Does the need of evidence shows the lack of hearth?

[indigo solo]

I've seen from my childhood that some terms and concepts are used by people as sacred. Some examples are Tolerance and Self-esteem. They invaded the average and everyday-use vocabulary in the 90s. Today people use other, like sustainability and biosecurity. If I made a complete list of terms and concepts used in the every-day vocabulary by people, it would result in a book called how people is manipulated via induced religious behavior via their vocabulary.

Science is one of the most prostituted word in all languages around the world. It is used to sell anti-wrinkle creams. And, inside the science legitimate jargon, exist a concept that has been turned into a bias to debunk anything you want, with no need of being a scientist but a politician, a salesman, a journalist and whatever. The scientific concept is the evidence, and the prostituted-version is the lack of evidence. So, if evidence shows some theory about a phenomenon as truth, lack of evidence would show a theory as a lie. BUT THIS IS A COMPLETE BIAS, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is evidence only of... the fact that there's no evidence.

I've seen a lot of people during decades full-filling their mouths using the expression There's no evidence for [insert here any theory that doesn't fit in the mainstream thinking]. So they become the voice of truth, the official debunkers, watching after every statement their polished nails and inflating the chest.

There's no evidence HAARP causes earthquakes. F*ck! It is supposed to have no evidence, if it is a secret weapon!

There's no evidence 5G causes respiratory malfunction.

There's no evidence of reptilian races that exist or existed.

So, all of that must be a lie. But wait...

There's no evidence of a Climate Change caused by humans. But this one remains as a sacred truth. So we aren't living in a scientific society, where evidence prevails but in a religious one, where the sacred prevails.

Do you remember Fauci saying «those who doubt me are doubting the science»....? That's a f*cking religious statement. So, we start looking who believes and promotes the sacred, using the evidence of lack of it as ammunition, and we automatically see what is truth and what isn't.

 

I hope you have read the entry where I tell you the story of my mother who saw a reptile in tie in a TV Show [here]. Or the other one, where I tell my own experience awakening by a strong shock by the Mandela effect [here]. Those are examples of experiences of phenomenons that are not susceptible of having evidence. The explanations would result in sacred theories that enforce the 1x1x1 world, with five senses only. Misinterpretations, false memories, apophenia, pareidolias, schizophrenia, etc, etc. And anything out of those, pure ridicule theories.

 

So, if someone stays promoting the religious behavior, disguised in scientific thinking, using the evidence and lack of evidence bias, I'll know this happen because he or she is hearth-blinded. Having an active hearth chakra is the reason I can't endure a TV News show, a radio station, advertising and not even a movie! The sensation is horrible, 'cause they are trying to manipulate you via lies, lies and lies every single second. But wait, there's no evidence of the hearth to have the ability to tell you what is truth and what isn't. So, forget everything I've said.

 

In a last instance, I'd like to define evidence as a concept only necessary in a 1x1x1 world with 5 physical senses, where is supposed other to tell you what is truth and what isn't.

 

[indigo solo]

I am there again!

I apologize for the typos. They look horrible!

Kisses for everybody.