Jump to content

Apotheosis

Members
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Apotheosis

  1. Again, language cannot convey meaning where there is no underlying experience . Do you think a blind person who has never seen can have any idea of what a word like "red" is intended to communicate? No, he cannot, and no possible language can convey it to him.
  2. No, you couldn't. It's fiction, it's forbidden, it's dangerous, or it's impossible except to a small elite. This story, which is a lie, has been told from the beginning. How's that been working out for humans? When you speak like this, when you express such thoughts you are here, you are unwittingly acting as a conduit for them. These thoughts are not human, in the true sense. They don't originate with the atman. They just pop into the "head" and find verbal expression, and if any judgment occurs between the two, it's judgment according false criteria and patterns of thought which have also been implanted in our samsaric complex. This is a given, since having found ones true self, discovered ones free will, and gained control over the content of ones mind so as to have ones own thoughts, one would invariably also have encountered and unmasked these "dark powers". Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. If and when you find the truth, you will know it. But how you will know it, that can't be expressed in language to those who don't already have gnosis.
  3. If you sit on your ass and never develop your consciousness to the required levels, which is true of 99.999% of people.
  4. Right. The Psalms literally say, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; my ears you have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering you did not require. ... I delight to do your will, O my God, and your law is within my heart”. That anyone entertains the notion that the Father sacrificed the Son to himself is mind-boggling. Dawkins rightly sees this as absurd. Jesus was only "sacrificed" in the sense that his dying was an inevitable part of his mission.
  5. Jesus is like Moses, come to Egypt to wrest us out of bondage to Pharaoh and bring us to the Promised Land. Moses did not pay Pharaoh shit. He unleashed hell and drowned his army in the Red Sea. In pop culture terms, Jesus came into the Matrix, showed us the way to reality, and beat the snot out of the Architect and made him his bitch to open up the path.
  6. Your problem is Western Christianity. It has poisoned your ability to understand the Gospel. Your basic ideas about sin and atonement have been shaped by a culture whose Medieval theologians were heavily influenced by Roman juridical thought and a development, going back to Anselm of Canterbury and his satisfaction theory of atonement, that reached its final expression in the Protestant Reformers with their idea of penal substitution. We all know how it goes in its popular form: Sin is a legal transgression for which God chooses to ordain punishment. Jesus' death acts as a substitutionary payment of this legal debt on our behalf. Justification is a forensic act by which a divine judge imputes Christ's righteousness to the unrighteous by way of a legal loophole. In Anselm it is a debt against God's honour that Jesus pays through his divinity, but for the Reformers it is Christ who is punished in our place, a vessel upon which God pours out his wrath. If this seems ruthless, even absurd, to you, that's because it is. This was not the view of the Fathers, and it is not the narrative of traditional Eastern Christianity. To the contrary, their starting point of Biblical typology is not the sin offerings or the scapegoat but the one Paul and John offer us in the New Testament: the Passover lamb. And guess what? The Passover sacrifice is not a sin offering. It is not a payment of a debt with blood. Indeed, the Eastern view of sin and salvation is different. Where we think of it in legal terms, they see it ontologically: sin is a sickness that cuts us off from the divinity and in need of a cure. Atonement, then, has another meaning, popularised under the name of "Christus Victor". What Jesus accomplished in his death and resurrection was, in effect, to use his humanity to enter into death and Hell like a virus, a nuclear bomb of divine power, defeat it, throw open its gates, and in his resurrection and entry into Heaven and enthrionement at the right hand of the Father, conquer the Devil and become, as divine man, king. The Eucharist is not a payment of blood debt but a lifting up of his body to God and distibution of the blood that, like the Passover lamb's, marks us, regenerates us, and saves us from death. And, to turn to the scapegoat, the goat upon whom the sins were laid was not offered up to the Father but to the Devil, Azazel. The New Testament says Christ has ransomed us. We are not ransomed from God but from Death, Hell and Satan. It is not God but the "god of this world", Satan, who is the accusing legalist who demands blood and death for sin. The Fathers understood this too, that the Devil had been tricked to kill Jesus as a sacrifice, not fully understanding that the Messiah was God himself in the flesh and what that would mean if he died. This is called the "ransom theory of atonement".
  7. "Social stigma" is only going to fortify the position of people like me. I not only do not give a fuck, but I'm positively invigorated by giving the middle finger to the herd. The only reason I wouldn't be put in front of a firing squad laughing in their faces is that I'd chew their faces off with my teeth before I'd ever be caught alive. They really don't understand the mindset of the free human being.
  8. History already dealt with the problem of impenetrable body armour.
  9. I'll go further: A) Pregnant women are less likely to have been vaccinated in the first place because of hesitancy. And here's the real kicker: B) Women who are still carrying their child and have not suffered a miscarriage are less likely to be vaccinated. If you're vaccinated and conceived, you probably lost it in the first trimester, if you haven't been outright sterilised.
  10. No. The term "virus" has particular connotations. The viral theory of disease is not just about the existence of RNA sequences is protein shells. It's about their nature as infectious causal mechanisms of disease that make human beings contagious to one another and that this alleged fact makes diseases preventable or treatable via quarantines, vaccines and antivirals. As for me, I'm arguing that their existence has never been demonstrated, that they remain unobservable theoretical entities postulated to explain some set of actually observable phenomena, and that there exist other comprehensive explanations of the very same set of phenomena. I will also argue that there is not only an astonishing lack of experimental (not anecdotal, "common sense" or epidemiological!) evidence for the hypothesis that viral infection makes human beings contagious to one another but that in many cases the proposed mechanism of infection has been effectively falsified, such as is the case with influenza. The complete failure of experiments to transmit influenza from one person to another is simply baffling if the viral hypothesis is true for the disease. Of course it is always possible to invent ad hoc hypotheses to explain away results which otherwise imply falsification. Viral theory is of course built upon such foundations. Namely, for some virus v and set S of symptoms, 1) V can be present without any member of S ("asymptomatic infections") and 2) Members of some subset of S can be present without v ("it's a different disease with similar or identical symptoms") So v is neither necessary nor sufficient for S. This is obviously true for "COVID-19". Its symptoms are not unique to it, and a great proportion of the allegedly infected are asymptomatic. This inconvenient fact is one reason why Koch's postulates cannot be fulfilled. Virologists then argue away 1) by way of "multiple causal factors" and complain that Koch's postulates are too strict for this. But 2) implies the viral factor is not even necessary for the effect. Terrain theory would argue that there are other "causal factors" which are, quite contrary to viruses, may be both necessary and sufficient. Regardless, even if viral theory were true of some diseases, this would need to be demonstrated in each case. No. There are many studies and papers that show there exist phenomena, which are interpreted to be effects of a virus, which are associated with subsequent or antecedant cytopathic effects on healthy living cells.
  11. I'll do one better. I'll quote your post with the link. From the article: Proof of the "viral germ theory" or existence of viruses is, then, impossible according to the author's beliefs. You endorsed this article. You said it "neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact." Yet the author emphatically states several times that proof of their existence is not just lacking but in principle impossible. So, now that we've proved the existence of this logical inconsistency, what is your answer? Why are you inconsistent? Is it a problem of memory? Is it a problem of the intellect? Or is it because you are a dishonest sack of shit with an agenda? Do you even read what you present to us?
  12. Anyone who uses expressions like "there's no evidence" or "there's no credible evidence" is full of shit. One can adduce "evidence" for any meaningful statement, and the "credibility" of "evidence" is by definition a subjective judgment, so it may very well be credible to someone.
  13. You referred us to an article, an article YOU gave your approval to, which repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms the author's own belief that "viral germ theory" CANNOT be proved. Yet here you are telling us that "viral germ theory" is something PROVEN. Is this a lapse of memory? Is it an incapacity for logical consistence? Or are you just a dishonest piece of shit with an agenda?
  14. Qualifications are not a substitute for argument. Self-serving standards of "evidence" are not a substitute for existential proof. Unprovable claims are not a substitute for truth. "Probability" is not a substitute for knowledge of the particular. You clearly are not well-read in academic philosophy or the philosophy of science.
  15. Answer the question. Which of Frederick and Relman's postulates do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease or is incompatible a terrain theory of disease? Since the world has "moved on" since the days of Robert Koch, which modern criteria for supposedly demonstrating the existence of a virus as the causal agent of a disease do you think are logically sufficient for the purpose? Do you beat your wife with your belt or your fists? I'm not the one claiming to have "explained" the symptomatic phenomena associated with the idea of "chicken pox". That's the germ camp. I will tell you that 1. Chicken pox is overwhelmingly a childhood disease that sets on within a few years of weaning from breast milk. 2. Administration of breast milk can alleviate the symptoms of chicken pox. 3. English milk maids usually didn't get smallpox. Unlike your theories, these are facts. And their usefulness is totally theory independent. Lol. Do you even understand HOW Pasteur achieved his results "demonstrating" that rabies was transmitted by bite via a virus in saliva? HE FAILED to give healthy dogs rabies when he took saliva from rabid dogs and INJECTED it into the animal's bloodstreams (because that's a "realistic" model of a dog bite ... *facepalm*). So he then injected it in massive quantities DIRECTLY into their brains. This was his "proof". And you are mentally retarded if you accept it as such. And this is exactly reminiscent of pedophile boy rapist Gajdusek's "discovery" of kuru being caused by eating diseased brains which won him a Nobel Prize. He FAILED to cause kuru in monkeys by feeding them diseased brains. He FAILED to cause it by injecting them with diseased brain tissue. So he bored holes into their skulls and deposited the brain tissue directly into their brains. They then went mad and died. This was his "proof" that kuru was an infectious disease caused by consuming diseased brains. Apparently the Nobel Prize committee are as conversant in epistemology as you lot.
  16. Yes, this is the typical hand waving response of dogmatists in the face of skeptics to the fact that they cannot prove the truth of their assertions or demonstrate the reality of their scientific storytelling. They mention it in passing, bury it under a mountain of emotive language, and somehow think they've dealt with the problem. They have not. Evidence is just data interpreted in light of the theory which is claimed to best explain that data. Evidence is not theory-independent. Evidence doesn't establish the truth of that theory's hypotheses. And judging of the "best explanation" presupposes a theory of abduction. And, dearest Bayesians, even if we could absolutely quantify probabilities of the truth of hypotheses as functions of their available evidence, which is a rather preposterous idea, this would give us nothing more than a frequency of being correct given such evidence; it would still tell us nothing about the truth status of the particular case. If you want to call that "the rational degree of belief" in your story, go ahead, it has no demonstrable relationship to the truth of the story other than the frequentist one. Are your quora advisors logical positivists? No shit, we can play word games like this all day long. Words like "proof of existence" can be defined any which way we like to "prove the existence" of anything whatsoever. The question here is, how does this proof relate to reality. And there's a rather significant ontological distinction between a fucking continent and an invisible theoretical entity postulated to causally explain "disease" and all the instrumental phenomena you are putting forward as your "testable conditions" for sufficient evidence of "existence". I don't need your "virus" to be real in order to account for any of this.
  17. The world has moved on? Logically sufficient criteria for establishing a causal relationship, which even Koch's postulates fail to be if we are strict, do not "move on". But let's take a look at some "updated" replacements for Koch's postulates. Let's take Fredericks and Relman's postulates form their 1996 paper Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates. Which of these do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease, or more to the point, is incompatible with something like a terrain theory of disease? I will say none.
  18. Yes, the existence of viruses as conceived by virology is, just like that of historical speciation via evolution, the objects of the Standard Model of particle physics, the big bang of Big Bang cosmology, or the notion that the Sun is a giant ball of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, a theoretical hypothesis. Viruses are not directly observable ; they are theoretical entities whose nature and existence is hypothesised with the intention of causally explaining a set of actually observable phenomena, whose members in this case include such things as the recurrence of a particular set of symptoms in different organisms, cell lysis induced by introducing an "isolate" derived from a sick organism into a culture, structures found in electron micrographs of such cultures, RNA or DNA sequences constructed from such cultures, etc., many of which are themselves known only as instrumental effects. The existence of viruses cannot be logically deduced from any of these facts or an aggregation of them, and one cannot prove their existence. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
  19. Someone saying he believes in "God" tells me little. That word is not sufficient to identify its intended referent.
  20. GeoffB doesn't understand what proof is. He doesn't understand epistemology. He doesn't understand the nature of scientific theorising and how it relates to reality. And he doesn't understand logical inference. Nobody who did would ever claim to have "proved beyond doubt" some theoretical hypothesis. It's a complete waste of time to argue with him.
  21. Goes without saying. Of course you shouldn't be swishing a mouthful of pure DMSO solvent around your teeth. First the CDS dissolved in the appropriate amount of it, next the whole thing is diluted in water to create the mouthwash. You will know the CDS is dissolved in the DMSO as it loses its yellow color. You only need a tiny amount. The only way you are going to get the chlorine dioxide to penetrate to the roots when gum disease runs deep is with DMSO.
  22. Rubbish. Everything IN CONTEXT! Then again, I don't think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who thinks that animal products, the most bio-available nutrient dense food there exists for human beings, are bad without making any distinction between factory farmed poison and outdoor bred, grass-fed , organic animal produce.
  23. Were you flying at low-level over Salar de Uyuni? Because most of the Earth's surface, and certainly its terrestrial surface, is assuredly not flat. I look around me and I see undulating or abrupt variations in every direction, inclines, hills, valleys, mountains. The only thing I can say for sure is that it doesn't appear to be concave. And I cannot possibly see far enough in my everyday life, including when I am in a plane, to make a judgment as to how to one local geometry relates to the entire geometry, which is the question in point. Unless you can see the whole picture, you can't tell me that the shape of the geometry of the Earth is observable to you.
×
×
  • Create New...