fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[fides' Jack]

I do want to apologize to hakutaku for calling him a liar.  I don't know whether or not he is lying.  I only know that he is spreading misinformation.  He probably believes it himself, which would mean he's not lying.

(I'm also aware that the above statement will cause many to laugh at how backwards it seems to them.  One way or another, the truth will be revealed.) 

[fides' Jack]

There is a whole lot of satanism going on behind the scenes - that we know of.  There's probably a whole lot we don't know of.

Even though all these pharmaceutical companies are telling us that the vaccines were involved with aborted babies in steps A or B, I find it highly unlikely that's the full truth.  I wouldn't be surprised if the actual contents of the vaccines were far, far more morally illicit than they have admitted.

Maybe that's just my distrust of the current government systems, and the truth is really exposed.  I doubt it.

[hakutaku]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

I only know that he is spreading misinformation. 

But you have utterly failed to rebut any of the information I provided or defend the loony tune claims your quack article made.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

I believe we will see the era within 10-15 years, possibly within 8.5 years, which means that the 3.5 year reign of the antichrist would happen before that... a time when Christians will be persecuted, great natural disasters will occur, great wars will happen, and then a one-world government will have earthly power and martyr many of the truly faithful Christians, before Our Lady crushes the head of satan and ends it all

I'll bet you that you're wrong.  If a one-world government overtly martyrs many Christians any time in the next 15 years amidst "great" wars and natural disasters, I will abandon Atheism and become a Catholic.

On the other hand, if this does not come to pass, you must renounce Catholicism, as it was the philosophical framework that led you to a wildly incorrect prediction.

I am fully confident that my atheistic framework is correct, while your Catholic framework is wrong.

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

On the other hand, if this does not come to pass, you must renounce Catholicism, as it was the philosophical framework that led you to a wildly incorrect prediction.

Why must I?  That's another fallacy.  I don't agree to your "bet".  As I stated before, I'm not absolutely sure of the timing of this - nor can I be, as any Catholic must admit.  There will be a time when God will reveal the hour when His Most Blessed Mother will crush the head of satan.  That time has not yet come.  So I must admit that I could be wrong.

However, you didn't say, "If you agree to my bet, I will become Catholic if at any time in the next 15 years [...]" - so therefore you are still bound by your statement, even though I have not agreed to the opposite.

On the other hand, I doubt that you would recognize the great apostasy and martyrdom of Christians even if you saw it.  So how about this: let's amend your previous statement, to make it a bit more specific - if at any time in the next 15 years a one-world government uses the death penalty to punish those who refuse to submit to some form of a "mark", which could be a vaccine, or implant, or tattoo (visible or invisible), or medical passport, then you agree to become a Catholic?

Again, though, that will almost certainly be too late.  You may not be alive to convert at that time.  I recommend converting before the wars start.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

But you have utterly failed to rebut any of the information I provided or defend the loony tune claims your quack article made.

This is not true.  You simply denied that my rebuttals were actually rebuttals.  So why would I even attempt to continue along those arguments?

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

I'll bet you that you're wrong.  If a one-world government overtly martyrs many Christians any time in the next 15 years amidst "great" wars and natural disasters, I will abandon Atheism and become a Catholic.

Ah - also, I wish to clarify a point: the wars and natural disasters will precede the martyrdom of Christians, and possibly also precede the one-world government.  It could very possibly be that the one-world government forms specifically because of the wars and natural disasters - that would make a lot of sense to me. 

There will also be more plagues, and some of which will be far more severe than COVID-19.

All of this can be found in Scripture and Tradition.

This next bit is a personal prediction, and not so much based on Church teaching as much as my own reading of the current signs of the times.  I also predict that, due to the natural disasters going on, there will be a huge push toward environmentalism, as most people will believe the natural disasters to be caused by humans via global warming or climate change or whatever the new phrase is at that time.  In truth the disasters are caused by the weight of sin, whether they be God's just punishments (which He has done a number of times throughout history), or some other means.  And the more we try to solve the problem scientifically, the more we will deserve those punishments.

[fides' Jack]

You know, I've been thinking about this bet, and basically what you've done is said, "Let's flip a coin; heads I win, tails you lose."

...?

No, if you want to make a bet, you have to offer me something at least worth as much as what you get out of it.  If you stand to gain eternal life as a result of this bet - OR I stand to lose eternal life...  how does that even make sense to you?

How about you become Catholic, regardless of any outcome, and then we both stand to gain eternal life?

[hakutaku]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Why must I?... However, you didn't say, "If you agree to my bet, I will become Catholic if at any time in the next 15 years [...]" - so therefore you are still bound by your statement, even though I have not agreed to the opposite.

Hahaha!  You've never had friends to offer you bets before, huh?  When someone is laying out the terms of a bet, they do not start every single sentence with "I agree to these terms if and only if you also accept blah blah blah."

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

  So how about this: let's amend your previous statement, to make it a bit more specific - if at any time in the next 15 years a one-world government uses the death penalty to punish those who refuse to submit to some form of a "mark", which could be a vaccine, or implant, or tattoo (visible or invisible), or medical passport, then you agree to become a Catholic? 

Also... the wars and natural disasters will precede the martyrdom of Christians, and possibly also precede the one-world government.  It could very possibly be that the one-world government forms specifically because of the wars and natural disasters - that would make a lot of sense to me. 

All that is fine, I'm willing to take the bet if you are.

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

As I stated before, I'm not absolutely sure of the timing of this - nor can I be, as any Catholic must admit.  There will be a time when God will reveal the hour when His Most Blessed Mother will crush the head of satan.  That time has not yet come.  So I must admit that I could be wrong.

But then why are you so confidently asserting that there are currently campaigns of censorship, propaganda, idolatry, literal murder of dissenting scientists, and spiritual warfare?

If I thought there was a good chance I might be wrong, I sure wouldn't go around calling people quacks; but you've gone and called people far worse than that in this thread. 

I'm willing to put some skin in the game and commit to changing my beliefs if I end up being wrong.  You're not; you are committed to your beliefs in spite of the evidence, which is why your only response to evidence like the excess deaths numbers is: 

On 4/21/2021 at 3:32 PM, fides' Jack said:

I reject everything you've brought up.  I reject every argument you've laid forth.

You believe facts are secondary to your own subjective opinion, and that you can therefore arbitrarily reject them.  Truth, to you, is relative.

 

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

No, if you want to make a bet, you have to offer me something at least worth as much as what you get out of it.  If you stand to gain eternal life as a result of this bet - OR I stand to lose eternal life...  how does that even make sense to you?

Even within your own philosophy, you are not offering anyone eternal life.  Unless maybe you think you are?  Can you promise that you will force God to give me eternal life?  Do you think you are already guaranteed eternal life?

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

Hahaha!  You've never had friends to offer you bets before, huh?  When someone is laying out the terms of a bet, they do not start every single sentence with "I agree to these terms if and only if you also accept blah blah blah."

No, you're right.  I read it wrong.  Point to you.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

All that is fine, I'm willing to take the bet if you are.

As I already said, it's a stupid bet.  You win or I lose?  How is that worth it for me?

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

But then why are you so confidently asserting that there are currently campaigns of censorship, propaganda, idolatry, literal murder of dissenting scientists, and spiritual warfare?

I didn't confidently assert that there is literal murder of dissenting scientists.  Certainly all of the other things are true.  I'm 100% confident of that.  That's been the case since the dawn of time.  Nothing new there, except the extent of it all...

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

If I thought there was a good chance I might be wrong, I sure wouldn't go around calling people quacks; but you've gone and called people far worse than that in this thread. 

Not people, just you.  I called you a liar and a vial atheist, yes.  And I apologized for the former.  I've certainly called people worse things in this thread than ever before on phatmass.  I'm done playing nice.  Still, I will try to be charitable (not the same thing).  So if I call someone a name they don't deserve, I will apologize, as I've done.  Do you forgive me?

But I don't think there's a good chance that I'm wrong.  I'm fairly confident that I'm right.  Not that it matters for this point...

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

I'm willing to put some skin in the game and commit to changing my beliefs if I end up being wrong.  You're not; you are committed to your beliefs in spite of the evidence, which is why your only response to evidence like the excess deaths numbers is

That's a stupid argument.

As I said, there's absolutely no skin in the "game" for you if you're wrong.  If you're right, and there is no God, no harm no foul, and nothing matters, anyway.  If I'm right, and there is a God, the only thing that matters is the spiritual.  The two outcomes are not equal.  If I'm wrong, the worst that can happen is I die happy, believing in something worth believing in.  If I'm right, but I apostatize over a bet, the worst that can happen is I suffer horribly for all eternity.  

Nor is the weight of the bet itself equal.  If I'm right about these predictions, they are proof that you are wrong (but most won't see that).  If I'm wrong about these predictions, it is proof of nothing.  My beliefs as a Christian don't hinge on the timing of prophecies.  

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

Even within your own philosophy, you are not offering anyone eternal life.  Unless maybe you think you are?  Can you promise that you will force God to give me eternal life?  Do you think you are already guaranteed eternal life?

I honestly have no idea where this is coming from.  You clearly misunderstood me.  I didn't attempt to offer you eternal life.  I said you stand to gain eternal life.  Not from me, certainly.  From God through the Catholic Church.  Please re-read the quote from me that you posted.  Nowhere did I imply or insinuate that I am offering you anything.  I said you would have to offer me something of eternal value, which is something you can't do, and certainly God won't do if I reject Him.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

You believe facts are secondary to your own subjective opinion, and that you can therefore arbitrarily reject them.  Truth, to you, is relative.

Woops - missed this one.  This is a falsehood.  Just as I don't know what you, yourself believe, you don't know what I believe, unless I state specifically what I believe.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  

I recognize that you see "facts" from Lancet, or different studies, and you believe them, probably because you trust those authorities.  I see opposing facts coming from other studies, many from prestigious universities, but also from individuals who know better than I do, and I believe them because these people and groups have everything to lose by speaking out on these things, and nothing to gain.  Many have lost their careers, which is a fact that you or other atheists here used in other threads to discredit them, rather than seeing it as a sign of authenticity.

I'm saying there are mutually exclusive "facts" on both sides.  You're taking the side of the government and politicians and main stream media and giant corporations.  I'm taking the side of common sense and morality.  But, to believe my side, you also have to believe there are conspiracies out there, and God, and a war waging between good and evil.  For Christians, that's not a big leap.

Edited April 23, 2021 by fides' Jack

[hakutaku]

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I honestly have no idea where this is coming from.  You clearly misunderstood me.  I didn't attempt to offer you eternal life.  I said you stand to gain eternal life.  Not from me, certainly.  From God through the Catholic Church.  Please re-read the quote from me that you posted.  Nowhere did I imply or insinuate that I am offering you anything.  I said you would have to offer me something of eternal value, which is something you can't do, and certainly God won't do if I reject Him.

The whole point of the bet is to admit you were wrong.  If Catholicism is wrong, you never had eternal life to begin with, and therefore you don't stand to lose it.  Abandoning Catholicism could be an opportunity for you to gain real eternal life through a different theological framework.  I.e. one that wasn't demonstrated to be wrong by objectively verifying its predictions.  You could go join Islam, attain nirvana, etc.

14 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I recognize that you see "facts" from Lancet, or different studies, and you believe them, probably because you trust those authorities.  I see opposing facts coming from other studies, many from prestigious universities, but also from individuals who know better than I do, and I believe them because these people and groups have everything to lose by speaking out on these things, and nothing to gain.  Many have lost their careers, which is a fact that you or other atheists here used in other threads to discredit them, rather than seeing it as a sign of authenticity.

I'm saying there are mutually exclusive "facts" on both sides.  You're taking the side of the government and politicians and main stream media and giant corporations.  I'm taking the side of common sense and morality. 

I pointed out that Terry lost his home and career because he thought God told him to write an operating system.  He was both authentic (i.e. he really believed) and wrong (i.e. it was schizophrenia talking to him, not God). 

Your personal judgement of who is "authentic," which ideas are "common sense," and who is a member of the evil shadow cabal are all your own subjective opinions.  You have refused to face the objective facts (e.g. the objective fact that is the excess death rate in 2020) because you don't believe there can be such a thing as an objective fact.  That's why you have to put "fact" in scare quotes.

And you've been doing it for the entire thread, look here:

On 4/20/2021 at 4:34 PM, fides' Jack said:

The only thing a truly holy person will fear is offending God... My goal is to bring up arguments as I come across them to help people do exactly this - they should not fear COVID. 

I.e. "In my opinion things should be a certain way, therefore anything that says things are that way is true."

On 4/21/2021 at 2:17 PM, fides' Jack said:

Ultimately it comes down to faith, as the Bible and Tradition have charged.  Those who hold fast to their faith will be able to see the truth for what it is.  Those who don't will be blind, as you are.

I.e. "Anyone who does not use the subjective lens of faith/holiness to evaluate facts is blind."

 

 

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

The whole point of the bet is to admit you were wrong.  If Catholicism is wrong, you never had eternal life to begin with, and therefore you don't stand to lose it.  Abandoning Catholicism could be an opportunity for you to gain real eternal life through a different theological framework.  I.e. one that wasn't demonstrated to be wrong by objectively verifying its predictions.

Your premise is wrong.  As I've already stated, these predictions not turning out does NOT disprove Catholicism.  So your entire argument on the subject is moot.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

You have refused to face the objective facts (e.g. the objective fact that is the excess death rate in 2020) because you don't believe there can be such a thing as an objective fact.  That's why you have to put "fact" in scare quotes.

And you've been doing it for the entire thread, look here:

Now you know the reasons why I do things?  That's the second time in a row you've done that.  And you're wrong.  

There is a difference between objective fact and the "facts" that you've presented.  Just because your "facts" come from an authority that most people deem trustworthy doesn't make them true.  A number of other government institutions, state and federal, have published numbers of a very elevated suicide count during certain portions of 2020. 

So yes, I absolutely use scare quotes around the word "facts", when those "facts" are merely propaganda.

That is an objective fact.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

Abandoning Catholicism could be an opportunity for you to gain real eternal life through a different theological framework.

Seriously?

[fides' Jack]

Yeah, you're just trolling me now.  Good job.

[hakutaku]

6 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Your premise is wrong.  As I've already stated, these predictions not turning out does NOT disprove Catholicism.  So your entire argument on the subject is moot.

 

On 4/21/2021 at 3:32 PM, fides' Jack said:

ALL Christians must admit that a day will eventually come when a number of these "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true, that there really is a one-world order coming, that the world government will be led by satan and his antichrist and will be working to destroy the faith of billions.

You can't have it both ways.  Either these conspiracy theories are an inevitability that all Christians must admit (i.e. a necessary consequence of belief in Catholicism), or they are just your own personal ramblings.

If you are fully aware that you've just synthesized this doomsday prediction on your own by sampling from various quacks online, why on God's green flat earth do you think you have the authority to write off as liars the governmental, medical, and scientific communities?

[fides' Jack]

Ok, I'm done feeding the troll.

 

[hakutaku]

25 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Ok, I'm done feeding the troll.

Lets summarize:

• Your explicitly stated reason for posting the original article is, paraphrasing, "people should fear God more than COVID, and the quacks say COVID isn't scary."
  • You think people should find the quacks credible because they're "authentic," "using common sense," "not evil," and "possibly being killed for their beliefs." (no evidence provided)
• You have posted no evidence to support claims the quack paper you started the thread with.
  • You assert that "several levels" (of tech/social media?) are censoring evidence that would support the quacks.
  • Anyone directly arguing against the quacks is "blind," "spreading misinformation," "lying," "spreading propaganda," "anathema," and a "puppet of the devil."
• You recognize that all the evidence produced from governmental, academic, scientific, and medical sources contradict your quack article.
  • Your justification for disregarding their evidence is that you have a personal end-times theory which says these organizations are evil puppets of satan. (no evidence provided)
  • Christians will naturally reject the establishment because "Those who hold fast to their faith will be able to see the truth for what it is" whereas everyone else is "blind." (no evidence provided)
• You have explicitly made assertions that contradict the data I showed you (e.g. that suicides increased after I provided the data indicated the opposite, or that excess deaths were small after I provided the data which indicated they were not) but not provided any sources to defend your claims.

[fides' Jack]

No to all 4 points.  Each of the 4 points contain incorrect information about what I've stated or about what I recognize.

Enough, please.  I'm not going to keep doing this.