New religion: Palynkaism

Originally posted by black beetle
But Rabbie my trusty feer,

Please forget not that Nazism and Stalinism are religions too. And everybody who follows blindly a doctrine is a religionist.

It seems to me that zozozozo says simply that the Human has to think all the time and that he has to evaluate everything on his own instead of following blindly a doctrine no matter of its origin. ...[text shortened]... uld gain if all that money was a global expenditure for the common wealth as zozozozo poses it😵

yes you are correct beetle in the evaluation of the things that you state, However zozos problem was that he had not put into practice the fine suggestions that you give. for example, he stated that he could make the world a better place, his solution, to rid those poor ignorant religionists of their delusions, when pressed on how this might make the world a better place, he states that taking away their hope will free up hospital wards and save money. this type of thinking fails on every level, for it is based on assumptions from the very beginning, and as you and I are aware, anything based on an assumption is destined to be 'scorched', in the ensuing debate. What amazed me the most, was this appeal to 'the God of science', that messianic savior of the new morality that has caused more ignorance and misery than it is possible to imagine.

a wise old hermit used to live alone in the hills, formulating his sense of self and daily meditating on the wonders of science. after a while he left his home and descended into the valley, in order to impress upon the populace the merits of his new morality. he went to the market town and asked the people, 'what is science?', 'it is technology' some muttered, 'it is the equation energy equals mass times the speed of light squared', said others, 'its is the solution to our problems', said others, 'how so', the old hermit inquired? it has helped us to progress', to progress to what, asked the hermit, ' from the shackles of religion', 'now we are able to determine for ourselves our own path, we make our own destiny', 'what has been the result of this new found freedom', 'we are now able to deforest the planet at an even higher rate than ever before, we have depleted the fishing stocks, to a level in which they may never recover, not only that, we are facing unprecedented catastrophic flooding due to the adverse effects of greenhouse gases and the melting of Polar icecaps and a whole in the ozone that would fry your barbecue in seconds, 'its quite powerful', this god of science, 'oh yes, we are churning out more weapons than food at present, enough to destroy every man women and child many times over, 'have you nothing good to say, ? the hermit stepped out into the open, filled his lungs with air and boldly exclaimed at the top of his voice' Science is dead, I have killed it!'

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]for you yourself have stated that you have no alternative to give them, nothing?"
why do i have to figure out an alternative? Im creating extra time for these ppl, they can do whatever they like with it. If id get 1 hour extra each day id probably just use (not waste) it on sleeping. But this will result in more productivity during the day, which c stead of following blindly a doctrine no matter of its origin.[/b]"
Yes, absolutely![/b]

why do you think that we are unaware of these things? any theist worth his salt is perfectly aware of, or should be, of science, the evolutionarily hypothesis, RNA world theory, Big bang theory whatever other scientific theories you wish to postulate upon and although they may seem reasonable to you, that does not mean that they do so to others.

you made the assertion that you could make the world a better place, by ridding it of religion, yet you had nothing with which to supplant it, nothing, center of a doughnut, zilch zeeeero! but i do not hold this against you, it is a formidable task, but if you are going to look at the ails of religion, them you must also look in your own backyard as well. why don't we spend a fraction of the cost of weapons development in helping others, why doesn't bill gates stand on street corners giving away copies of windows XP for free?. does the religions decide what you do with your money? then why should you decide what they do with theirs. I myself loath the opulence of religious organizations, but i must concede that its their money and they are free to distribute it on how they see fit, are they not. what if everyone stuck to the Biblical morality, to desist from premarital sex and homosexuality, or to desist from dodgy blood transfusions and the use of illicit intravenous drugs. what would have been the effects on the aids pandemic? prevention is better than cure, anyday! and guess what, this type of morality doesn't cost anything!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sociology has a lot to answer for.

Seriously, though, social Darwinism predates Darwin by, oh, millenia. Where science has been helpful in increasing the body count is in the supply of lethal technology.

its the prevalence and extent of this bastardization of Darwinian theory that has amazed me. its everywhere from economics to criminality, pathetic!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are correct beetle in the evaluation of the things that you state, However zozos problem was that he had not put into practice the fine suggestions that you give. for example, he stated that he could make the world a better place, his solution, to rid those poor ignorant religionists of their delusions, when pressed on how this might make th ...[text shortened]... claimed at the top of his voice' Science is dead, I have killed it!'

"However zozos problem was that he had not put into practice the fine suggestions that you give. for example, he stated that he could make the world a better place, his solution, to rid those poor ignorant religionists of their delusions, when pressed on how this might make the world a better place, he states that taking away their hope will free up hospital wards and save money."
More room in the hospitals is just a small part. Mainly the church money can go to usefull things. Also religious ppl will get more time, to use on other things (usefull things prefered).

"'we are now able to deforest the planet at an even higher rate than ever before, we have depleted the fishing stocks, to a level in which they may never recover, not only that, we are facing unprecedented catastrophic flooding due to the adverse effects of greenhouse gases and the melting of Polar icecaps and a whole in the ozone that would fry your barbecue in seconds, 'its quite powerful', this god of science, 'oh yes, we are churning out more weapons than food at present, enough to destroy every man women and child many times over,"
lol, whenever you talk about science you only give negative examples. Science can also be used AGAINST all these negative things.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why do you think that we are unaware of these things? any theist worth his salt is perfectly aware of, or should be, of science, the evolutionarily hypothesis, RNA world theory, Big bang theory whatever other scientific theories you wish to postulate upon and although they may seem reasonable to you, that does not mean that they do so to others.
...[text shortened]... ion is better than cure, anyday! and guess what, this type of morality doesn't cost anything!

"whatever other scientific theories you wish to postulate upon and although they may seem reasonable to you, that does not mean that they do so to others."
but there are some basic evidence that make these theorys strong, more reasonable.
the religious farytales have none evidence of any kind to rely on, nothing, center of a doughnut, zilch zeeeero! (sorry i used this, it was funny:p)

"why don't we spend a fraction of the cost of weapons development in helping others, why doesn't bill gates stand on street corners giving away copies of windows XP for free?."
I agree that alot of money should be used on other things then it is now.
I dont want to decide what the church should do with thier money, i dont want there to be churches, so the ppl cant give any money to it. They can decide how they spend it themselves. Everyone could invest it in thier own hapiness, every (religious) person a little bit more happy, wouldnt that make the world a better place?:p

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]whatever other scientific theories you wish to postulate upon and although they may seem reasonable to you, that does not mean that they do so to others."
but there are some basic evidence that make these theorys strong, more reasonable.
the religious farytales have none evidence of any kind to rely on, nothing, center of a doughnut, zilch zeeeero (religious) person a little bit more happy, wouldnt that make the world a better place?:p[/b]

actually my friend, it may be argued that these theories are religious in themselves, for example, it is well known and understood that life cannot arise from a sterile environment, that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe, that as yet, science has been unable to recreate even a blade of grass, that the fossil record does not show a gradual migration from one species to another, that attempts to recreate a primitive atmosphere and formulate life from amino acids have proved quite futile etc etc etc. ( i have spent so much time debating these things that i grow weary in myself)

you say that religion is fairy tales, but look at the practicality of it that i outlined with regards to aids, if persons had adopted this morality, it would have quickly been contained to a few individual;s and would have died out, so you cannot dismiss it sio easily.

actually statistics show, ( i have to laugh at this), that religious people lead happier and more purposeful lives than the non religious!

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]whatever other scientific theories you wish to postulate upon and although they may seem reasonable to you, that does not mean that they do so to others."
but there are some basic evidence that make these theorys strong, more reasonable.
the religious farytales have none evidence of any kind to rely on, nothing, center of a doughnut, zilch zeeeero ...[text shortened]... (religious) person a little bit more happy, wouldnt that make the world a better place?:p[/b]

that's the problem about this type of thinking, it simple meism, my own personal happiness is paramount. its all about me!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually my friend, it may be argued that these theories are religious in themselves, for example, it is well known and understood that life cannot arise from a sterile environment, that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe, that as yet, science has been unable to recreate even a blade of g ...[text shortened]... h at this), that religious people lead happier and more purposeful lives than the non religious!

"it is well known and understood that life cannot arise from a sterile environment"
sterile as in bactrie-free? why not?

"that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,"
all the atoms in the universe? i doubt it, there are quite some atoms.
This origin of life had a long timeframe to occur in tho.
Im not saying lucky coincidence was not involved.

"that the fossil record does not show a gradual migration from one species to another,"
isnt this because fossils are best preserved between different layers of the earth, and these layers dont occur each year?

"that attempts to recreate a primitive atmosphere and formulate life from amino acids have proved quite futile"
futile? hell no. Knowing how it didnt happen is also knowing.
This research is quite usefull, you will talk different when they do figure out how to let life create itself...this is kinda hard because our simple human lifes dont last as long as life had the time to create itself back in the days.

"you say that religion is fairy tales, but look at the practicality of it that i outlined with regards to aids, if persons had adopted this morality, it would have quickly been contained to a few individual;s and would have died out, so you cannot dismiss it sio easily."
i dont understand?

"actually statistics show, ( i have to laugh at this), that religious people lead happier and more purposeful lives than the non religious!"
lol, purposeful...they have no idea:p

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for example, it is well known and understood that life cannot arise from a sterile environment,

Well known by creationists maybe but the rest of the world disagrees.

that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,
Who calculated those odds and how?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,
Who calculated those odds and how?[/b]

I think its imposible to even imagine how many atoms there are. Such numbers go way beyond our understanding.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well known by creationists maybe but the rest of the world disagrees.

[b]that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,
Who calculated those odds and how?[/b]

actually it was demonstrated by a scientist, Louis Pasteur

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well known by creationists maybe but the rest of the world disagrees.

[b]that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,
Who calculated those odds and how?[/b]

the rest of the world, what the heck are you talking about, 'the rest of the world', are you another that has the audacity to state that he can think for others? for goodness sake, listen to beetle, the most that you can possibly state is that in your mind, get it, in your mind, in your world, according to your knowledge and perceptions, according to your evaluation, otherwise what you are referring to is not knowledge but opinion, and guess what whitey, not your opinions, but the opinions of others!

Originally posted by zozozozo
"[b]it is well known and understood that life cannot arise from a sterile environment"
sterile as in bactrie-free? why not?

"that the mathematical odds of life having arisen by chance are more than all the atoms in the universe,"
all the atoms in the universe? i doubt it, there are quite some atoms.
This origin of life had a long timeframe purposeful lives than the non religious![/b]"
lol, purposeful...they have no idea:p[/b]

whether they occur in different layers or not is neither here nor there, for according to New scientist magazine there are more than 100 million extant fossils, which do not show, let me state that again, do not show a gradual migration from one species to another, thus the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented.

what it boils down to is this, that the very basis of scientific thought, cannot be demonstrated nor is it subject to the scientific model, therefore science is a 'belief', like any other, but for some reason, and it remains elusive to me at present, it has taken on the guise of credibility, people have put their trust and hopes in it, have banded adjectives around like plausible and unfurled their banners and proclaimed postulations as if they are established facts, nothing could be further from the truth, and like Frankensteins monster, it seems destined to consume its creator.

i myself have grown weary from discussing these things and have resolved in my own mind, that if you want to accept them then that is fine, but please have the decency and openness of mind to examine their plausibility rather than cling to dogmas and postulations as if they are some type of irrefutable and incontrovertible proof that you know better than others and are therefore able to elucidate for them, for as beetle has consistently shown, nothing could be further from the truth, the best that we can hope for, is a correct evaluation of these things with our own minds and an attempt to draw correct conclusions accordingly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually it was demonstrated by a scientist, Louis Pasteur

Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)

Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the emergent growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[8] but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex ovo).

evolution doesn't claim spontaneous generation either.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)

Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of microorganisms, and that the emergent growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[8] but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex ovo).

evolution doesn't claim spontaneous generation either.

Hey Zalanzi dude, where you been, were you excommunicated for your heresy?