Topic: Health and Religion - page 48. (Read 211023 times)

What is the significance of the post I am quoting here? Since evolution is a hoax, thereby becoming a religion for many, what is the state of health of the world for believing this religion/hoax? Personally, I would like to believe that people are healthier when they know the truth.

While the placebo effect of evolution might be spreading around the world, it will never be strong enough to make evolution real, and it will probably destroy the good health of many.

^^^ You still haven't offered one shred of proof for evolution. In multitudes of evolution theory changes, and countless multitudes of tests for evolution, both based on the theory, and in tests of nature, nobody has found one piece of proof for the existence of evolution. All the close evidences for evolution fit adaptation better and easier than they fit evolution. There has not been found even one pure random/spontaneous effect that would be required if evolution theory were to be correct.

How long has this been going on... this search for evolution? Since before Darwin:
When are evolutionists going to become honest, and stop twisting all kinds of non-evolution things this way and that, constantly proclaiming that now they have finally found a touch of evolution?

The evolutionist is like a person in prison, constantly examining his room over and over for thousands of years, just to find something that he might have missed, so that he can escape. And to make it worse, modern science is showing him more firmly than ever that nothing is there. Yet the more firmly modern science shows him, the harder he re-scrutinizes the room that he as scrutinized over and over for ages.

In the past - perhaps before Darwin, and even the first hundred years after Darwin - evolution once might have been an honest attempt. But now, with all the modern science, and all the failures at finding proof, stubborn evolution scientists are proving themselves to be fools.

They have turned evolution into a hoax by proving that it doesn't exist, yet saying that it does.

Thank you for your response. At least you are not totally insane to claim is a hoax. It's true that we are still very limited but we can't just dismiss scientific theories as hoaxes. I also personally cannot just believe in god and I have read your links. I also think that if a god is real and he is truly benevolent I shouldn't need to believe or even acknowledge him as long as I'm a good person.

I accept evolution as our current most probable model of human development not as fact.

We have seen some limited evidence of micro evolution during humanities brief era of recorded observations.

See: Bacteria micro evolution
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

We know from the fossil records that there were many forms of life in the past that are no longer around today.

Given this data extrapolation into the theory of gross macro evolution over time appears to be the most probable current explanation of the known data.

I think it important to be humble in these matters and acknowledge that we as a species are so very limited in what we really understand.

Evolution for example is the theory of how life changes over time. If there is no time is there any evolution?

The illusion of time : past, present and future all exist together
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

Well, that makes me kinda happy. Got your goat cause you can't prove much, if anything. And I can even out-talk your political science. All Right! Maybe you will wake up before it's too late for you.

_

Coincube maybe, you not so much. I also think he accepts evolution as a fact but I'm not sure.

Well, bring your point back on topic, and you will see that health and religion have a lot to do with each other. Coincube and I have been showing you this over and over, and some of it has to do with science.

Your science is only your personal religion, and doesn't match general science.

Check Dictionary .com at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Number 6 reads: "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

This means that you simply have a religion of non-religion.

Even if you repeat a science experiment yourself the very act of repeating an experiment means you have accepted the apriori assumptions of science.

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:
 
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.

These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.

If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.

The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.

This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.

Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.

Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.

People harming their heads when starting following any religion at my opinion and it's very sad. 2018 already came but religion still necessary for people.

 God never, who did not help. The religion in addition to troubles I don't see anything. Any religion is harmful.

But you are ignoring my point. Your religion doesn't have any experiments or tests, even if someone wanted to see if they were right they wouldn't be able to. I obviously cannot study and perform tests on everything I do or use. I don't need to perform a scientific experiment to see that my PC is working or that planes fly. Science works, I have ''faith'' in science because it has proven to me that it works time after time just like when you have faith in your wife that she wont cheat on you because she has proven to be loyal. This doesn't mean it wont happen just like science, it could be wrong but there is really no reason to think it is. When it comes to health I'm sure you go to a doctor or a hospital, don't you? Did you study medicine? Do you need to, to trust doctors? Why do you trust doctors? Because you know they have studied medicine and you know science works.

This is the essence of science vs religion.

Religion is the belief that medicine will work. When it doesn't, the belief steps in and makes it work... in as much as 33% of the cases, anyway. It's called placebo effect.

Health is like religion... Health and religion.

Health is the condition of the body of one person weather it is good or bad, in physical or mental condition.
Many people now are consious with their body when it comes to health condition, now a days many are suffering from stroke, heart attack, diabetis and cancer.
Religion ii is the belief or faith in God that God is the creator of heaven and Earth.

But you didn't read the experiments. You didn't do the experiments. Ever heard of the term "fake news?"

Some of the news has been fake for over a hundred years. But since it wasn't known to be fake way back then, it has been incorporated into the public psyche, and we accept it as truth... even though we don't know.

A simple example is the fake news of flat earth. Look at how many hundreds of years people believed it to be true. And (as you well know) there are those who keep on believing it today. They even have a lot of near-science built up to almost-prove that FE is real. And many of those FE people base their whole idea around religion, formally.

So, go out and do all the scientific the experiments so that you know your science isn't religion. But if you only do one or two, its religion for you. And you know what that means, don't you? When you get good (or bad) health by following medical advice, you have, Health and Religion.

However, all the experiments and tests are written somewhere and I can also study the subject and perform the experiments myself, you don't have that possibility with religion because there are no experiments, no tests, no math, even If I wanted to test them by myself I couldn't because there are none. Sure you have to trust science in some things unless you want to study about everything and perform tests yourself but at least you have the possibility to actually do the experiments or at least understand them, again, you don't have that in religion, you are supposed to believe in it blindly because badecker says so and we can't understand god so we just have to follow what he says because he says so. There is no logic there. Science works, religion doesn't.

You don't have to believe in the Bible. You know it's a book, right?

Why do you have to believe in science? Because it wasn't you who did the scientific experiments (except that you might have done one or two). Other than that, you have to believe the scientists who did the experiments, or you have to believe the people who have written about the experiments the scientists did.

In other words, all of science is a religion for all people... except for the few scientific experiments anybody might have done for himself.

For example. You might have personally stuck a couple of electrodes into water, and found that you could split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Since you did it personally, there is a piece of science that you know, rather than having to take it on faith.

But are you one of the scientists who runs nuclear power plants? If you aren't, you have to believe what the scientists tell you, or what the some general "practitioner" scientists have written down in the books. What if they are lying? What if they are mistaken? Consider Fukushima and Chernobyl. Odds are that they aren't lying. But you don't know they aren't mistaken or lying. Religion.

Either you believe science and religion, or you don't, or you only believe one of them. But outside of a few small science experiments, you don't know that science is factual. Same with religion. There are those who tell you some factual experience about religion that they had, but they don't know it all, and you have to make the choice whether or not to believe them.

As far as you go, both religion and science are religion for you. Go to the doctor and get cured by religion. That's all it is for you, because you don't know for a fact that what they say is the truth. Unless you, yourself, are a very experienced doctor, you totally have to take it on faith... just like you have to take Bible scholars on faith if you want to believe them. You just believe and hope, same as any formal religion.

It is important to seperate the message from the messenger. All messengers are potentially subject to error but if we can reconstruct the same ultimate message from a multitude of messengers regardless of their differences and starting positions and then we must carefully consider the message for it has proven itself robust.

Let's briefly look at some of the various messengers we have discussed in this thread.

Bruce Charlton approached religion through a metaphysical framework highlighting that all knowledge is ultimately reducible to basic and unproven axioms.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22344436

Perry Marshall examined the axiom of God and showed us that it is not falsifiable.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23796852

Dennis Prager explained how the axiom of God leads directly to the reality of freedom.
https://www.prageru.com/videos/i-am-lord-your-god

Moshe Chaim Luzzatto shows how starting from the axiom of God one can understand free-will, the existence of evil, and why bad things sometimes happen to good people.
http://www.livingjudaism.com/the-way-of-god.html

Jordan Peterson approaches the Bible from an perspective of evolutionary psychology and finds psychological truths.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

What all of these vastly diverse approaches have in common is that they converge on is a single basic message.

God = True

This is the critical axiom the foundation that ultimately supported the rise of western civilization and the enlightenment.

If we can show that morality follows from acceptance of the axiom is that morality coming from an external or internal source? The very question is almost irrelevant answerable in either the affirmative, the negative or perhaps both.

There are many religions in our world.Every religions has many rules anf every people has must be follows their religions.and health  is very important for us.Health is the point on all happiness and success.so we should try to be healthy and must be follows our religions rules.

There are different religions and each has its own religion. But if you're a religious person, then of course you have to follow the rules . To be a worthy person, to lead a healthy lifestyle, not to commit rash acts. To love and respect people.