Modern Humans start around 50,000 years ago Helped by Feminisation

Anatomically modern humans start around 50,000 years ago and our feminisation helped.   The fossil record suggests that modern human morphology evolved in Africa between 150,000 and 50,000 years ago, when the sole inhabitants of Eurasia were the Neanderthals and other equally nonmodern people. However, the earliest modern or near-modern Africans were behaviorally (archaeologically) indistinguishable from their nonmodern, Eurasian contemporaries, and it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious, and preliminary dates suggest that it appeared in Africa about 50,000 years ago and then successively in western Asia, eastern Europe, and western Europe, in keeping with an African origin. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change broadly like those that accompanied yet earlier archaeologically detectable behavioral advances. This explanation is problematic, however, because the putative change was in brain organization, not size, and fossil skulls provide little or no secure evidence for brain structure. Other potential objections to a neural advance in Africa 50,000-40,000 years ago or to the wider “Out-of-Africa” hypothesis, include archaeological evidence (1) that some Neanderthals were actually capable of fully modern behavior and (2) that some Africans...

Bible Morality and a Genocidal god of Watery Death?

If the god of the bible is all about free will and repentance, why didn’t the bible god just ask for or offer forgiveness to the earth. Abraham was able to pleads for Sodom, as if a loving kind god would need to be pleaded with in the first place. But god was able to change his mind with the reasoning from a mortal supposedly morality inferior and yet is not the pleading against genocide not the truly moral being, not the god who wishes genocide an obvious moral injustice. But the immoral bible is full of god sanctioned or god ordered genocide. But let’s get back to the time just before the claimed world flood which according to Answers in Genesis was approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Let’s assume Noah was like Abraham and pleaded to god not to destroy all life on earth committing planetary genocide. Who would be the true moral being the one who feels a need to genocide the entire earth or the one pleading for not doing such heinous crime as worldwide genocide? So, like in Genesis 18 let’s change the Abraham for Noah and replace Sodom for Earth to further see how unloving and careless as well as immoral the bible god would be if real. So, let’s start, planet killing god said, “The outcry against of Earth is so great and the sin on Earth so grievous (never explained fully). Then Noah approached the genocidal death by water god and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are...

Damien Marie AtHope’s Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions

Damien Marie AtHope’s Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions   1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief includes infants or babies who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and agnostics who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief (absence of religious motivation).   2. Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief include apatheist atheists who are not interested in gods exist claims agnostics who explicitly rejected that one can make a choice in god beliefs.     3. Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists but unsure they can fully reject a belief that any deities exist, some call this agnostic atheism.   4. Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists either reject the god concept or week conscious rejection of belief any deities some could call this ignostic atheism.     5. Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist or at least one, many deities don’t exist or a strong conscious rejection of belief, one or any deities some could call this antitheist atheism.   6. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes small children who are indoctrinated and don’t know or understand what and why they believe, only believe as told to believe or those who believe in deism, pantheism, vague theism, or somethingism as possibilities of god beliefs (absence of full religious motivation).     7. Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes apatheist theists who kind of believe but are not that interested...

Christianity Believers: Consider This

Do you want truth of just truth devoid beliefs? Before we get started on you I will address a common christian challenge to atheism, how did it come into existence? There is only naturalism, so we have no reason to jump to there must be magic or some intelligent supernatural powers being(s). We don’t have to guess that hard to conclude only natural things are possible, as we know it’s only natural at every turn in every way that we can know. Therefore, the most likely to assume that what is currently unavailable for review would most likely be only nature to think it’s magic it’s ridiculous and baseless. To say we don’t yet understand is not mean magic is real. And not understanding nature, doesn’t make it not nature and just because nature can seem amazing doesn’t make it magic. I assume you are a strong theist not a weak somethingism god (an unspecified belief in some higher force something, maybe a deistic or pantheistic god) believer and most likely some well defined version of Christianity right? You are most likely not believing in a unknown magic possibility before the big bang god somethingism, no, you believe in a god only defined in myths in some holy book right? We arose from evolution not creationism wishful thinking: Creationism (pseudoscience). When you ask how did it come into existence you mostly mean what came before the big bang I am guessing? If so we do know naturalism and have scientific evidence to support it, religion has nothing of the sort for its creationistic myths. We don’t have an ability to see past the big bang yet and we...

Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales.

Religion is the thing you do when playing at really is more important than understanding or being in reality. And belief in god(s) is the thing you believe in when the truth of reality is not really a big concern, but the lies about it are: No Magic No gODs or “No gODs, No Masters” If anyone wants to say you are stupid because you are Atheist and not agnostic at all on the god question tell them about me. I am far from stupid and I actually think it’s the other way around as in one has to be very smart, well enough to construct a sturdy enough argument to reject all gods intellectually as it requires not just a powerful Hypothesis it requires it is rich with evidence as well which I have done as others like me have. It’s not an easy way to defend but don’t worry it is quite defendable: The God Fallacy I am a Realist in Many ways, 1) I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 2) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 3) I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and its projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or...