International Blasphemy Day got me thinking about the concept of blasphemy. What exactly is blasphemy? I know that the Church I was brought up in (Roman Catholic) didn’t think too highly of it. According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Francisco Suárez as “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.
Apologetics at its best. So basically, blasphemy is saying bad things about god. Since it is usually in the nature of speech, but not always, and can be against the saints too, some of the depictions in my last post would surely be classified as blasphemy.
What bothers me about the etymology of the word is that it is a made up word designed to protect a contrived conception – god. In other words, like sin, it really doesn’t exist, because god doesn’t exist. Think about it.
Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning and last end.
But, God is a artificial construct of the human brain. (There are some of you out there who would disagree with that, but that is the assumption I make through 270 posts on this blog, and I’ll continue it here). In effect, god doesn’t exist in reality, only in conception. God is a mere idea, one many people wish to be true, but one that, until convincing proof comes along, is not. Blasphemy is meant to prevent us from insulting this idea. I ask, why do ideas need protection from insult? Do we protect political ideas? Sociological ideas? Ideas of fashion? Is there a word to describe the insulting of Republican ideology? Or Fascist ideology? Or communist ideology? No. The human language has no word, or even a concept, to describe the derogation of political ideas, (except maybe free speech). If an idea is self-evident, as the one about gods is supposed to be, it needs no protection. It needs no bolstering. It should be widely accepted, impervious to any harm, because it it true.
What this looks like to this outside observer is further evidence of the idea that religion is a meme, which is a cultural idea that spreads like a virus via speech, actions , rituals, etc. Memes were first postulated by Richard Dawkins in the The Selfish Gene, to explain the transfer of cultural ideas, of which religion is a prime example. Blasphemy is a concept made up out of whole cloth by religion to protect itself from questioning and scrutiny. What reason would a omnipotent, presumably self-assured god have with protecting himself from insult? How can one possibly hurt a supreme being with words and thoughts? Clearly, blasphemy is not meant to protect god from having his feelings hurt. The only reason for it to exist is to protect the idea of god from being abandoned, which in turn shelters the men and women of religion who use it to control their adherents, to keep them in line, and ensure their continuing obedience towards their particular church. So blasphemy is a form of self-protection, an almost automatic defense mechanism to protect the meme.
This is why Blasphemy Day is necessary. People need to see that their god can be “blasphemed” with no adverse consequences. A “true believer” should logically acknowledge that. Once the common mindset accepts the notion that blasphemy is a non-existent concept, it’s a natural step to conclude that god doesn’t exist. There may be some additional steps in the middle, but the ultimate conclusion is inevitable.
At least, one can hope.
Preach on brother!
Preach on brother!
Yes. Ever heard of anti-flag burning laws?
Preach on brother!
Nice play on the title, though. I forgot to leave that genuine compliment in the aforementioned mocking.
You were mocking? I thought you were with me, not agin me. See, all that preaching bullshit is so insincere.
I thought it would be the most effective way to show that in effect, this post is an atheist sermon, not a reasoned argument. The core questions about blasphemy laws are interesting, don’t get me wrong, but we already know you’re an atheist and all your opinions on God and blah blah blah. They’re just opinions and not suitable as support for arguments.
Yep. Same thing.
You beat me to it, SI. Except I would add that flag burning laws have piss little to do with protecting “political ideas” – and everything to do with national identity, which is an equally noxious notion to be protecting with speech laws.
It’s interesting that we tend to make such laws and rules regarding the things least deserving of protection – in fact, the very things which erect artificial boundaries between human beings. Very, very interesting…
Right on. Fragile things that really can’t stand the direct light of day and can’t stand on their own merit seem to be protected by those who gain some advantage from them.
I remember when Bush I was ki…uh, “president”, and the big whoop about flag desecration was in full cry. I asked one of the hyper patriots (who had definite opinions of people who actually used their rights) to explain how such an action as flag burning “hurt the country”, as she postulated. Well, she couldn’t really say, just that she knew that it “hurt the country” and thus should receive punishment. ANT desecration of the flag. Although she was sure that Bush’s carving up, ingestion and shitting out the remnants of such on his birthday was fine.
Blasphemy was dangerous because “some kid” might “get the wrong ideas” like she figured I did. Thought provoking things that undermined faith was a real no-no.
We do love our symbols, don’t we?
What reason would a omnipotent, presumably self-assured god have with protecting himself from insult? How can one possibly hurt a supreme being with words and thoughts?
Given that the concept of self-esteem became fashionable only in the late 20th century, it is no surprising that the God-idea got away for so long with a most insecure personality.
But since we, humans, are today more enlightened, we have come to understand that individuals with a strong sense of self–as the creator of all things–should have–don’t behave in such immature ways as to be offended by pity criticism from supposedly so small, inferior beings as ourselves.
The problem is, though, that since True Christians become like their idea of God, they actually are unable to see the huge personality flaw in themselves and in their superhero.
“But since we, humans, are today more enlightened, we have come to understand that individuals with a strong sense of self–as the creator of all things–should have–don’t behave in such immature ways as to be offended by pity criticism from supposedly so small, inferior beings as ourselves.”
Hey, Babe! Your old boyfriend Gideon, here! Talking about not being offended… nah, WE don’t want to go there, do WE? 😉
So how is it? Still pissed at me, hon? Hey, it’s not that Christians aren’t aware of their flaws, or the flaws of their infidel brethren, it’s just that we don’t dwell on them like infidels do. Heathen are always seeking to pin blame on someone other than themselves. Know what I mean?
And, God has no flaws, nor is He insecure… unlike someone else I might mention, but won’t. Nor does He censor negative commentary about Himself, again, unlike someone else I won’t mention.
No, infidels are the insecure ones. It’s because they don’t have a leg to stand on with regard to their goofy theories about origins, etc. Their so-called “logic” is foolishness to those enlightened. It’s a form of blasphemy in and of itself… blasphemy against intelligent thought.
Later, sweet-cakes! *Kiss*
Oh, and I love the Vader pic, there, SI! Great humor!
That’s actually a reasonable position SI. I agree. The whole point of my mockery the first time ’round was to point out that you use your opinions (“God is a artificial construct of the human brain” for example) as supporting clauses for this argument of yours. As far as blasphemy laws themselves, well… – like any other set of laws – the precise historical context and the actual motivations for the legislation is likely to differ according to the cultural dictates of the respective municipalities. In some cases, the authorities in question probably do recoil in the white-knuckle fear you rightly criticize. In other cases, who knows? Maybe some priest has a brother in the local legislature. Know what I mean? I guess I’m just a not a big fan of arguing in generalities. To me, most questions like, “Is X good or bad” are mis-stated; most resolve more accurately as, “When is X good, and when is X bad.” Granted, exceptions to this rule seem to exist, so note the qualifier “most.”
Point is, although it’s your blog and you can do whatever you want, as far as sound argumentation goes, you can’t just be like, “God’s a figment of our imagination therefore blasphemy laws mean fearful theists want sky daddy protected.” Although you’ve got a few good lines tossed around in between (like the one I already mentioned), it’s just not cogent.
“If an idea is self-evident, as the one about gods is supposed to be, it needs no protection.”
So, why are you protecting Darwin?
Who said I was, Gideon? Darwin’s theory stands or falls on the evidence. The evidence supports it. It’s that simple.
But it’s not self-evident. In fact, it’s actually counter-intuitive, which is why people such as yourself refuse to accept it. The idea of a designer makes more sense to you, despite the lack of evidence to support it.
“Who said I was, Gideon?”
I am, that’s who! So, then, what is the point of your blog? You’re always touting Darwinism and ridiculing Christianity, and then you infer you’re neutral on this?
Also, YOUR interpretation of “evidence” isn’t the credo for any universal acceptance of it’s definition. I have plenty of evidence for what I need to believe what I do, yet, you’re telling me I don’t! I also believe that your evidence for what you believe isn’t rational. Intuition is not the basis for my beliefs, logic is. And, for me to believe that logic has any part in the assertion that life is a product of LUCK, is an impossibility.
There are a lot of differing opinions on evolution, by evolutionists, themselves, nevermind that from their theist detractors. Dawkins is rabid against anyone proposing theism as a rational alternative, he literally comes unglued when he’s pressed. I’d say he’s pretty dogmatic and protective of his religion, judging by the way he goes after theists.
Your statement about faith being intuitive is a good one. God has placed within His creation a desire to know and understand Him. That’s as far as He goes in regard to interfering with free choice. It’s often misinterpreted as just a “longing” for a sense of purpose, etc, but it’s not coercion of any sort. Humanism, however, DEMANDS compliance, or vilification and ridicule follow. There is no “other” explanation other than a humanist one, if one expects to be taken seriously in this world.
I, on the other hand, always look sideways at someone that dogmatically asserts he’s no better than the lowest species of animal, or that his ancestors were apes.
To me, that’s anything but logical thinking, and, perfect fodder for ridicule!
Actually, I let you off the hook on this, you’re doing what I’m doing, you’re merely leveling the playing field, although the field is actually tilted more in your favor than you know. Even the Bible states that the road to truth is narrow, and the path to destruction wide. More will side with you than I.
However, I don’t do what I do with any idea of protecting God, I do this for kicks more than anything… and, for meeting chicks!
You haven’t read enough here then. Start from the beginning. I never said I was neutral. I’m just of conduit, not a “protector” of evolution. You can come to your own conclusion. If you conclude that there is not enough evidence for it, well, not much I can do about it. That’s willful ignorance, but in America (and Canada) we’re free to be willfully ignorant. The evidence for evolution is all around. You just have to have an open mind and look at it.
I’d agree with that.
I’ve never stopped you from presenting it. Feel free. You even have your own blog. Let your evidence see the light of day.
That’s still your belief. Let’s see evidence.
Opinions about evolution as a process that best explains speciation, or opinions on the details of the mechanics of evolution? Those that are qualified are essentially unanimous on the former. The latter is always subject to debate because we don’t know everything about how evolution works. We know it does though. Most objections, in fact I say all objections, to evolution are based on a sense that it contradicts religious beliefs. And in many ways it does. There are lots of things in life in conflict. This just happens to be the one where the evidence supports one and not the other.
He becomes “unglued” as you say, when IDiots (don’t take that personally) propose that science should embrace religious explanations without evidence. That is so contrary to the nature of science as to be laughable. He’s a fairly composed individual when you watch him speak. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him become “unglued”. Of course, I don’t live with him. Maybe when the pipes burst in his kitchen he goes nuts.
That statement says more about you than him. He has no religion. He does have a life passion, though, and that’s science, specifically biology and evolution.
Well that’s not what I said. I said the idea that there is design in nature is intuitive, primarily because as humans, the sum total of our experience says that things that look designed, are designed. But that really comes from the notion that nature looks designed. I don’t really think it does.
You may be right about faith too. It could be intuitive. That doesn’t make it right. People used to intuit that the world was flat, because from their limited perspective, it looked flat. Turns out they were wrong.
Well, I understand that’s your belief, but you really don’t “know” that. That’s an explanation that was handed down by people who were looking for explanations of the reality around them, and couldn’t come up with any, because they had not advanced far enough in knowledge of the world to do so. In effect, it was a place marker explanation, one that humans shed a long time ago. Some still cling to it for comfort, but there’s really no evidence for it – just faith.
No. Humanism simply says our humanity is all we have in common.
Then don’t look sideways at me. I do think that humans are better, in many ways, than “the lowest species of animal”. We have something few species have. Empathy for our fellow humans, for example, and empathy for all the creatures of our world. Reason. Advanced consciousness.
But our ancestors were apes. Why is that a problem for you? Why do you feel that somehow diminishes you? It doesn’t me. And technically they weren’t apes. Humans and apes had a common ancestor, that had apelike qualities, and human qualities, but was not the ape you see running around the jungle.
Well, in any event, thanks for a thoughtful comment I can reply to, rather than the usual ad hominem, scatological one.
Except that’s not my argument. I don’t really give a crap about the Blasphemy Laws. Well, I do, but not in this post.
What I’m trying to understand, and maybe expound on in my own little, humble way, is that the entire concept of blasphemy doesn’t really exist, like sin, like god, like a lot of other artificial, intellectual, philosophical or theological concepts. They are all part and parcel of a defective way of thinking, that arose for what ever reasons, but in the case of blasphemy, for the purpose of protecting an idea that should, being THE TRUTH, need no protection.
Yes, my argument rests on an assumption, that of the non-existence of god. But we’ve been round and round on that one and I think it’s a perfectly valid assumption to use in a cogent argument. I might even suggest that your inability to recognize that is colored by your desire to cling to a belief that is presently, and most likely prospectively, unprovable. My acceptance of that assumption is more valid than your rejection of it because of the burden of proof involved.
That’s the propaganda trope though, and it’s only true when we look at the media circus and the religious advocates of ID. Not that I’d say ID is a fully complete and legitimate branch of science, but delineated properly it is most certainly a valid scientific inference that’s supportable by empirical evidence and undeniably cogent logical syllogisms. That inference is not re-packaged creation science and actually predates Darwin’s theory.
You say Dawkins has no religion; I disagree. I say Dawkins’ religion has no God. We all have an answer to the question of life’s origin, and what happens when we die. That’s our religion.
That’s the watercolor version of the argument at best, junior. Try framing it accurately, or at least at the level we’d expect from an average college freshmen philosophy course.
Although apes isn’t the right word, now there’s where I can actually pretty much agree with you SI. I think that even if we grant a literal six-day creation, it’s still reasonable to call apes our ancestors.
SI, you might see this as rude, but I don’t intend it as such: are you a bit slow? You should’ve realized you felt there was no such thing as blasphemy the day you left God. Seriously!
No, it’s not. That it’s your opinion there is no God doesn’t entail cogency.
SI, make no mistake that this is the utmost hypocrisy coming from an atheist: it is you who believes in a final reality that cannot possibly be experienced let alone proven. Christianity’s claims are quite testable my friend; you just have to die to test them – and mind you – we all will.
Ha!! Damn straight, I second that, then raise it to the tenth power. He did it to me, too – for literally hundreds of comments while insulting me all along – only to come to realize he’d never even comprehended the argument in question correctly in the first place. Textbook definition of a mocker, eh? See why my nickname for SI is “Slothful Inductor?” Don’t take his baiting demands for evidence Gideon, not until he shows some sort of genuine teachability. You and I both know it will go on and on for hundreds of comments, while SI conflates terms, misunderstands arguments and then taunts.
You’re still on about evidence, eh, SI? I’m still waiting for YOUR incontrovertible evidence! It never comes! Why is that?
Yet, you still dogmatically state that there IS NO GOD! Even without the evidence to back that assertion!
My evidence is in what is plainly seen, every day. I don’t have to go digging through dirt and measuring the skeletons of dead apes, or carbon-dating dead apes, to understand what any kindergarten student knows. It’s only after exposure to atheists in their schools that kids turn stupid, having had humanist dogman crammed down their throats for years on end.
And, there is no freedom of thought in school, we all know that! You toe the Darwinist line, or you’re out! That, in and of itself, is prime evidence there is a God, what with the determined opposition there is against Him. Religious freedoms are on a steady decline throughout the rest of society, too.
The wonder of the human mechanism, the intricacy of the universe and it’s works. The ability to reason, not just ‘sense’ another bacterium, nearby, swim over and engulf it! That’s really all the ‘evolution’ required for the happenstance organism of primordial fame to survive. In nature, whatever works, stays. There is no intuitive need to evolve past that which works just fine.
Again, I ask… where is the snapshot for matter’s initial formation? Where is the definitive “big bang” snapshot? How does matter come from nothing at all? Any pics? Where are the “missing links” in the evolutionary scenario… Uckfield, East Sussex?
How do we love? How do we hate? Why do we even worry about it? Why do sunsets have to be beautiful, when all we need is enough light to sneak up on our prey and bash it’s head in?
Intuition? Got any daughters, SI? If one of them took up with an outlaw biker, how much ‘proof’ would you require before you told her to find someone else? Would you actually need a photo of your daughter naked and trussed up on the floor of a biker clubhouse, being gang-banged by a group of bearded, hairy Neanderthals, before you could conclude that her relationship probably isn’t a good idea? Yeah, they might be the strongest evidence for evolution, themselves, but, the other “evidence” would tend to outweigh it.
Some things transcend the Missouri Maxim, SI, and your “show me” attitude might be sufficient for a peep-show, but, in the real world, it can be a real detriment… even dangerous!
Evidence for what? Evolution? I can direct you to lots of books, none by Dawkins, and websites. Is that what you want? And no evidence in incontrovertible. It’s the weight of all the accumulated evidence that means anything, not just one item.
Seriously. You do know who’s burden of proof it is on the GOD question, don’t you? I’ll give you hint: it’s not mine.
You need to stop pulling your wire so much, SI, you’re going blind! READ (with a magnifying glass, if you have to) my last comment, son!
Hey, there are as many or more Christian books out there as there are infidel works, bub. Proof in numbers will get you killed faster than your inferior logic.
I had your infidel shit shoved down my gob in high school, and am bombarded with it nearly every day, in some form or another. Quantity doesn’t denote quality. You know how many lawyers there are in the land? I rest my case.
Like I said, Blinky, my last comment speaks volumes for the logic of ID, and shows the retarded, retrograde logic of the delusional infidel in his hopeless crusade to retain his suicidal ideology.
That might be true if the environment never changes. But since the environment is constantly changing, organisms have to evolve or die. What works just fine in the past may not work in the future. Organisms also evolve to occupy different environmental niches where competition for resources is more scarce.
The “missing links” for human evolution are all over. There’s Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal. Their fossils, or replicas, can be found in numerous museums.
If evolution is true then your religion is false. Evolution is true …
“But since the environment is constantly changing, organisms have to evolve or die.”
The environment described for the initial formation of life was so primitive and violent, that no life form would have had time to evolve any compensatory system able to meet it. That’s given the organism could even survive at all in such a soup, which it couldn’t. It’s like saying that an ant could survive swimming in an acid bath, while at the same time evolving armor capable of withstanding the thousands of tons of comparative force of my boot, grinding it’s guts out!
“The “missing links” for human evolution are all over.”
Those (the ones that aren’t the product of hoaxes, that is) are NOT intermediaries, they are separate species. Humanists still have yet to produce the missing link without the benefit of glue and duct tape and left-over parts of animal skeletons.
Evolution isn’t provable, because it’s bullshit, and, therefore, in harmony with your deduction, God lives.
Hmm.. how do scientists define intermediates, folks?
Why are you asking that, cl? Please proceed to the point. You know perfectly well that Gideon is flat out wrong in what he’s saying so I certainly hope whatever point you are going to make here will be to correct your dance partner’s misapprehensions concerning evolution.
I asked you once before to step in and you used those dancing skills to waltz away from it. I wouldn’t have called on you here (in fact, wouldn’t have entered this particular muddying of the waters at all) except I see you getting involved.) If you want to do so, it would be great to see you impart some of your knowledge to Gideon. He might actually receive it from you.
Perhaps you remember me telling Philly that I thought he got something wrong under similar circumstances. Just sayin’, man.
Yo, Johnny-Boy, there’s no dance party going on here other than the circus you and your cohorts are running.
The word I used is intermediaries, and that’s the word I meant to use. Look it up if you don’t know what it means. What, you want me to do EVERYTHING for ya?
I won’t be receiving anything from anyone except what I’ve learned from Christian scientists that were once infidels, but then saw the TRUTH. The primordial scenario I described is exactly, EXACTLY the way they described it, in other words the way it was originally conceptualized by the infidels of the day. What, now you’re telling me that atheists are doing a flip-flop on this as well? Man, you guys don’t know what the fuck you believe, do you?
I have to hand it to you, John, you’re running a great con game, here. When the rules don’t work for you, change ’em. Great strategy, except it keeps backfiring on you.
Pleading for help is a new thing with you, John, I’m surprised! Your buddy Philly isn’t having anything to do with this, but, then, we know he’s a wuss anyway. How about you?
Can’t take the heat?
John, please ask yourself what it is within you makes you see things so distorted sometimes:
No, I don’t. I try my best not to SIMPLY ASSUME things about other people like you are here. People fumble over & misuse words ALL THE TIME. I doubt it, but maybe Gideon really has NO IDEA what he’s talking about. I don’t know. That’s why I asked the question. If you – or Gideon – or anyone else – wants to answer it and not simply add more assumptions to the mix, we might get somewhere. Control your emotions.
Yes, I did steer clear of jim and Gideon’s discussion that day – AND – I did tell you that if you’d like to present one of Gideon’s SPECIFIC claims from that day that you’d like me to address, I told you I would. Did you do what I asked?
As far as today’s spiel, “Getting involved” consisted of me asking you to provide evidence with your gossip. Did you do what I asked?
Yes, man, and I’m just sayin’ – that day, I KNEW what it was you claimed Philly had gotten wrong – his opinion on prayer studies. Here – I have NO IDEA what you claim Gideon’s false claims about science are. See the difference?
If you want me to scold Gideon SO badly, which you very obviously do, then surely it wouldn’t be too much to ask for you to bring a legitimately false claim for me to scold him over, right?
It would be great if YOU – who pays quite a bit of lip service to rationalism – would support the unsupported claims you’ve made about Gideon with E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.
A link. A statement. Something factual. Anything besides your petulant and biased opinions of other people.
That’s what intermediaries are, a different species. If they weren’t different they’d be called Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The fossil record shows beings with some characteristics that are similar to modern humans and some characteristics that are different. Characteristics that are intermediate between modern humans and a species that is not a modern human.
Neanderthals even existed at the same time as modern humans. Two separate hominid species at the same time. Feel free to point to a Bible verse that demonstrates that fact.
Now you’re calling them different species, nal, when before, you called them “missing links”. Which is it?
You infidels are trying to find (or manufacture) the intermediary… the amalgamate phase… between successive stages of man’s evolution. This is what creationists demand of you to prove your assertion of evolution over the biblical assertion that every creature was created “after it’s kind” from one original. So far, you haven’t done that.
Not that you haven’t tried. Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, or, as we Christians lovingly (and laughingly) refer to it: “Piltdown Chicken”, are a couple of examples that come to mind.
We share a lot of similarities with a lot of different species. The Creator used the same raw materials to make them as us. If there is a close relationship between the DNA, that isn’t surprising. If I build a house using wood, there will be a lot of similar pieces between it and any successive wooden houses I build, though they be duplexes, bungalows, whatever. They will still be different, and I will still be their legitimate creator.
Neanderthals… more than likely were simply deformed humans, or maybe even an extinct species of ape, not derived from the human gene pool. Some say that Bigfoot is something along that line, if you’re into that shit. Whether they were retrograde humans or big chimps, they don’t represent us!
There’s been too much chicanery in the humanist/scientific world to trust their analysis on anything that we can’t verify without their help.
Neanderthals in the Bible? If you’re referring to Genesis 6, that doesn’t infer apes. That’s an entirely different subject. Philistines? Jimbo (Metamorphhh) might be an excellent example of a Neanderthal!
Otherwise, you’re barking up the wrong family tree.
At this writing, my TV is advertising a DVD coming out on yet ANOTHER version of the “Big Bang” theory. You ‘evo’s’ never give up, do you?
P.T. Barnum was a prophet in his own right.
Both. Why would anybody look for a “missing link” within the same species? That makes no sense.
Therefore, the Creator used the DNA from one species as a basis to create a different species. That sounds like common descent to me.
If the Neanderthals were deformed humans, then they were derived from the human gene pool. However, recent Neanderthal DNA analysis proves that Neanderthals were not “deformed humans”. An “extinct species of ape”? A species of ape that walked upright? A species of ape that had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans? That’s an argument from desperation.
“That’s an argument from desperation.”
Your whole commentary is from desperation, nal. They’re not from the same species, any of those, they’re separate species still in existence, (for the most part) today. Your lying humanist scientists can’t produce a specimen, so they pass off dead and deformed apes, humans, birds, etc, as missing links. Your double-talk isn’t fooling anyone, son. The only things in common (and rapid) descent are your morals and mentality.
I don’t know exactly what or what tribe Neanderthals were or came from, but, I’ll take the ‘Dawkins Fifth’ on this, and simply state that they couldn’t have been apes. Richard Dawkins ‘scientifically’ deduced that however the universe was created, by whatever means, (he doesn’t have a fucking clue) it just COULDN’T have been by God. So, with that, it just COULDN’T have been an ape. Case closed.
The fact that humanists periodically feel the need to lie and ‘fix’ findings and research data in a futile effort to circumvent a God, Who is always up-to-date and relevant in any day and age, is proof of their declining sense of morals and reality.
And, their science is pagan at best.