Relatively new trend in popular religions

Religion is defined etymologically as a mental link between people who share specific beliefs.

A recent trend, as in one that started getting leverage a couple of centuries ago and seems to peak these days, is to present new religions, without the ten commandments, or any moral guidelines, in fact, and present them as a not-religion.

It still answers the same questions, mind you, and goes through the same feelings of unity and quest for sense and meaning as to life, the origin of it all, the how...

Difference being: it's not a religion anymore, it's post-religion: it's smarter because it's new.

And it's pure joy! you can be gay, transexual, promiscuous, any violence on your part is due to surviving because you're fitter.
Also, corporations can patent and own genes, but they're not gods, that's has been, they're just corporations.

All you have to do is admit that you're a monkey.

How's that for a conspiracy in religion?

Oh, right, you have been indoctrinated so deeply, from such a young age, and literally been fed genetically modified korn, sick, malad cattle full of pharmaceuticals and brawndo for so long that it's not a conspiracy, it's not a religion, it's just "the truth"

You know because the ministry of truth said so.

The creative process that made our world is an explosion, and the origin of all living things is soup.
It's true because science, it's demonstrated, you don't even need to demonstrate it, it's been done for you.

This is so sad

Please, consider other cosmologies, just for seven days, which ever ones aren't this one, and see how you feel.
Even the Gnor, the child eater cult of the plains of Kamshatka has more merit, spiritually.
Seriously, just try to conceive something else, even scientology, just for a day.

originally posted by: wisvol
Religion is defined etymologically as a mental link between people who share specific beliefs.

You might have left one important aspect out though (what the religious belief is usually based on ie. fantasy and delusion). Religion is a type of folklore that is defined practically in other ways and associated with other things such as brainwashing, fear based indoctrination, wishful thinking, delusion, money making scam, charlatans, a control mechanism and just making s#it up in general.

If you are inferring that acceptance of secular principles along with a science based understanding of nature is a type of religion, all I can say is...lol.

All you have to do is admit that you're a monkey.

Ape actually. Embrace it, it's what you are. It's what we all are. A species of great Ape that evolved to stand upright with a slightly different nervous system and intellect.

Oh, right, you have been indoctrinated so deeply, from such a young age, and literally been fed genetically modified korn, sick, malad cattle full of pharmaceuticals and brawndo for so long that it's not a conspiracy, it's not a religion, it's just "the truth"

Or studied the evidence and decided.

The creative process that made our world is an explosion, and the origin of all living things is soup.
It's true because science, it's demonstrated, you don't even need to demonstrate it, it's been done for you.

More of an expansion. A process that is still happening. It is based on evidence at least. So you don't believe in quarks? Good for you.

This is so sad

Yes, like when you realise santa isn't real.

Seriously, just try to conceive something else, even scientology, just for a day.

Studied many of them, Scientology is far from the worst. The worst religious brainwashing cults history belong to Christianity. Why not consider for a while the possibility that all religion is bs? Could you do that?

Religion proliferates in countries where societies are dysfunctional and vice versa. This is true sociologically. The least religious nations are the most successful (sociologically). Have you ever wondered why?

a reply to: wisvol

Islam claims to be the fastest growing religion and is therefore arguably the most popular . And Wahhabi followers are coming through thick and fast.

ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram et al prove you wrong.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You are 50% genetically similar to a banana. Therefore, you must have evolved from a banana, right? The science says so, doesn't it?

But banana's are sterile seedless mutants. They are all grown from cuttings of the original plants - for thousands of years. Without human intervention, there would be no edible bananas. They are all essentially 'cloned'.

So, no, we couldn't be evolved from a banana. Banana's have ceased evolving. In the tree of life, they are a dead end branch.

Just saying, err on the side of caution in your pronouncements.

a reply to: wisvol

Take an older religion, take the original Gods name out, use one from the same pantheon that not so opposing, or use a similar plot, or set of believes, and make a new one that could relate to the culture, ether by force or by popular choice.

I wonder if the ancient Greeks had this many problems with Zeus, then the Egyptians did with Ra...O wait, he'd be like Set wouldn't he, the thunder'er thing?

And for such masculine figures of destruction, they are pretty gay...Like literally. I mean, it must of left Set or Horus with an over developed kidney stone after that epic climax Gods.

a reply to: wisvol

Although it's a bit rambling, I sort of agree with you.

Science is a logical way of observing the universe and coming to conclusions based on those observations. Any good scientist should be spending as much time trying to prove themselves wrong as possible. The things we know most about are the things we've been unable to prove wrong the most.

I hear a lot of people say science proves this and that. To those people science is a religion. To the scientists that alter data to fit theories or emotionally defend their pet theories despite significant evidence to the contrary science is religion.

Actual science is not like religion because religion says straight up 'this is how the universe works' because 'god'.

Only the people that say "this is how everything works' because 'science' treat science as religion.

Real science is more like 'well we're pretty sure this is not how this works because this is what all our observations say. Maybe it works this way? I don't know I guess i'd better see if anything out there proves it doesn't work this way.'

And the cycle of learning about the universe continues.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You are 50% genetically similar to a banana. Therefore, you must have evolved from a banana, right? The science says so, doesn't it?

No, the science doesn't say that. It might be better to consult a biologist chr0naut, if you really think we evolved from bananas.

scienceblogs.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We have this evolutionary relationship that you mention though, because we share a common ancestor with bananas. Some time around 1.2 - 1.6 billion years ago.

But banana's are sterile seedless mutants. They are all grown from cuttings of the original plants - for thousands of years. Without human intervention, there would be no edible bananas. They are all essentially 'cloned'.

This is called "selective breeding". What are you trying to say?

eta. The banana is a fascinating story, it seems there are concerns about the popular variety becoming extinct. Thanks for pointing that out chr0naut, but see the link in next post, there are still many healthy varieties of banana.

grist.org...

So, no, we couldn't be evolved from a banana. Banana's have ceased evolving. In the tree of life, they are a dead end branch.

I agree, humans didn't evolve from bananas. So does science.

Just saying, err on the side of caution in your pronouncements.

I certainly did err on the side of caution. We are Apes, not much fear of contradiction there. We certainly aren't bananas.


ps. Nearly every species that has existed is now extinct. This is consistent with evolution. How would extinction of bananas because of problems resulting from selective breeding, disease, sterility, whatever, change this?

pps. looks like the banana will be safe after all Chr0nat.

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You are 50% genetically similar to a banana. Therefore, you must have evolved from a banana, right? The science says so, doesn't it?

No, the science doesn't say that.

We certainly have this evolutionary relationship that you mention though, like we do with every other biological form (to a more or less extent). This is because, as we do with everything else, we share a common ancestor with bananas.

But banana's are sterile seedless mutants. They are all grown from cuttings of the original plants - for thousands of years. Without human intervention, there would be no edible bananas. They are all essentially 'cloned'.

This is called "selective breeding".

So, no, we couldn't be evolved from a banana. Banana's have ceased evolving. In the tree of life, they are a dead end branch.

I agree, humans didn't evolve from bananas. So does science. Well done chr0naut! The banana is a fascinating story, it seems there are concerns about it becoming extinct because of lack of disease resistance and infertility. Thanks for pointing that out chr0naut.

Just saying, err on the side of caution in your pronouncements.

I certainly did err on the side of caution. We are Apes, not much fear of contradiction there.


ps. Nearly every species that has existed is now extinct. This is consistent with evolution. How would infertility in bananas change this?

Can't be selective breeding. Bananas are sterile. They cannot 'breed'.

Also, we and the apes have a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from any existing ape and we are not apes by taxonomy. We are genus homo and closer genetically to Bonobos and Chimpanzees (that are genus pan) than apes (genus gorilla).

There are at least 11 distinct taxonomic species between homo sapiens and just the common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos.

If you want to be taxonomically sloppy, you could also call us fish or single cell eukaryotes. We may have evolved from them, but we are not them.

Actually, human beings have a protein, Beta-Keratin, in their hair that is absent in other primates. Here's a link about the discovery of the protein.

The fact that we carry a protein found in birds and reptiles but not in other primates, calls into question our relationship (genetically) to those primates. Biology has complexities that continually fly in the face of our simple clean and reductionist models.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
pps. looks like the banana will be safe after all Chr0nat.

www.independent.co.uk...

Good news, I like bananas!

originally posted by: chr0naut

Can't be selective breeding. Bananas are sterile. They cannot 'breed'.

The current situation is a result of millennia of selective breeding and propagation by humans. That better?

So what?

Also, we and the apes have a common ancestor.

We and the other great apes.

We didn't evolve from any existing ape and we are not apes by taxonomy.

Of course not. We evolved from the banana, according to your previous post lol.

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnᵻdiː/), also known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human.[1]

We are genus homo and closer genetically to Bonobos and Chimpanzees (that are genus pan) than apes (genus gorilla).

Seems you are being selectively sloppy. Wouldn't the gorilla simply be be genus gorilla, according to your standards?

In a morphological sense it seems we most closely resemble the Orang-utan. Some fascinating similarities there with our evolutionary cousins. There was a paper around at one time that claimed a variation of OOA theory based on it. Fascinating, but not well received for obvious reasons.

There are at least 11 distinct taxonomic species between homo sapiens and just the common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos.

Does one of those taxonomic species include your banana lol?

If you want to be taxonomically sloppy, you could also call us fish or single cell eukaryotes. We may have evolved from them, but we are not them.

No you couldn't, because that would be ridiculous.

Once again...

Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).

australianmuseum.net.au...

The fact that we carry a protein found in birds and reptiles but not in other primates, calls into question our relationship (genetically) to those primates.

No it doesn't. Unless you can demonstrate why.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: chr0naut

Can't be selective breeding. Bananas are sterile. They cannot 'breed'.

The current situation is a result of millennia of selective breeding and propagation by humans. That better?

So what?

Also, we and the apes have a common ancestor.

We and the other great apes.

We didn't evolve from any existing ape and we are not apes by taxonomy.

Of course not. We evolved from the banana, according to your previous post lol.

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnᵻdiː/), also known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes seven extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, the human.[1]

We are genus homo and closer genetically to Bonobos and Chimpanzees (that are genus pan) than apes (genus gorilla).

Seems you are being selectively sloppy. Wouldn't the gorilla simply be be genus gorilla, according to your standards?

In a morphological sense it seems we most closely resemble the Orang-utan. Some fascinating similarities there with our evolutionary cousins. There was a paper around at one time that claimed a variation of OOA theory based on it. Fascinating, but not well received for obvious reasons.

There are at least 11 distinct taxonomic species between homo sapiens and just the common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos.

Does one of those taxonomic species include your banana lol?

If you want to be taxonomically sloppy, you could also call us fish or single cell eukaryotes. We may have evolved from them, but we are not them.

No you couldn't, because that would be ridiculous.

Once again...

Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).

australianmuseum.net.au...

The fact that we carry a protein found in birds and reptiles but not in other primates, calls into question our relationship (genetically) to those primates.

No it doesn't. Unless you can demonstrate why.

Other primates do not carry the protein beta-keratin. Humans do.

Proteins are major building blocks upon which organic structure is based. Although we carry primate traits, which are external expressions of underlying systems, we carry a base biological component that appears to be like a primate trait (hair) but is made of something different than any other primate in micro structure.

As the protein appears in avians and reptiles, we may possibly have inherited the gene/s from them, but not via any other known primate genetic line.

The other possibility is that the genes were a random mutation that spontaneously arose in one of our particular ancestors. If such were the case, what selection pressures could possibly have made it a particularly human protein and to have selected against those un-mutated progenitors who did not carry the protein?

The answer of course is that there is no reason for a mutation like this to cover the entire species, absent of normal selection pressures, and so this wasn't introduced into a population as just a mutation.

It therefore must have been inherited and we obviously didn't get it from other primates, so that suggests that we may represent a branch of the tree of life parallel in development, but only distantly related to, other primates.

This exposes some currently accepted evolutionary 'paths' to be just as bogus as the "evolution of the horse" charts that were produced by Marsh in the 1870's and which were debunked nearly 70 years ago.

There are also other scenarios that fall outside of evolution which may explain it, too, but too many are committed to 'evolution only' mindset that they refuse to face that biological change, over time, is a dirty, chaotic and confusing business.

a reply to: chr0naut

But banana's are sterile seedless mutants.

I believe this is true if you live in a country where Big Banana supplies your local supermarket with fruit.

It is certainly not true where I live. The bananas I buy (and I, too, buy them at my local supermarket most of the time) have seeds and can propagate without human assistance.

The products of BB are available (Dole even has a plantation here) but hardly anybody buys them. Seriously, they taste bloody awful compared with the real thing. Bland, mealy, artificial.

Off topic but I thought it worth mentioning because so many people in the 'developed' world have never eaten a real banana (we call them plantains actually). There are compensations to living in the so-called Third World (though I hasten to add that my country is no banana republic).

PS: I usually edit out minor spelling errors in quotes, but I left yours in because I thought it rather appropriate. Editors know it as the 'greengrocer's apostrophe'.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I certainly did err on the side of caution. We are Apes, not much fear of contradiction there. We certainly aren't bananas.

Yes, all of us are apes....but some of us are both apes AND "bananas." If ya know what I mean. Just saying.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Other primates do not carry the protein beta-keratin. Humans do.

That's it?

Of all of the differences between humans and the other great apes (and between the other great apes themselves) this is what you think disproves our understanding of homnid evolution? What must you think of bipedalism (that is also a method of locomotion in birds, macropods, dinosaurs etc)?

Once again, do you have something explaining in a bit more detail exactly why this would show that humans are a different evolutionary line? Something based on more than speculation of what you think can and cannot happen. If it seems to have merit, it might be worth getting the opinion of evolutionary biologists.

There are also other scenarios that fall outside of evolution which may explain it, too, but too many are committed to 'evolution only' mindset that they refuse to face that biological change, over time, is a dirty, chaotic and confusing business.

Would these "other scenarios" involve things such as spontaneous generation? Or an invisible dragon at the bottom of the garden, casting magic spells...? Or worse, an appeal to a magical and non detectable Santa Claus figure of religious fable? There are different ways to interpret things like the fossil record, but there are no viable evidence based alternatives to the theory of evolution. If you think there are, put them forward.

Biological evolution is a fact that is observable. The further concept of common descent is so overwhelmingly supported most religious observers now realise that if their unnecessary fairy tale god does exist, he uses the process of evolution.

The usual creationist way is of finding some aspect of minutiae to promote (usually misrepresent), then basically argue about a grain of sand while ignoring Mt. Everest. Or finding gaps within present knowledge to place all manner of doubts and claims. It would be an easy thing to overturn the theory of evolution if it really were bogus, simply start finding fossils in the wrong layer. That would do it.

Humans are hominids - also known as "Great Apes". We are apes with an intellect. Whether that fits in with the personal beliefs of some, or not, doesn't seem terribly relevant. The "I ain't no dirty damned ape" crowd are not only amusing but demonstrate that having such an intellect doesn't guarantee an ability to be rational with it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, all of us are apes....but some of us are both apes AND "bananas." If ya know what I mean. Just saying.

I'm hearing ya.

"compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees, I am an ape man"

The Kinks understood it long ago lol.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Then again, Ray didn’t have to look far for inspiration...

a reply to: wisvol

You seem to be confusing science with religion again neighbor. You've then crammed in a rant about people with different sexual identities, and sexuality. Good for you, you made your self an equal opportunity ranter.

As someone who lives life as both a scientist, and a Northern European Polytheist, I spend my life examining the other opportunities, and I've got bad news for you. You need to take your own advice, actually observe and live another path for a week. I doubt you can do that. But try.