Mass Psychosis - How an Entire Population Becomes Mentally Ill

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: whereislogic

Religion when it appears should be called out and kicked to the kerb.

Except apparently when it concerns the pagan religious roots of evolutionary philosophies and myths you possibly believe to be "science". Or the related type of religious behaviour by those described in my initial reply to you. You don't seem interested in that and those philosophical gurus being "called out" as you put it. Let alone considering kicking their unverified philosophies to the kerb. Then I guess it doesn't count as "religion" or religious "dogma and superstition"? You didn't say anything about it so I guess you're not interested in that and them being called out (even when they somewhat do it themselves in their own acknowledgements as quoted in my first reply). Because apparently to you it doesn't count as "religion" or religious "dogma and superstition", regardless of its roots in religion, pagan religious philosophy to be more precise, or the related religious behaviour of those promoting philosophical naturalism, evolutionary philosophies and myths under the marketinglabel "science".

The gist of their philosophies being that they simply swap out 'God did it' with 'Nature did it', in the process attributing godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. Along with its roots in ancient Mother Nature/Mother Earth/Gaia worship and pantheism, a contributing reason why I sometimes use the phrase 'Nature worship in the closet'; they treat the word "nature" as if she's a god and can do anything an intelligent being could do, saying things like 'nature found a way to evolve this or that particular piece of biomolecular machinery', or 'nature designed it first' (someone on ATS said that regarding the brain, no details of course how unintelligent nature, i.e. mindless natural processes actually achieved this remarkable feat of engineering without knowing what it's going towards or trying to achieve, or even having the will to make such a piece of machinery in a way that it can actually function into a larger system of machinery to become a major component in what we call "life").

Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

...

[Footnotes]

Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

a reply to: whereislogic

Natural process is not akin to godlike powers, no need to mention god at all. Natural process can be studied and perhaps understood using the scientific method. There are many mysteries and settled science is anything but settled but throwing a god into the mix is just asinine.
My previous post showed examples of the insanity surrounding religion, you didn't address any of that. Mindless hordes, wailing walls, snake handling, tongue talking...the list is endless. Address that. You can't because you are right there in the mix.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: whereislogic

Natural process is not akin to godlike powers, ...

Indeed, which is why some people should probably give up on attributing the godlike powers of creation, engineering and design (of the machinery and technology that makes up life) to mindless molecules and natural forces. Since it doesn't make much sense, and given the facts described by the article as:

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* [Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.]

It's also rather far-fetched to "say the opposite can happen." (without intelligent intervention, quoting from the article again so the phrase should be taken in that context)

But like TerryMcGuire said:

Saying,''yeah yeah, look at all those sheeple, looks at all those uninformed blind masses.'' That's the easy part.

It gets a lot harder examining one's own far-fetched beliefs or favoured philosophies/ideas. Some people, don't even want to talk about it. Pointing to others and their irrational beliefs to feel more secure about their own perceived rationality regarding these subjects, as if pointing out the irrationality of others shows how much more rational they are. But that doesn't make this behaviour described in the article any less irrational and unreasonable or far-fetched:

In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

But hey, apparently any far-fetched way of thinking is alright when it allows one to ignore the evidence for the purposeful intervention of a Creator (among which is the reality/fact/truth of life being made up of machinery and technology, which is neither an analogy nor a metaphor, and has automatic unavoidable logical implications regarding its origin). And to continue convincing oneself of this little mantra so often used as a meme (for propagandistic purposes):

a reply to: Klassified

Thank you for introducing me to TAOI

The narrator has a voice that you enjoy and very intelligent content.

a reply to: whereislogic

Of course you completely ignored my question and go off on a tangent. You use the word creation as all creationists do yet there is no evidence that anything was created...circular nonsense. There is also no such thing as godlike powers that's just more made up nonsense.

Mindless hordes, wailing walls, snake handling, tongue talking...the list is endless. Address that. You can't because you are right there in the mix.

a reply to: midicon

There were no questions in your commentary, only the type of rhetoric I would expect from a teenager conditioned into a particular type of thinking and reasoning, unable and unwilling to contemplate or discuss anything beyond the scope of what they've been programmed and brainwashed with by this system of things.

The examples of far-fetched beliefs you used have the same source as evolutionary philosophies, namely pagan religious philosophy. And I believe in neither. So there's no reasonable justification for trying to put me in the same box and then demanding that I respond to beliefs I find as unbelievable as you do, in order to ignore, dismiss, distract from and/or ridicule whatever I bring up for your consideration (or twist it into one of your pre-conditioned straw men or attempting to read those into what I'm talking about*).

*: my arguments concerning creation were not circular and your claim that "there is no evidence that anything was created" is just more convenient denial, it's no better than going 'nuh-uh' in response to any solid and proper argument of induction.

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Not that you care...

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: whereislogic

One need only look at the mindless hordes circumnavigating the Kaaba. The Jews nodding at a wailing wall. The tongue talking, snake handling fools and the Christian money spinning evangelists to see insanity in action. ... There are those that believe in demons and devils you couldn't make it up!

False equivalence - Wikipedia

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

Characteristics

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.