerate   The total is NONE,  which is pretty easy to count ,once you are using the arabic numeral system .  I have been wrong a couple of times but i believed what i was saying to be true, and so was not telling a deliberate or conscious untruth. 

 No one has ever been able to demonstrate that i have told a lie (They just don't believe my truths are possible, or  they take issue with statistics and sources i use.)  That is because.I do not tell lies. They serve no purpose, and only truth has the power to liberate.  If you like, take ONE statement i have made as a truth, and prove it is a lie. 

Disagreeing with an opinion or an interpretation is a different matter Lots of people disagree with me.    

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Did we find the origins of religion yet? 

 

 

[back to earth]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Here's the thing. i don t have to produce the evidences. such as my degree and diploma or my teaching background  or witnesses to my narratives   The fact that i have them is enough to establish truth   This is about whether i tell the truth NOT about whether you believe me.  It's about MY honesty not your credibility  As long as i know i am honest that is what counts. 

Like I said  ......  Trump     ;   "  I could do that .... I dont want to - but I could ! .... if I wanted to .... but I dont want to  . "     

From   0.14   

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by back to earth

[back to earth]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 Then you must be innumerate   The total is NONE,  which is pretty easy to count ,once you are using the arabic numeral system .  I have been wrong a couple of times but i believed what i was saying to be true, and so was not telling a deliberate or conscious untruth. 

 No one has ever been able to demonstrate that i have told a lie (They just don't believe my truths are possible, or  they take issue with statistics and sources i use.)  That is because.I do not tell lies. They serve no purpose, and only truth has the power to liberate.  If you like, take ONE statement i have made as a truth, and prove it is a lie. 

Disagreeing with an opinion or an interpretation is a different matter Lots of people disagree with me.    

I posted the evidence of you lying , and you ignored it .

Just up there  ^  a few posts back I said it again  ;     and you ignored it . 

Just your affirmation it isnt so  .     You had your chance and chose to blow it . 

 

[back to earth]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Did we find the origins of religion yet? 

 

 

 

Somewhere between 1400 and 1600 .    It was a slow process of transition ,  from one perspective.  But a very quick one considering the length of our overall history. 

[back to earth]

   I    forgot about that giant smilie   LOL  

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, back to earth said:

I posted the evidence of you lying , and you ignored it .

Just up there  ^  a few posts back I said it again  ;     and you ignored it . 

Just your affirmation it isnt so  .     You had your chance and chose to blow it . 

 

Explained. (in post 237)  None of those statements were lies. One just added more detail  Only because you are such a hater do you refuse to accept reasonable argument on this .  A lie is something told with intent to deceive. i dont do that.  

 I only exaggerate in humour, or to make a point, never to deceive ( using a very old axiom of philosophy that, to show the truth in something like a  philosophical belief,or value or behaviour,  you  often have to extend it to its limits, and see where its breaking point is. )

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Did we find the origins of religion yet? 

 

 

Somewhere around 50000 years ago, and possibly earlier, when humans first evolved self aware consciousness, and began questioning the nature of life and death.  There are fertility figures about  35000 years old, which demonstrate human spirituality and belief, and once you have that, you inevitably have religious forms.  

There is evidence of religious practices around spiritual beliefs associated with animal hunting,  back about 50000 years.

Neanderthals, with whom many humans share common genes showing  that modern human are a mix of a t least 3 and possibly more hominids including cro magnon, Denisovans,  and neanderthal,  go back over 100000 years, and at some point also developed spiritual thinking and religious forms, like burying their dead with care, and grave goods. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 hours ago, back to earth said:

 

Somewhere between 1400 and 1600 .    It was a slow process of transition ,  from one perspective.  But a very quick one considering the length of our overall history. 

OH! So, we did?! ...................................................................  What was it?      

 

Seriously, that's what I thought. And, I find it interesting that for the upteenth years of there being various forms of religion, we only 'recently' found the origins of it.        

5 hours ago, back to earth said:

   I    forgot about that giant smilie   LOL  

Mind numbing shock value!    I don't blame you.    

 

[Dhurfjooydig]

12 hours ago, back to earth said:

Somewhere between 1400 and 1600 .    It was a slow process of transition ,  from one perspective.  But a very quick one considering the length of our overall history. 

Close enough. I'd say 1200-1300 CE. 

[back to earth]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Explained. (in post 237)  None of those statements were lies. One just added more detail  Only because you are such a hater do you refuse to accept reasonable argument on this .  A lie is something told with intent to deceive. i dont do that.  

 I only exaggerate in humour, or to make a point, never to deceive ( using a very old axiom of philosophy that, to show the truth in something like a  philosophical belief,or value or behaviour,  you  often have to extend it to its limits, and see where its breaking point is. )

S hall we go back through your lies again ?

 

I am on ignore , you state that and tell everyone how you have on me on ignore .  You pathetic lies about it are ridiculous  .... I somehow got around your block .... the computer didnt work ... it didnt take ... now you have finally done it  ... etc etc etc 

 

Clearly you do not have me or Sherapy on ignore    .  When it gets too tough for you ... thats what you do, you SAY you have us on ignore as you   cant respond to what was pointed out about you.

You let it lie for a few days or pages  and ignore things ... then you come back claiming none of it ever happened .

Delusional ! 

As a few of us have said ... it might fool you ... but certainly not us !

[back to earth]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Somewhere around 50000 years ago, and possibly earlier, when humans first evolved self aware consciousness, and began questioning the nature of life and death.  There are fertility figures about  35000 years old, which demonstrate human spirituality and belief, and once you have that, you inevitably have religious forms.  

There is evidence of religious practices around spiritual beliefs associated with animal hunting,  back about 50000 years.

Neanderthals, with whom many humans share common genes showing  that modern human are a mix of a t least 3 and possibly more hominids including cro magnon, Denisovans,  and neanderthal,  go back over 100000 years, and at some point also developed spiritual thinking and religious forms, like burying their dead with care, and grave goods. 

 

Oh   Denisovans  now had religion !      Hiow did you come to that conclusion  from a few teeth       

[back to earth]

11 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

OH! So, we did?! ...................................................................  What was it?      

 

Errrm, ...     what was   what ?     I dont get your question in relation to the quote above it ? 

 

In any case its all explained here     in the brief Ch 1 .     a  source I have but up more than 8 times now .     (Walker refuses to read or acknowledge it  ... claims it is NOT academic at all , but when I challenged him to clearly say that these theories are NOT academic , and if he does, I will put up the scholars who wrote about it  ..... total silence .    Must have me on ignore , eh ?    

 

https://archive.org/details/originsofmoderns007291mbp

Edited May 25, 2017 by back to earth

[back to earth]

4 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

Close enough. I'd say 1200-1300 CE. 

I agree this is the beginning impetus of it ...... around 1400   some interesting things started happening  by 1600 they were in place, during the 1700 the new paradigm started effecting society in bigger ways . 

 

Most people have not a clue that the modern way of thinking was not the norm before then.  This impacts so many areas, without this knowledge ... all occult and hermetic studies are bunkum  ....   and   ancient history, religious studies and cultural anthropoiogy are studied out of context !   Its a basic modern academic realisation , and Walker being ignorant of it, totally exposes him ! 

For an academic   simple explanation of this see Toby Wilkinson's book  '   Ancient Egypt - The First Farmers to the Great Pyramid '  preface  on 'evidence based research'  and the problems science has had with modern interpretations and speculations being projected back onto entirely different peoples . 

[+Sherapy]

On 5/23/2017 at 5:14 PM, Mr Walker said:

I have no problem with inability to believe my narratives. That is expected, but after a year or so on UM people stopped debating issues, beliefs, opinions, etc and even just stopping a t saying i was lying. They began to construct and state opinions such as that i was uneducated, (because only the uneducated believe in the paranormal ) that i was deluded, hallucinating, or misperceiving reality This flows from their own inability to accept, even theoretically, or hypothetically,  that the things i talk about are real and as accurately described a s i can make them  ( there are also peole who dont believe simple real life stories from my life, like being pursued by a great white shark while water skiing or that i could hold my breath underwater for five minutes or that i can plan and construct controlled lucid dreams  for myself.   You yourself get me entirely wrong because in order to bolster your own beliefs you have to attribute motivations to me which do not exist.  eg i imagine angels and gods because of some need in my life.  

You see if everything i say is true then it is not silly or outrageous EXCEPT in your mind, and the minds of those who haven't had those experiences and refuse to believe they can be real . 

 So when people say i am mentally ill I explain that i have proof tha t i am not.  When they say i misperceive things i explain how one can check perception and the objectivity of observations ( I suspect many people were never taught these skills ,and cannot apply them in their own lives and so don't think it is possible to scientifically check if a ghost or an angel has independent solidity exactly as one would check if a dog does.

 Then the more i dismiss those arguments, using facts and logic, the more those who fear the unknown begin to get nasty This is a well known psychological pattern of verbal intimidation by people who fear an opinion and are trying to silence the source.   I dont tolerate it in real life and i wont tolerate it online   

People are "entitled" to a point of view  EXCEPT when, if that view is acted upon it will hurt themselves or others   While i can't impose my view on others.  i can express and explain it as a warning that other beliefs and lifestyles are less constructive/produtive and creative and CAN be destructive and harmful. 

I even had one poster here saying i had no right to present an anti smoking argument supported by figures. He smoked and i think he really believed this would not harm him or society.  it is just possible he might be right as an individual But if that pov was allowed to go unchallenged and was widespread then many people would die and society would suffer greater costs The same is true of those who are anti vaccination  There are many other examples where a personal belief cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in public because of the harm acting on that belief can cause. 

Maybe one difference between us is that i neither want , nor  need to be liked.  Validation comes from within not from others.  However there are rules on this forum and in life and IMO the y are there for a purpose and should be obeyed.

i dont have to tolerate personal and sometimes vicious attacks based on lies  without responding to them,   not because of wanting to be liked, not because of ego, but because this form of debate is ethically and morally wrong and if allowed, diminishes society, and does harm.  Think the sort of effects facebook attacks have on those who dont have the confidence or self esteem to shrug them off. 

You do have a big problem with posters not believing your narratives and tales. 

You called BTE a hater and far worse for not accepting one of your "reasonable" excuses on exaggerated posts, which you now admit to. 

In fact, you say a lot of mean things to BTE, unfairly.

I think you are a big part of the problems you have. I would say if you don't like it change your hand in it. 

 

 

 

 

[Frank Merton]

2 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

Oh   Denisovans  now had religion !      Hiow did you come to that conclusion  from a few teeth       

Well, I don't know that he actually said as much.  One thing I would like to say -- archeology does not tell us what people were thinking or why they left this or that artifact behind, either at a tomb or somewhere else.  We often infer things that may not be the case -- take the cave paintings -- the presumption is they were some sort of ritual asking forgiveness for killing these beasts, but it could easily be must a spooky place with paintings intended as part of a coming-of-age ritual intended to scare the teenagers.  We can't know and I think it inappropriate to call something "religion" when we really can't know.

Another example: artifacts ("grave goods") found in tombs -- presumed left there for use by the dead in an afterlife.  Well, maybe -- that seems the most reasonable way to interpret it, and if that interpretation is right then there was belief in an afterlife -- but afterlife, as Buddhism shows, does not imply any sort of worship.  As Gershwin said, "It ain't necessarily so."  The grave goods could be only tokens of respect and honor, or something like that -- after all, grave robbery was common and the robbers clearly could see that the goods were still there with the decomposed body.  We really should not try to read the minds of these people from artifacts.

I earlier had reason to indicate that I thought it likely religion originated in what we now call animism but what the people of the time may have thought being nothing more than being polite to the beings of nature.  Whether we call attributing intelligence to a mountain or a tree or something "religion" or not is debatable -- I would just call it being mistaken about the real nature of these things.

So often things are interpreted not only in religious terms, but in terms of Western religion, especially Christianity.  These people were not Christians, folks.  They no doubt experienced awe and so on at the universe, as do we, but that and religion and ideals like idolatry are going to far.

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, Frank Merton said:

Another example: artifacts ("grave goods") found in tombs -- presumed left there for use by the dead in an afterlife.  Well, maybe -- that seems the most reasonable way to interpret it, and if that interpretation is right then there was belief in an afterlife -- but afterlife, as Buddhism shows, does not imply any sort of worship. 

The leaving of grave goods was a symbolic (non-religious, non-mystical) nod to and reminder of the physical reality understood as the Eternal Return. 

[Frank Merton]

1 hour ago, No Solid Ground said:

The leaving of grave goods was a symbolic (non-religious, non-mystical) nod to and reminder of the physical reality understood as the Eternal Return. 

Maybe

[back to earth]

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Well, I don't know that he actually said as much.  One thing I would like to say -- archeology does not tell us what people were thinking or why they left this or that artifact behind, either at a tomb or somewhere else.  We often infer things that may not be the case -- take the cave paintings -- the presumption is they were some sort of ritual asking forgiveness for killing these beasts,

Whose presumption ?     I have never heard that one and I have been studying the subject for some time and also have access to a living tradition and their reasons why they do such things.

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

but it could easily be must a spooky place with paintings intended as part of a coming-of-age ritual intended to scare the teenagers.

yes,  well done Frank !    (The best part of that is you are open to 'multiple uses of the same thing '  .   The dynamics involved in such ancient 'rites of passage' become clear when we  go through those caves in asimilar way to they did with similar lighting.

For more on this and  I recommend  Herzog  ; 

well worth the time ! 

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

 We can't know and I think it inappropriate to call something "religion" when we really can't know.

The crux is ,   the WAY we now understand religion ... its all tied into a type of mental dualism that developed in the 'western civilised mind '  1400 - 1600 .  But not everyone thinks that way .  Some seem caught half way , others, mostly indigenous peoples whose societies were not exposed to this development  .... see no differentiation , non-dualistic . 

4 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Another example: artifacts ("grave goods") found in tombs -- presumed left there for use by the dead in an afterlife.  Well, maybe -- that seems the most reasonable way to interpret it, and if that interpretation is right then there was belief in an afterlife -- but afterlife, as Buddhism shows, does not imply any sort of worship.  As Gershwin said, "It ain't necessarily so."  The grave goods could be only tokens of respect and honor, or something like that -- after all, grave robbery was common and the robbers clearly could see that the goods were still there with the decomposed body.  We really should not try to read the minds of these people from artifacts.

I earlier had reason to indicate that I thought it likely religion originated in what we now call animism but what the people of the time may have thought being nothing more than being polite to the beings of nature.  Whether we call attributing intelligence to a mountain or a tree or something "religion" or not is debatable -- I would just call it being mistaken about the real nature of these things.

So often things are interpreted not only in religious terms, but in terms of Western religion, especially Christianity.  These people were not Christians, folks.  They no doubt experienced awe and so on at the universe, as do we, but that and religion and ideals like idolatry are going to far.

 ... gotta  split ,   time out ...more later