My wife is very empathetic and has had a difficult time buying the idea that there could be so much evil and the media is protecting/perpetuating the evil.
Then we got Covid (confirmed positive tests, yes). And we took ivermectin. It helped me get mostly better after only 10 hours of being real sick. Similar experience to Joe Rogan. For her she took it, was getting better, then secretly stopped taking it because she didn’t fully buy what I had told her about it. Then she got worse and worse while I got better. Two days later she said she’d take it again… and within an hour her symptoms went down. This morning (18 hrs later) she seems to be almost over it all.
I showed her that great doc on the history of ivermectin and she’s now finally taken the red pill because she experienced how this drug really does work and if people are suppressing it then… well… evil… and she’s now pissed about it… first major red pill.
There is a huge difference between believing in God and belonging to organized religion. I do not participate in organized religion, but I firmly believe in God. Money and power corrupts organized religion, just as it does with corporations and any large collection of people. To ignore the possibility of religion because you have seen no evidence is not a scientific mindset. A true scientific mind does not have preconceived ideas of the outcome without data. Things we cannot observe are theorized and discussed until a method of observation and study is possible. The odds of all the universe creating itself by pure chance is virtually impossible. Albert Einstein even stated this exact same concept. The random chance became less likely as his level of understanding grew. He began to see that there are so many variables that the odds of it happening by itself was ridiculous.
That is true. However it does not change the fact that there is no compelling, falsifiable evidence for the existence of god. Whereas we already have workable theories (preponderance of evidence based on science and facts) that demonstrate how the universe, life, and diversity of life came to be. Big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution respectively.
For religion and consequently god to be possible, you must first demonstrate it to be possible. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly. There needs to be precedent, of which we have none for the supernatural, and data, of which there is none for the supernatural.
But that doesn't make them true, any more than body thetons from Scientology are true. And they even have a supposed device for measuring them. But it's not based on science. Until then, such things belong in the realm of fiction.
Yet here we are. The odds that your day would proceed precisely as it did today is also virtually impossible, yet you did it.
I don't know if this is true and it doesn't matter anyway. Science does not have authorities whose word is law. Just because Einstein or anyone else said something, doesn't make it true. The next two sentences I quoted are basically a repeat of the quote above. No matter how unlikely, it still happened. Unless you can scientifically demonstrate it is 100% impossible, the odds are meaningless and not a valid argument for a god of the gaps fallacy.
Theories are formed from observation and the generation of possible causation. We theorize about gravity, but we cannot quantify it, observe it or measure it. We can only measure its effects. If you dismiss anything without evidence, then you must dismiss gravity, black holes, quarks, pair production and pair annihilation etc. Etc. Etc. All theories are possible until proven or disproven. Your dismissal is not scientific, it is exactly the opposite. Dismissal of another persons theories without evidence is a negative and hostile stance. If you can disprove it, you present your facts, make your point and move on. They don't even have to agree with you. Science doesn't care, it just is.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory
"repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."
There is a ton of evidence about gravity. There is not a single shred of evidence for the supernatural that can be experimented on or tested. I say that to counter claims that spooky pictures or testimonies of alien abduction are evidence. While technically they are evidence, they are not compelling nor are they scientific. Whereas gravity, evolution, and so on have literal mountains of compelling evidence supporting them. Hence why they are scientific theories.
No. This is the opposite of science. Even "theory" when used colloquially to mean a guess or idea still must be proven to be possible before it can be considered possible. For example if I said it's possible to read minds or use telepathy, I would need to demonstrate it to be possible first. It would not be up to you to prove me wrong. Although James Randi had lots of fun proving these charlatans as fakes, although it still wasn't his responsibility to do so. What he did was give them the opportunity to prove themselves right via various tests, and they all failed. Each and every single one of them. Similarly believers in god have every opportunity to prove any god exists, yet all people have always failed to provide compelling, falsifiable evidence for god.
As I've explained such things are not scientific theories, therefore dismissing a person's guess who does not have any scientific evidence supporting said guess is perfectly acceptable. Like, if I said leprechauns are real and have a pot of gold at the end of rainbows, it is up to me to prove it to be true; it's not up to you to prove it to be false. Look up Russell's Teapot.
True science only cares about the facts, not guesses.
I think you misunderstand what a theory is. Not a hypothesis which had no evidence, but its merely a conjecture that has had no study. A theory is developed and has a body of work behind it. We have studies that demonstrate the effects of gravity, but we do not have definitive evidence that it exists in compliance with our theories. That is why it is a theory, because we have evidence, but no conclusion. The theory of evolution has significant issues that even Darwin recognized. He hopes that future archaeological and geological would have filled the hole in his theory, but the opposite has occurred. The Cambrian period is still unexplained and has led to even more doubt to the theory of evolution. Further research and understanding of DNA has further undermined the theory of evolution. The time required for random mutation to generate complex protein sequences is just not there. The understanding of genetic mutations to proliferate is even more compelling. Even if you had a positive genetic mutation, it would have to occur in multiple organisms at the exact same time and they would have to mate to propagate the genetic mutation, otherwise it would become diluted, become recessive and unlikely to become a dominant gene