The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet It was mere humans who wrote scripture ... You have literally ZERO evidence that scripture was The Word of God

Zero evidence by the enorbet definition of evidence, clearly not everyone's.

Evidence New Testament is true:

1. expected testimony
2. early testimony
3. eyewitness testimony
4. embarrasing testimony
5. excruciating testimony

For any interested in what this means that isn't apparent, it's from Frank Turek and "I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", which is on Roku on CTN Lifestyle, and I watch whenever I don't forget it's on.

Originally Posted by enorbet Science is not king insofar as an absolute monarch type king or a figurehead is.

In 2020 and 2021, an impure neoscience driven by fiscal competition tried to reign in global politics, closing church doors, and murdering old people with heart conditions... many many people got duped by "what you need to know" neoscientific propadanda.

Meanwhile, I just got two cortisone shots: one in each shoulder. I decided to trust the neoscience when it came to adhesive scapulitis, while maintaining distrust when it comes to voldemort-911, mainly because of how unprofessional the lynchmob of neoscientists behaved in discussion or debate of voldemort-911.

It comes down to this question: who owns my body?

There are economists that count a nation's bodies, and factor that number into that nation's capacity for economic production--probably using some fancy economic terms for the same thing; but the point is, from that pov, my body is nothing more than some kind of biounit that belongs to the USA...

What about the Body of Christ? Vines and branches, etc: my body is part of a greater body--who owns this greater body?

Give to Caesar what is Caesar, and give to the Lord, what is the Lord... but what does Caesar actually own? My body? My loyalty? Anything?

So if Casear or any other kind of government or king, tries to tell me to do something with my body--or worse, coerce me to do something with my body--or even worse, force me to do something with my body: all of that is an attempt at sovereignty--like the way an absolute monarch attempts to be sovereign.

In response to voldemort-911, many countries were more forceful than others--the more the forcefulness, the more the absolutism. My "free" country didn't resort to complete despotism, however they did go past persusasion into the realm of coercion: serve voldemort-911 or you cannot work here

A neoscience that resorts to coercion shall never gain my trust, loyalty, respect, or body, no matter how many other technological wonders, such as better batteries, or high-fidelity sound systems, it tries to bribe me with.

When @enorbet defends Science, I believe he is defending a purer form of it than what is practiced today. Yes a pure science would never need to coerce or force, because the results of the repeatable and verifyable research do the convincing.

The fact that so much coercion was used when responding to voldemort-911, is evidence that this "science" of today has fallen off the throne of its own objectivity in a downward spiral towards absolute monarchy, which is why it doesn't even deserve the name science anymore: it is dollar-driven neo-science (not truth-driven science). It needs to be kept in check, less its coersion become even more malignant.

Science and the scientific method has nothing to say about human on human coercion beyond "use X force on a bone of Y composition and Z size and the bone will fracture". While it is possible to employ scientific means to consider political, social, and economic concerns the results are very low probability because of the chaos involved in human interaction. As for medicine, technically that is not a science but a practice, an accumulation of general trials resulting in what has worked on some individuals at some time under some conditions.

Purely scientific conclusions have often been used for ill purposes just as a hammer, a wonderfully simple tool, has been used to build civilizations as well as cave someone's skull in. The Nazi's took Darwin's "survival of the fittest" concept and twisted the meaning to mean some sort of license for brutality even though that's not at all what Darwin's observation reveals.

When I defend Science and the scientific method I am defending an abstract concept about the proven most reliable way to arrive at a logical conclusion that has the best odds of exhibiting any manner of universality. That means if I run thousands of tests on what will occur when introducing a chunk of sodium into water and 98% of the time under varying conditions I conclude the results will involve ignition and a specific chemical change in the water, that the overwhelming majority of times anyone else does this they will get the vewy same results. THAT is reliability.

If, OTOH, I find that given a specific pressure and temperature difference from what is common on Earth this reaction does not occur or occurs in a very different manner, both the falsification that this will occur at standard temperature and pressure and the sidebar positive reinforcement for what does occur at differing conditions are in evidence.

No ancient text claiming that "metal doesn't ever burn" or "fire can not exist in the presence of water" can be expected to be fully accurate outside the conditions under which that conclusion was reached. If an ancient writer claims that a spoken curse was sufficient all on it's own to destroy a powerful civilization in fire and brimstone, that bears rigorous scrutiny since there is no known connetion between speaking different words and specific reactions in Nature. In Men, yes, but naturally occurring, No. It's really as simple and also complicated as that. That is the difference between Science and Majick, between repeatable testing and untestable hearsay .

Perhaps mrmazda it might be wise to consider the value of the statement, reportedly by Carl Sagan but of considerable and logical value no matter who said it, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Mere testimony is by no mean "extraordinary", again, no matter who says them. Words do not qualify as physical testing. They do not qualify as evidence. They only qualify as claims. They lack a necessary ingredient for evidence.

If several people are divided into 2 camps by their opposing claims and you choose one camp because you like those people and dislike the others or because you already hold the same belief as one camp but disagree with the other's, that is neither evidence nor a test. That is prejudice and Confirmation Bias.

I am also uneasy about the degree of coercion that was involved in the covid vaccination campaign. I got vaccinated as soon as I was offered the opportunity, though I had to wait for it (people over 80 got first dibs). It offered me the prospect of getting out of lockdown and back to normal life. In any case, my generation believes in vaccination; we got "done" against everything going from the time that we were babies. But coercing younger people into it not only raised ethical problems but didn't work psychologically. It just fuelled all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories that are still plaguing us today.

I know enorbet won't agree with me on this because of his family history, but I think it would have been better not to go down that route.

Actually hazel, I don't disagree with you on this subject at all. A potent combination of fear, disinformation, overreaction and under-reaction due to the perception of dire emergency and bad or missing information, and let's not leave out profit motive, subverted anything remotely logical let alone scientific.

As for my family history, Patty was already in a hospital in the Virgin Islands for other reasons which undoubtedly increased her vulnerability but was exposed to Covid by caregivers who were not vaccinated, not tested, and didn't wear masks nor was Patty given a mask. It was that confluence of events and conditions that apparently killed her. In short, no measures were taken to insure a healthful environment.

As a result FWIW government officials there cited her case as a claxon call to require much more stringent controls over caregivers especially in hospitals. I'm not certain but IIRC nurses were required to be vaccinated after this tragic event. That seems not only "too little, too,late" but a bit beside the point.

By contrast my local doctor's office here in The States, did not require masks or vaccination of every visitor/patient. They simply took everyone's temperature wanting to enter, because it doesn't really matter what method one chose to avoid Covid, only whether or not you likely were free from infection. That response seemed much more logical, less heavy handed, and far more effective to me. Doing nothing as was the case in the Virgin Islands hospital, made no sense.

Actually, @enborbet, "Corona" (and "Rhino") viruses are among the most ubiquitous and contagious viruses available on this planet – the source of "the common cold," and the reason why it is so "common." Your loved one could have encountered it almost anywhere – literally, "it was in the air." And, if her immune system was already compromised for any number of reasons, these viruses can unfortunately be very swift and vicious.

I personally do not believe that any of these "vaxxes = mRNAs" were ever actually "effective," and a mask certainly would have no effect on a nanometer-sized virus particle. (Example: "can you 'smell smoke' while wearing a mask?" Yes, you can.)

We have never been able to produce a [conventional ...] "vaccine" against them, and I have no confidence in the "mRNA" theories either. These viruses mutate constantly, and can even "swap" large amounts of their RNA at one time. Your body actually fights them mostly using zinc, which interferes with their replication process without being "specific."

May your loved one now be at Peace.

I have my own opinions about the Bible and about a great many other "ancient religious texts," of which I have many in my library. I usually keep my opinions to myself and I generally ask that others extend to me the same courtesy. If you believe that the Bible is "the Word of God," infallible and so-on, exactly as you see it in "your" version of the book, then "I am not going to take you on." And, I cordially ask that "you do not try to take me on!" I'm interested in hearing your opinions, but please stop short of trying to pressure me to accept them – or even to judge them.

I do draw a certain line at ideas such as "Creation Science." To me, that is "Very Black White." Creation is, fundamentally, a religious concept, and it ought to stay there. If you start looking too hard for "scientific evidence" of your personal beliefs, you're engaging in confirmation bias, and so you are quite likely to "find" whatever it is that you are looking for. Your problems begin when you try to assert that your findings are "scientific proof," while pursuing the idea with "religious conviction." Science doesn't work that way. And, in my opinion, Religion just winds up making itself looking very silly when it tries.

It has no need to try. You are frankly wasting your time. "There are at least three distinct lanes on this Road of Life. Stick to your lane. You have nothing to prove to anyone who is driving in any other one. But, on this highway, you can even drive in more than one lane at the same time!"

"Extraordinary claims," if made in the religion lane, do not require and might not expect "extraordinary [physical ...] evidence." The "rules of engagement" there are very different. Religion thereby often ventures into territory in which such "evidence" does not and could not possibly exist. Maybe the Book of Job said it best ... (and it is not the only ancient book that did).

Thank you for your kind words, sundialsvcs, even though we disagree about much of the rest. She was not diagnosed with a rhino (cold) virus. It was specifically Covid 19. No Covid 19 wasn't as ruthless and deadly as the so-called Spanish Flu but it was substantially more deadly in what the virii responsible for what is now the Common Cold but evolved as most viruses do to just temporarily weaken the host, not kill them.

Regarding mRNA effectiveness against viruses the evidence is very strong that they not only work, but far more effectively than any other vaccine. We will surely see a very significant expansion in it's use. I have personal experience with mRNA treatment. My exWife, Patty, was diagnosed with Hepatitis roughly 12 years ago while we were still married. Shortly after we divorced. While separated she went through the then only available treatment, Chemotherapy. That all her hair fell out was the least of the bad side effects. The worst was it didn't defeat the virus. I don't know why they didn't ask me to come in to check if I was infected but they didn't and apparently it went on undiagnosed for around 10 years.

I found out a pharmaceutical company was recruiting patients to test an experimental treatment involving an mRNA based treatment. I qualified, signed up, and in 3 months with hardly and side effects I tested 100% free of the virus. They double checked, having me tested again 6 months later and thankfully I was still 100% free so obviously none escaped to grow back a colony. At the time one dose of the mRNA treatment was valued at over $10,000.00 USD and I took 3 doses, one each month for 3 months. It is my understanding it now it sells for a fraction of a fraction of that cost.

As for masks, it is highly uncommon for free-floating Corona virii to long survive in the air. This is part of why being outside is quite safe. Most virii in enclosed space air ride on droplets of moisture from our lungs in exhaled breath. Masks do stop a very high percentage of those droplets which are very much larger than virii or smoke particles which is exactly why doctors and health givers commonly wear surgical grade masks when involved in surgery or when treating patients with respiratory problems including infections and have done so daily for decades and continue to. It is also why the Virgin Islands cracked down on healthcare workers.

Masks can't stop every infection but they are by no means ineffective. It's simply wise to "bet with The House".

It's impossible to know if Patty would have died or survived had hospital employees worn masks and/or been tested for Covid. There was no control sample. FWIW I took no action against the hospital or any individual worker there, not did my Son who was with her until her death. Also FWIW they weren't going to let my Son visit her at first but he insisted. They recanted but only if he wore what was basically like a Hazmat suit. It's all about betting according to the odds.

@enorbet: I'm not going to say anything more on this subject in either direction. "It's too personal, now." For me, this subject is now closed.

recanting the "murder" accusation of my last post--there really isn't evidence of this, as this implies premeditation--which I pray was not the case... please write it off as still grieving for my two buddies who had heart conditions...

but there is a kind of enlightenment era idealism to @enorbet's description of science, with its scientific method that uses repeatable and verifiable experiments subject to peer review: the purity of this method is only possible in public domain science. But there is little public domain science; what is practiced today is proprietary science. Proprietary (neo)science doesn't share with peers for review, less they steal the proprietary technology; so the peer review has to be limited to peers serving the same interests, thereby degrading this part of the method. How can other scientists verify and repeat secret proprietary experiments?

When faculty of a university science department, such as physics or chemistry, are not allowed to discuss their projects with one another because of serving different fundors, we have a crisis in the integrity of science.

And if the Caesars of today are going to use these neoscientific reports (which don't share the proprietary data, but just give their proclamations) to mandate biochemical changes to the all-natural biome of my body, then they are transgressing onto something beyond the scope of their domain, as my body is infinitely connected to the vine, which makes this domain within the scope of faith, spirituality, religion, metaphysics and so-on, where we are generally agreed that its best not to force our opinions upon one another in this extremely personal domain, which is why I accuse the neoscientists of trying to make a religion out of their science of proprietary sects: they are pushing their own cleansing rituals, which differ from my own.

Surely those things exist, slac-in-the-box, and probably always have, but so does free intercourse and that always has existed, too. My view of the Scientific Method is idealism exactly because it is an idea, an abstract high-water-mark goal, like honesty. Most of us see honesty as a basic and important demand for high moral fiber, but everyone has committed some form of deception, even bald faced lies, even if it's just to those we perceive as enemies or an imminent threat. Personally I'd rather say nothing than lie but I'm certain I have slipped sometimes.

This is just the nature of living with large numbers of people, and that applies to people practicing Science as well. There are degrees of adherence to principle. Nobody is absolute. It doesn't mean there is some general trend away from seriously principled practitioners in any profession. Being still heavily involved in study, perhaps I am witness to a wider range of scientists than many, but we all sometimes have a turn being a blind man trying to understand an elephant by touching just parts..

In my practice of sustainable organic gardening, I keep learning how to achieve good crops with less effort and expense, by joining in with the other living things in the soil: most living things have immune systems--like mushrooms.

If I leave the manure I collected and composted spread out wide with lots of surface area for a few days, it picks up all the natural fungus spores in the air. If I then lay out mats of straw, and recollect this now innoculated manure and mound it up on the hay mats a foot high, get it all just slightly less wet than soggy, and cover it with more mats of straw, and wait two weeks, before uncovering, and distributing around the garden just an inch on top of all the beds: inky cap mushrooms take over and pop up all around--but they do something that the plants love, and I get increases of 20% yields in my harvests, simply by letting a little nature take over. The inky caps have their own immune system, which actually protect the soil from harmfuls.

If I just went in and tilled up all the soil, I would be dislocating millions of homes. Creatures that thrive one inch below the surface perish 5 inches below the surface. So I don't till. During winter, I allow natures covercrops to spring up in my beds: the clover and the wild mustards are legumes and have the nitrogen fixating root relationships with some other creatures. In spring I loosen with hand cultivator, and just pull up the covercrop roots and all, leaving the living zones in tact.

I'm growing bamboo for irrigation, but the horses keep eating it; in the interim, I do depend on some manufactured drip lines, which lay out over the beds, above the mushroom innoculated horse compost, but below a layer of straw mulch. This system has only improved through the decades. The more I understand the relationships with the other lives around them, the more my garden thrives.

So, how do I do this with my body? I personally believe there are relationships with creatures that live on and in us, whose immune systems do the disease protecting... allies to my health. Messing with these sacred relationships by sterilizing everything around murduring trillions of allies, is folly, and misunderstands healthy alignments.

These sacred relationships go on and on and on, ad infinitum: hence, I view it all as an infinite body, and husbandry as the art of caring for this infinite body. As mentioned prior -- I don't think we need a name for this body... just an understanding that we are in relationship with it, whether we like it or not.

Relationships. Friendships. Partnerships. They're all ships, and thus maintenance, navigation, and morale are essential factors to sailing or sinking. When it comes to the infinite ship, I don't think bleaching the decks is a good idea.

Health has balance alignments between ones local self, and our infinite self. Our infinite self will continue trying to get the attention of the local selves, until they get it; eventually, with infinity to keep trying with, everybody gets it.

The relationships you eloquently allude to are a great example of Evolution. We have relationships with other lifeforms insofar as we evolved with them so we all adjusted over time to try to get along. Hazel here once noted that viruses that start out deadly soon evolve into less deadly forms because, much like the fallacy of fictional Vampires, it's wiser to keep hosts alive rather than require wholesale murder. There are of course predators and prey but the vast majority that survive for many generations employ, quite by chance (survival of the fittest), cooperation, collaboration and in some cases, cohabitation.

Slac, did you know that shaggy ink-caps are good to eat? So you would have an extra benefit of your method.

One argument for vaccination is that it works with the body's protective systems, whereas killing infections with antibiotics kills lots of useful bugs as well and leave the patient with a completely different microflora.