Under the laws of men a denial is based on a choice between truth and false. Under the laws of nature denial represents ones free will of choice to ignore nature as the sole source of information. One represents choice made within (belief based) fiction; the other within reality (adaptation to motion).
Notice that it's called denial-ISM aka a belief system, offered by another and consented to by ones own free will of choice.
"denialism" in science is called a -rebuttal-
Consenting to any belief creates a conflict between those who believe it and those who do not, and science is one of many tools to keep these conflicts going, by offering both sides contradictions so that they keep arguing about truth or false (within fiction).
They are not written as rebuttals.
That's because to sell one side that have to also offer the other side as the boogeyman, because both sides are acting in ignorance under the laws of nature, which represents ones shirking of responsibility over self. And it is that very ignorance that corrupts the believers comprehension about reality, because they willingly act upon their (fictitious) beliefs.
The only way out is for the believers to question their own beliefs, until they're ready to question the very act of of upholding ANY beliefs (affixed) within a reality based on motion (constant change).
Who woulda thunk..
Yep, powerful institutions calling someone a ______ Denier is a good hint they’re onto something.
Climate denier Science denier (regarding anti maskers etc) And on and on through history.
denial
Under the laws of men a denial is based on a choice between truth and false. Under the laws of nature denial represents ones free will of choice to ignore nature as the sole source of information. One represents choice made within (belief based) fiction; the other within reality (adaptation to motion).
Notice that it's called denial-ISM aka a belief system, offered by another and consented to by ones own free will of choice.
"denialism" in science is called a -rebuttal-
Consenting to any belief creates a conflict between those who believe it and those who do not, and science is one of many tools to keep these conflicts going, by offering both sides contradictions so that they keep arguing about truth or false (within fiction).
They are not written as rebuttals.
That's because to sell one side that have to also offer the other side as the boogeyman, because both sides are acting in ignorance under the laws of nature, which represents ones shirking of responsibility over self. And it is that very ignorance that corrupts the believers comprehension about reality, because they willingly act upon their (fictitious) beliefs.
The only way out is for the believers to question their own beliefs, until they're ready to question the very act of of upholding ANY beliefs (affixed) within a reality based on motion (constant change).