# Global agenda(s) from elitists shaping world events



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

In the latest Pope heresy thread, I mentioned that pope and jesuits/catholic church is a front for an ancient solar cult, and are the ones pulling the world strings. And that this secret fraternity has been orchestrating deception since day one. All the way from all from all out slaughter of nations, to seemingly mutual two-sided wars, to all sorts of assassinations, stealing worldly wealth, impoverishing nations/funding German nazism, to all out world wars, to the creation of the U.N. These people are in an ancient solar cult, posing as "christians", who are deeply into the occult. It is not that the spiritual teachings of christianity are to blame, (because I believe there is some good within the bible), but when one sees all the corrupt goings-on in the catholic church, it is not too far-fetched to think that there is something much bigger happening behind the scenes. I've been interested in "conspiracy theories" for about 10 years now, and have done a shit ton of research on it. There is alot of muck to wade through, but one person that I have come across, Michael Tsarion, is the absolute most convincing and convincing of all. And its not that hes right or wrong, its that he raises great points, and puts so much material together in such a compelling way, that was an absolute mind and eye opener when I discovered his works. His work is based on other teachers and authors and philosophers, occult- scholars that have come before him. His works are replete with quotes and excerpts from books, he always cites his sources.

As I've said, the evidence is in the symbols and etymology. It's kinda like, following the money....well just trace the symbols that you see today, and the language being used, all the way back to the ancients who were worshipers of the stars. Astro-theology is an interesting subject, and you will then understand that the ruling elite today are applying the same occult knowledge that was stolen from the pagans before them. Churches all over the world are built literally right on top of old pagan worshiping sites. Out of the ashes of paganism rises a christian church and freemasonry, who mysteriously uses the same symbolism that they did...and still being used today. _"Signs and symbols control the world, not phases and laws"_ - Confucius (551-479 BC).

After they wiped out all of the ancient peoples who knew so much about the earth and the cosmos and they retained all of their information, thats what they did with the Druids if you really study what St. Patricks day is really all about. they eventually created Christianity; a religion based entirely on astro-theology, but covered up with a new mask. Its evident in the symbolism. During the sign of Taurus, people used to worship the bull. Then came Aries, you would always see Jesus associated with the lamb

. Now we are in Pisces, sign of the fish

, etc. These are just some examples; you may say it means nothing or is a coincidence, fine. Now you have a new religion.....which is the same as the old religion...

To speed things along.... you then have the creation of secret societies....Knights Templars, Knights of Malta etc....then the creation of the Vatican City, a place for these people to call home.

You see on flags and emblems and crests, and statues and buildings all over the world with eagles/lions/crosses/suns/stars/stripes/oak leaves. Symbols like these

. You see symbols like these on clothing brands, in the media even on cigarette packs


You may see these symbols a thousand times a year and never realize or wonder why. It tells you who is running the show (Im not using the cigarette pack to show how they run the world, its just one miniscule example of their extension of influence), but next time you see this symbol ask yourself why they it is you are seeing this symbol and what does it mean? But just know that this symbol goes all the way back to ancient Egypt and ancient Irish Druidism. These are occult, Druidic, pagan, astrological motifs. Why the hell would we still be seeing these symbols today if the "evil" paganism was to be destroyed and done away with and forgotten? Or if the people in ancient Egypt were just primitive ignorant slaves who needed the christian God in their life to be complete?

My next claim is that the Vatican, the Royal Crown, and Washington D.C is the trifecta of power that work in concert with each other. They put political figures into power in D.C, as well as take them out.

Someone asked me in the Pope heresy thread of how the Jesuits are still relevant today as far as having power. Well, the current Pope IS a Jesuit. But why would that be? (speaking rhetorically here) Aren't Jesuits supposed to be just a small twig in the shadow of the rest of the Church/white pope? (the Jesuits have a strong connection with the knights of malta, and are instrumental in putting people in seats of power to create groups like the CIA.) It's a bit odd at least that the Pope is a Jesuit. Also, Trump went to Jesuit school....could mean nothing, could mean something.








The insignia of the Jesuit Order denotes their connection to ancient Luciferian Solar Cults. The letters IHS represent the ancient Irish god Iesa, the basis for Jesus. Note the red cross of the Knights Templar. (Here for more...)


I suppose after all, this is a half ass attempt to try and convince people of what I believe to be true. Hopefully some of you on this forum will take an interest into learning more into this subject, as it is an eye opener as so much of the evidence makes sense. Read through these links, then scoff if you must, but at least read the material. I am not the best at explaining things and putting them into order... but from everything I've learned into this subject (these few links just scratching the surface), I am completely convinced by the looking at the current state of the world, that the claim that there is a ruling elite without our best interest in mind, cant not be true. It may be so that there is not just one small group of people that rule, but I think that it could be many different groups who all have the same goal in mind, but just had a different way of getting there.
http://www.michaeltsarion.com/the-red-papacy.html
http://www.femaleilluminati.com/article-2.html
http://www.femaleilluminati.com/article-3.html
This guy has spent his life following the trails and picking up the pieces. For those interested, check it out. Lets discuss. What do you agree or disagree with? Know any other good references? As I said this is just a start....we have not gotten into the etymology part yet which is another world to unfold


----------



## narad (May 8, 2019)

Just to follow up on the Marlboro logo, Evian is naive spelled backwards. I'm no scholar but that's gotta mean something. Perhaps some sort of water cult? Was it not Jesus who turned water into wine, and walked in water...a lot of water imagery there. Could be something, could be nothing, makes you think though.


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

This might be the highest effort low effort post ever.


----------



## narad (May 8, 2019)

I like this:

"The head Jesuit and Black Pope, Cardinal Francis Spellman, with gangster-presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. He was the brain behind the Vietnam War, which was known as "Spelly's War."

Google "Spelly's War", and realize you've found the perfect filter for finding Jesuit conspiracy content. No one calls it that, except conspiracy theorists saying, "We also became known as 'Spelly's War'".


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Spellman. Under Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam...
"Spellman was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War, to the extent that the conflict became known as "Spelly's War" and the Cardinal as the "Bob Hope of the clergy".[10] "

If you are going to pretend that you're a good reader, at least KNOW how to read to back up your claim


----------



## Humbuck (May 8, 2019)

What's a solar cult?


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Spellman. Under Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam...
> "Spellman was an outspoken supporter of the Vietnam War, to the extent that the conflict became known as "Spelly's War" and the Cardinal as the "Bob Hope of the clergy".[10] "
> 
> If you are going to pretend that you're a good reader, at least KNOW how to read to back up your claim


You know how Wikipedia works, right? That citation leads nowhere.


----------



## narad (May 8, 2019)

StevenC said:


> You know how Wikipedia works, right? That citation leads nowhere.



@MetalHex ^^That's how you back up a claim.


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

Google and wikipedia are not the all knowing be all end all


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

I can see what society is devolving into 





The super troll!


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Google and wikipedia are not the all knowing be all end all


Should I Ask Jeeves? Because asking MetalHex leads nowhere.


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

StevenC said:


> You know how Wikipedia works, right? That citation leads nowhere.


Thats cherry picking at its finest


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Should I Ask Jeeves? Because asking MetalHex leads nowhere.


Does StevenC ever have an opinion of his own or does he just ride the coat-tails of prominent shit talkers?


----------



## narad (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Google and wikipedia are not the all knowing be all end all



Then why did you just try to support your claim with a frikkin wikipedia link!


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

narad said:


> Then why did you just try to support your claim with a frikkin wikipedia link!


Because it technically is in there. You said you couldnt find it. Why are focusing on spellys war? Is that your contribution?


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Thats cherry picking at its finest


No... It's not cherry picking. You posted a thing and the citation for that thing is "Cooney". Not a link, just a random name. That's not a citation. You might as well say "It's right because I say it's right".


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

StevenC said:


> No... It's not cherry picking. You posted a thing and the citation for that thing is "Cooney". Not a link, just a random name. That's not a citation. You might as well say "It's right because I sayd it's right".


Well you liked your buddy's post the second he put it up....were you googling spellys war and came to the same conclusion yourself as well at the same time coincidentally? Or were you just taking the cherries out of his basket as he was putting them in?


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Well you liked your buddy's post the second he put it up....were you googling spellys war and came to the same conclusion yourself as well at the same time coincidentally? Or were you just taking the cherries out of his basket as he was putting them in?


I was reading the thread... You posted that Wikipedia line as if it had authority.


----------



## narad (May 8, 2019)

Go find some like actual historian using the phrase "Spelly's War".

It's just funny. It's like if I wanted to create a conspiracy theory about how everything is run by McDonald's and then in my exposition about it I said, "World World II, which later became known as Ronald's Conflict." And then all the guys who write McDonald's conspiracy websites included that piece of information, also without citation, and then 5 years later, we have exactly the situation here with "Spelly's War". Just a cheap way of trying to lend credence to your argument by changing the vernacular you're using. 

Are you trying to tell me WWII was not orchestrated as an attempt to sell more Happy Meals?? Then why is it called "Ronald's Conflict"??? Checkmate.


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

narad said:


> Go find some like actual historian using the phrase "Spelly's War".
> 
> It's just funny. It's like if I wanted to create a conspiracy theory about how everything is run by McDonald's and then in my exposition about it I said, "World World II, which later became known as Ronald's Conflict." And then all the guys who write McDonald's conspiracy websites included that piece of information, also without citation, and then 5 years later, we have exactly the situation here with "Spelly's War". Just a cheap way of trying to lend credence to your argument by changing the vernacular you're using.
> 
> Are you trying to tell me WWII was not orchestrated as an attempt to sell more Happy Meals?? Then why is it called "Ronald's Conflict"??? Checkmate.


Come on pal... Ronald's Romp was right there.


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

Humbuck said:


> What's a solar cult?


A group of people that worship light and its properties. There have also been lunar, stellar, and saturnian cults


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> A group of people that worship light and its properties


Physicists?


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

Lmao I swear this ad just popped up on my Facebook.


A sun, and a cross, inside of a triangle. Replete with masonic solar symbolism


----------



## StevenC (May 8, 2019)

More to the point, what are these people trying to achieve?


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

Why do you keep posting in here, man?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 8, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Why do you keep posting in here, man?



What was the point of this thread really?

It's not like anyone is asking hard questions. Did you expect to not have to explain, prove, or discuss anything? 

That's not really how it works.


----------



## MetalHex (May 8, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What was the point of this thread really?
> 
> It's not like anyone is asking hard questions. Did you expect to not have to explain, prove, or discuss anything?
> 
> That's not really how it works.


Because, he genuinely doesnt think anythinf I've stated is true...I started this thread in hopes to talk to people that genuinely care. I dont want to entertain this person anymore. Hes clearly trolling. Look his previous posts and try to come to the conclusion that he was trying have a serious discussion. Youd be hard pressed

Anyones guess is as good as mine as to why they keep pumping this symbolism.


----------



## narad (May 9, 2019)

Why would a secret organization be so intent on pushing its symbols into everyone's faces? Life isn't a Dan Brown book. If you want something to stay a secret you don't deliberately leave traces for it. You think there's like a marketing branch of the secret society of world-event-shaping elitists?


----------



## c7spheres (May 9, 2019)

StevenC said:


> You know how Wikipedia works, right? That citation leads nowhere.


The link opens for me just fine.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 9, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Because, he genuinely doesnt think anythinf I've stated is true



So put forward convincing evidence and discussion that reinforces your beliefs.




> ...I started this thread in hopes to talk to people that genuinely care.



You mean people who already share the same views? 



> I dont want to entertain this person anymore.



So set them to "Ignore" or do it the old fashioned way. 



> Hes clearly trolling. Look his previous posts and try to come to the conclusion that he was trying have a serious discussion. Youd be hard pressed



Serious? No. Pure trolling? Not really. 

I'm seeing legitimate questions about your views and the sources of your information with some snark thrown in. 



> Anyones guess is as good as mine as to why they keep pumping this symbolism.



That seems like a pretty big thing to be uncertain of. 

Perhaps they're trolling.


----------



## MetalHex (May 9, 2019)

From his same webpage he explains why they are probably showing us these things. Its sort of a hidden in plain sight. I remember reading somewhere years ago that in the occult world, the perp always shows/tells their victims what they are going to do to them before they do it...as it makes the ritual more powerful, or the perp gains more energy from it...something like that. Maxofmetal could be right about the trolling thing. Very speculative of course, but not that far fetched to me.

http://www.femaleilluminati.com/article-1.html


----------



## c7spheres (May 9, 2019)

There is no authority that will ever prove anything, or lend credence to anything on any subject. For every source there is a counter to it, no matter what is being said. It's all just faith based, like religion itself, and flawed. This goes for both sides of any debate. It's all a waste of time and energy. People also fail to realize that science is a religion as well. The faith in knowledge and a testing method being able to further and progress mankind. When all is done it will be realized that doing nothing would have progressed us farther, faster, because we were already there. Mankind was better in harmony before the inception of language, not individual man, however. Science and religion both serve as a device to give an individual man, or men under kinship of mind, an advantage over others so they may impose authority upon them, such as a gov't, religion, or scientific standard to which can not be opposed without upon meeting physical enforcement tactics, thus keeping their imposed standards and beliefs upheld as truth and authority, although almost never justifiably so.


----------



## Randy (May 9, 2019)

I appreciate the effort, although I don't necessarily think the notion that wealthy/elites pull the strings on what we see, what we do, the clothes we wear, etc. is especially groundbreaking or controversial. 

It just seems like a lot of extra steps to explain stuff we already know: people emulate what they see wealthy and famous people do. Those wealthy people might have some obscure and maybe even religious messaging in what they wear or the lyrics in their music that gives them satisfaction, but that doesn't necessarily translate to conspiracy or brain washing. 

You can take most of the same stuff you're talking about and apply it to vanilla Christianity. 2000+ years of people reading out of books, wearing symbols around their neck, chanting verses, drinking "blood", killing non believers, so on.

One of the things that makes conspiracies almost instantly flaccid is when you get 10 layers deep and you realize it's 1:1 with totally benign things we see in our everyday life but we've fetishised it just because it's (currently) unknown to us or hey, totally untrue.

Look at Bigfoot. Wow, great ape, bipedal humanoid with hair wandering through the woods. So mysterious. Maybe it exists and maybe it doesn't! And people expend all of their being researching, exploring and debating it's existence. Except, you know, gorillas are a thing. And dozens of species of prehistoric ape-like creatures. Oh and human beings. And then it's like... Bigfoot doesn't really seem all that interesting or worth the effort if it's just 1% different from the amazing shit we see everyday and take for granted. 

I don't need an especially protracted explanation to believe that wealthy people 1.) rule the world 2.) pass down their wealth and power from generation to generation 3.) marry/procreate within narrow circles 4.) share common beliefs 5.) are frequently fucking weird.

I do appreciate your perspective though.


----------



## mastapimp (May 9, 2019)

Believing widely doubted conspiracy theories satisfies some people's need to feel special:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/09/0...VlXzWIR4YczeX6zYWow8ne4Ts1qFtasF41hTMygjPI_f8

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? The need to find order in a confusing world:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories


----------



## Jason B (May 9, 2019)




----------



## narad (May 9, 2019)

mastapimp said:


> Believing widely doubted conspiracy theories satisfies some people's need to feel special:
> https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/09/0...VlXzWIR4YczeX6zYWow8ne4Ts1qFtasF41hTMygjPI_f8



So some kind of conspiracy snowflake? Has a nice ring to it.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (May 9, 2019)

While I'm highly skeptical of what you have put, I will say that unlike others, I will give it a read and go through some of it (without the snarky bullshit), because if nothing else, it's interesting. I can't promise I'm going to give it a lot of belief, but I do appreciate you taking the time and effort to make this thread.


----------



## MetalHex (May 9, 2019)

Randy said:


> I appreciate the effort, although I don't necessarily think the notion that wealthy/elites pull the strings on what we see, what we do, the clothes we wear, etc. is especially groundbreaking or controversial.
> 
> It just seems like a lot of extra steps to explain stuff we already know: people emulate what they see wealthy and famous people do. Those wealthy people might have some obscure and maybe even religious messaging in what they wear or the lyrics in their music that gives them satisfaction, but that doesn't necessarily translate to conspiracy or brain washing.
> 
> ...


This......is how to have a discussion. Thank you for not being a dick. Seriously.

But here is where I disagree. It certainly does pay to know and be aware of these things. We can't just say, "yeah these things happen so what theres nothing we can do about it anyway so just keep on digging in the pig bin." If people knew that this ruling elite created these faux religions, including the ones that are supposed to be opposite, then maybe there wouldnt be this endless bloodshed over the centuries. If people knew that this ruling class created and funded both Christianity AND Islam the same hand, created and funded the German Holocaust, created and funded the world wars, instead of not having a clue and dying for no good reasons, then the world would be a much better place. This is where it pays them to keep the us brainwashed, this is the reason for the conspiracy.

So in that regard, this subject is highly controversial and important. People keep throwing the bigfoot example around, like that has any effect on humanity.. Its so unimportant its not funny. This however, is vastly important because they literally have molded our world, and are continuing to do so in manners that we haven't even gotten to discussing yet.

To the other poster above.....I think instead of reading into the psychology of why people believe in conspiracy theories, we should be reading into the psychology of psychopathic people and then maybe we would understand why the world is so fucked up.

Believe it or not, this may come as a shocker, but there are evil people in this world. They are the ones behind the scenes because of their psychopathic, and need to fuck with other people because they are fucked themselves. It certainly isn't the honest, humble people, who just want to mind their own business and don't want to be bothered, that are steering the ship of state and creating mass chaos....those kind of people dont sit up at night planning their next move to fuck somebody. But evil, psychopathic people do. Everyone keeps wondering why we have so much corruption in the world, and why we have leaders like we do....but they keep voting them in....they are perpetuating the master/slave dynamic. If you want to look at pschology, start with your own. (Not being a jerk, everyone needs to do their own "shadow work") before they can make sense of what the hell is going on.


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 9, 2019)

Randy said:


> I appreciate the effort, although I don't necessarily think the notion that wealthy/elites pull the strings on what we see, what we do, the clothes we wear, etc. is especially groundbreaking or controversial.
> 
> It just seems like a lot of extra steps to explain stuff we already know: people emulate what they see wealthy and famous people do. Those wealthy people might have some obscure and maybe even religious messaging in what they wear or the lyrics in their music that gives them satisfaction, but that doesn't necessarily translate to conspiracy or brain washing.
> 
> ...



Do we really need solar cults and underground societies when people with 10 billion dollars can already just do whatever they want and you can shape world events with facebook ads.


----------



## MetalHex (May 9, 2019)

diagrammatiks said:


> Do we really need solar cults and underground societies when people with 10 billion dollars can already just do whatever they want and you can shape world events with facebook ads.


Oh dont worry the Soros types got that covered....but they are just agents themselves. Actually Soros is a Vatican agent.


----------



## Randy (May 9, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> This however, is vastly important because they literally have molded our world



This is where your argument and mine collide, though. 

What does a world NOT molded my elites look like, and is it appreciably better than what we have now, assuming everything else you say is accurate? We live to damn near or beyond 100 years old (which, sans fairytales, is insanely greater than our ancestors), we can travel halfway across the world in a day, we can see or talk to people we've never met before anywhere in the world from our phones or computers, and share ideas (even supposedly "dangerous ones", such as these), so on.

So it's like, what do we plebs construct as a society that's appreciably better than what the invisible hand has made for us? 

Even if you assume we're hamsters in a cage and we're somehow aware we're inside the cage, what waits for us on the outside? Conspiracy says we break out and live a better life what, rooting through trash, either starving, being crushed or being eaten?

For the conspiracy to work there's gotta be some great "ah ha!" we're missing out on and I haven't heard it. Most conspiracy folks I've known well enough to debate this to an end game usually have some pseudo religious conclusion. Like, our captors are pagans or Satanists (or demons themselves) and whatever they're doing to us is keeping is from "God", so this is some kind of battle for your eternal soul. Eternity! Wouldn't you fight the system and a measly 100 years on this planet if it meant you were saved FOR ETERNITY?

But we didn't go there and I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so I'll hold off on pursuing that debate any further.


----------



## StevenC (May 9, 2019)

Randy said:


> This is where your argument and mine collide, though.
> 
> What does a world NOT molded my elites look like, and is it appreciably better than what we have now, assuming everything else you say is accurate? We live to damn near or beyond 100 years old (which, sans fairytales, is insanely greater than our ancestors), we can travel halfway across the world in a day, we can see or talk to people we've never met before anywhere in the world from our phones or computers, and share ideas (even supposedly "dangerous ones", such as these), so on.
> 
> ...



When I asked this I got called a troll.


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 9, 2019)

Randy said:


> This is where your argument and mine collide, though.
> 
> What does a world NOT molded my elites look like, and is it appreciably better than what we have now, assuming everything else you say is accurate? We live to damn near or beyond 100 years old (which, sans fairytales, is insanely greater than our ancestors), we can travel halfway across the world in a day, we can see or talk to people we've never met before anywhere in the world from our phones or computers, and share ideas (even supposedly "dangerous ones", such as these), so on.
> 
> ...



This is what happens when you spend so much time drawing a psycho white board for the how that you forgot to ask the way.


----------



## Lemonbaby (May 9, 2019)

Every day is a good day for some conspiracy-BS-bingo...


----------



## ExileMetal (May 9, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> There is no authority that will ever prove anything, or lend credence to anything on any subject. For every source there is a counter to it, no matter what is being said. It's all just faith based, like religion itself, and flawed. This goes for both sides of any debate. It's all a waste of time and energy. People also fail to realize that science is a religion as well. The faith in knowledge and a testing method being able to further and progress mankind. When all is done it will be realized that doing nothing would have progressed us farther, faster, because we were already there. Mankind was better in harmony before the inception of language, not individual man, however. Science and religion both serve as a device to give an individual man, or men under kinship of mind, an advantage over others so they may impose authority upon them, such as a gov't, religion, or scientific standard to which can not be opposed without upon meeting physical enforcement tactics, thus keeping their imposed standards and beliefs upheld as truth and authority, although almost never justifiably so.



Science is nothing like religion. There is no faith required, and good scientists want the truth, not to be correct. 

But I agree; with your mindset, everything is a waste of time.


----------



## TedEH (May 9, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> People also fail to realize that science is a religion as well


No. It's not. It really is not. Are there people who put faith in the word of scientists in a similar manner as one would put faith in the word of a priest? Sure there are. But the process that led to the content of that word is VERY different. Religion is about the word. Science is about the process that leads to the word, and admits that said word could be wrong, likely _is_ wrong a lot of the time, and is open to receiving new information that changes the word. One is a faith in authority, the other is faith in a process (and I'm using the word "faith" very loosely in the second case). Don't get me wrong - as the basis of a whole worldview, they are both fallible - but in the case of science, that's part of the point. If you treat science as an infallible source of truth (in other words, like a religion), then you're doing science wrong.



MetalHex said:


> If people knew that this ruling elite created these faux religions, including the ones that are supposed to be opposite, then maybe there wouldnt be this endless bloodshed over the centuries.


Except that people _are very_ well aware of imbalances of power in the world, and spend huge amounts of time/money/effort/etc. trying to fight those things. There's nothing secret about the fact that wealth and power are distributed in a comically imbalanced way.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 9, 2019)

So, I probably shouldn't wade into this mess, but as someone who was raised catholic (and later left the church), a few things to clear up:

1. IHS derives from the Greek spelling of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with any Irish gods, nor does it have to do with the Egyptian trinity of Isis/Horus/Set as is frequently claimed by ignorant fools.

2. The symbol of the Jesuits is based on a communion wafer. The reason a communion wafer is round isn't to represent the sun (as is frequently claimed by ignorant fools), but rather to ensure that it has no corners that can be broken off accidentally. Given that Catholicism holds that after transubstantiation the communion wafer becomes the body of Christ, letting a part of it touch the floor would be sacrilegious. This is the same reason why some more traditionalist churches take communion on the tongue; less chances to drop it.

3. The Knights Templar were a Catholic military order with the purpose of defending Catholic lands from Islam. Yes, they share symbols with the Catholicism _because they were a Catholic group_. That a religious group used symbols of their religion isn't proof of a conspiracy; it's proof that they were religious.

4. The association of Jesus with the lamb has nothing to do with astrology, and everything to do with the fact that lambs, when slaughtered, don't try to fight back against the butcher to save themselves, but will in fact nuzzle the butcher's hand as he kills them. The parallels to the crucifixion here should be obvious. The association of Jesus with a fish is a protestant thing, not a Catholic thing -- bringing this up as evidence is just sloppy on your part. Furthermore, that still leaves _10 zodiac symbols_ that you'd have to associate him with to prove your point. I don't recall ever seeing Jesus described as a crab, for instance (Cancer, sign of the month of June).

5. The presence of lions, eagles, etc. on coats of arms has nothing to do with the church and everything to do with nepotism. That stuff is all heraldry from noble families in the medieval days; since they were symbols that would be used on a battlefield, the imagery was that of armor and weapons (sword + shield, helmets are also common) and carnivorous animals associated with bravery (eagles, lions, etc.).

6. "Aren't Jesuits supposed to be just a small twig in the shadow of the rest of the Church/white pope?" Uh... no? I have no idea where the hell you get this from. "(the Jesuits have a strong connection with the knights of malta, and are instrumental in putting people in seats of power to create groups like the CIA.)" [citation needed] "Also, Trump went to Jesuit school....could mean nothing, could mean something." The answer is "nothing". Loads and loads of people go to Jesuit schools, and yet most of our government is made up of Protestants, something that would be truly weird if the Catholics were "teh real powar" behind it. 

7. With that said, yes, it _is_ true that Catholicism is replete with old pagan symbolism (although you actually missed most of it and hit on things that aren't actually pagan, because you're ignorant of the topic I guess); however, the meanings and significance of the various symbols was always changed. This was necessary for the religion to spread; because customs and habits are stronger than professed beliefs, rather than trying to change everyone's customs, the church kept customs alive but then changed the meanings of them (and before you say some nonsense about "but symbols rule the world, so it's still pagan", realize that the fact that you weren't even aware of these things in the first place and had to use a bunch of non-pagan stuff as evidence that the church is pagan shows how thoroughly the church succeeded). This protean nature, combined with the nature of the Catholic mass (simple enough that anyone can follow along even if they don't know the language, involved enough to create group participation thus creating both social bonds and ritualism) is what allowed the Catholic church to spread so rapidly. It's still not the world's top religion in terms of followers, though, so if you want to look for power conspiracies, maybe Hindu would be a more productive start?

Next time, if you're looking for fast and easy answers on Catholicism, instead of reading the websites of ignorant kooks, try out the New Advent encyclopedia instead. It's an excellent resource for all things Catholic, whether historical or current practice.


----------



## Drew (May 9, 2019)

This is all true, because I'm a Pisces and dead-set on squashing conspiracy theories so they MUST be true.


----------



## StevenC (May 9, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> So, I probably shouldn't wade into this mess, but as someone who was raised catholic (and later left the church), a few things to clear up:
> 
> 1. IHS derives from the Greek spelling of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with any Irish gods, nor does it have to do with the Egyptian trinity of Isis/Horus/Set as is frequently claimed by ignorant fools.
> 
> ...


This is a really good critique. 

Also, the timelines presented in the OP don't make any sense, and he may have confused some halos for suns.

Also I'd like something more specific when he says "Royal Crown".

Also, I'd like a citation for Confucius being in on a worldwide conspiracy in 500BC.

Pretty sure cows are still worshipped in some religions.

Why make a new religion as a front for your astro-theology if that's already the prominent religion of the time?

Finally, why did they take so much symbolism from random unconnected belief systems? You can't say "ancient Egypt and Irish Druidism" like there's any connection or crossover there. Also, define "Irish Druidism" and exactly what iconography you associate with it.


----------



## Drew (May 9, 2019)

TedEH said:


> One is a faith in authority, the other is faith in a process (and I'm using the word "faith" very loosely in the second case).


Quoted for emphasis - religion is a set of beliefs you are asked to take without question. Science is the process of questioning beliefs to determine if they are likely to be true. 

Science and religion are often presented as opposites, but I (as a fairly secular guy) don't really think that's the case - science is the process of determining _how_ the world functions. Religion is the process of determining _why_ it does. They're complimentary.


----------



## kingpinMS3 (May 9, 2019)

Bath salts are a motherfucker.


----------



## Drew (May 9, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> So, I probably shouldn't wade into this mess, but as someone who was raised catholic (and later left the church), a few things to clear up


Excellent, excellent, excellent post. Really not much to add, save agreement - the Jesus/fish thing was based on the greek spelling of his name, and something he was aware of and played up - the "fisher of men" thing, though of course a number of his followers actually WERE fisherment. 

Ditto with the correspondence between pagan holidays and catholic ones - this is a pretty openly discussed part of the Catholic church's missionary strategy, taking local customs and holidays and grafting on catholic themes, so that the locals they were trying to convert would still get to celebrate all their usual holidays, but would now be honoring the _right_ god. Subsersive? Sure, just not in the way you maybe might think. 

Also, with the lamb thing, there's the element of Jesus presenting himself as a sacrificial lamb, the "lamb of god" who needed to die to redeem mankind. Which itself is a theme that dates back to paganism as well and very well may have been lifted in the early days of Christianity, and I think there's some very interesting work to be done in terms of the evolutionary history of the Christian faith and other major world religions, but the conclusion I think I'd come to wouldn't be that they're all part of some global puppetmaster conspiracy to hold onto power, so much as beliefs, like organisms, evolve from common starting points. Friedrich Nietzsche is probably worth reading in this context, specifically "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" as a counterpoint to Zoraster, with Zorastorians being the first religious group to posit the existince of absolute good and absolute evil, and Zarathustra (a greek-derived, I believe, spelling of Zoraster) being a symbolic upending of that. 

Idunno. This all takes a whole heck of a lot of angels dancing on the heads of pins to explain, whereas religions evolving and competing for followers based on the same general principles of natural selection is a much simpler explanation, and accordingly more likely to be true.


----------



## Drew (May 9, 2019)

Also, we can't have a conversation about religion and about strange correspondences without this:


----------



## Cynicanal (May 9, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I remember reading somewhere years ago that in the occult world, the perp always shows/tells their victims what they are going to do to them before they do it...as it makes the ritual more powerful, or the perp gains more energy from it...something like that.


While I'm at it...

This is extra-special. Please, with your vast knowledge of "the occult world", inform me as to why this would be the case. Use the classic example of a magical act (if you actually know anything about the occult and aren't just making stuff up, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about), and explain how, under that framework, telling someone you were about to do it would make it any more powerful.

(For those reading this who do know, yes, I'm talking about what you think I am, I'm just not using exact names so that MetalHex can't Google it and then come up with some ad-hoc explanation; I don't want him to be able to form a coherent answer unless he actually knows something, which he's shown he doesn't. EDIT: Although, on further thought, I've given enough above that I think it's still Googleable, so I'll probably have to hurt more of my poor innocent braincells when he does exactly what I'm trying to prevent.)


----------



## PunkBillCarson (May 9, 2019)

StevenC said:


> When I asked this I got called a troll.




Well it probably didn't help when your first post in the thread was basically a prickish reply.


----------



## MetalHex (May 10, 2019)

To Cynicanal,

1.But, where does the Greek language come from? Phoenecian. Where does that language come from? Michael Tsarion and others before him have pointed out the conclusion that their language was derived from ancient Irish/duidic. the Greeks were the johnny-come-lately with their rescripting and re-appropriation.

2. Yeah, the one cherry-picked example of symbolism doesn't prove conspiracy....you"re right. Its just a small example that I included in my OP, which was a sort of "time-line" to illustrate the linkage of connections of peoples over the centuries. thats why I have provided links.....did you read them? . There are/were so many other "orders" that operate, and are intertwined with free-masonry. Strangely enough, the symbolism is free-masonry holds a shit ton of evidence to believe in a global conspiracy. Their main symbolism consists of "divde and rule", and "order ab chao". Members within masonry such as Albert Pike, have proven that their goal was complete control. Hence, "order ab chao". they could create disorder, confusion, division, panic, rebellion on one hand, then on the other hand come in with "unity", submission, agreement, and order. That is the idea of it. Pike also wrote a letter to Mazzini where he laid out a plan to unfold the coming three world wars....two of which obviously happened already. (Though there are those who have "proven" that he never wrote such a letter). And who else would be implementing this other than the people who belong the secret societies that harbor these ideas who belong to lodges that harbor this symbolism in plain sight? (Just a thought). My OP isn't supposed to be the end all be all-"here is all of the proof", post. The symbols that the catholics use, are not original to catholics. I didn't say that Therefore the idea that the templars were catholic is up for debate. It is also evident that before they even became the "templars", they were involved in a goddess worship/tradition known as the "order of sion". The templars weren't just created out of thin air. Tell me then, what is so "christian" about the templars?

3. The reference to the zodiac isn't about the months of a year, it has to do with the procession of the equinoxes. The sun"s rotation through space. The constellation that our sun was "in" from about 2160 B.C. to year 0 was Aires, and from year 0 to current day the constellation is Pisces. The Popes hat looks like a fucking fish. We are approaching Aquarius as the next one. The age of Aquarius. Could the lamb and fish symbolism come from this "slaughter" thing or whatever your talking about? Sure. Could it NOT actually be? Yes, it could not actually be. Is this an end all be all proof of a conspiracy? No. But its proof that religion is based on astro theology because their symbolism is absolutely riddled with it, and the average person doesnt realize it. Such as yourself.

4. Partly correct. I never said the coats of arms has to do with church. The part you're missing that the symbols go back ancient Egypt. There are no lions in England, do you have a good reason why they would use that symbolism of African lions and Irish harps? Couldn't they find something closer to home to symbolise strength and courage? Or is it that their bloodline/masonic origins can be directly traced back to the royal dynasties of Egypt, as I have said. However, while were on the subject of similar symbolism on flags around the world, it is important to know that you cant just create your own flag....it is the Royal College of Arms in the UK that has the authority over that. I dont think there exists anywhere in the world a country flag that doesnt consist of a star, stripe, or some other planetary symbol. That is one example of evidence of the extension of power that the royal crown in england has over the rest of the world. Does it mean conspiracy? No, but we sure know where to look if there ever was one.

5. https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_malta01.htm I believe the site may be a fringe site actually,...."grain of salt"......but what you could do is research independently the names within it....especially William Donovan and John Dulles being prominent Knights of Malta. So was the CIA founded by the order, or were the founders also members of that order? There is no way to prove either way, but I believe the former.

6. That didnt explain how I was "ignorant of the topic". You just spewed a bunch of bs.

It doesnt help to be condescending towards me or my OP either. But I can understand where that comes from. It comes from someone presenting new information that goes against your conditioning and everything you know to be true since childhood, and then your ego steps up in and you get angry because you dont know to admit that you may not be right. In this case, the word "teacher" is synonymous with the word "threat". Be more like Randy, how knows how to have a discussion.

I don't know which is more sad, the fact that your "excellent excellent excellen post is wrong, or the fact the 6 people liked your post, making 7 people wrong.

I know this thread would be a waste of time


----------



## JSanta (May 10, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> To Cynicanal,
> 
> 1.But, where does the Greek language come from? Phoenecian. Where does that language come from? Michael Tsarion and others before him have pointed out the conclusion that their language was derived from ancient Irish/duidic. the Greeks were the johnny-come-lately with their rescripting and re-appropriation.
> 
> ...



The thread is not a waste of time so much that most of the things you've posted as evidence pointing towards a truth do not hold up under any type of scrutiny. That's the distinction to be made.


----------



## StevenC (May 10, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> 1.But, where does the Greek language come from? Phoenecian. Where does that language come from? Michael Tsarion and others before him have pointed out the conclusion that their language was derived from ancient Irish/duidic. the Greeks were the johnny-come-lately with their rescripting and re-appropriation.


This is such an idiotic thing to say and such an easy thing to disprove, but yes let's listen to some random dude on the internet instead of linguists who know what they're talking about. Not to mention "ancient Irish/druidic language" is a phrase that doesn't mean anything. Greek and Gaelic have the same roots but they also share those roots with literally every other Eurasian language because that's a facet of human history. Nothing to do with what you're saying, because it's basically impossible that Greek and Gaelic had any interaction in a meaningful way.



MetalHex said:


> 4. Partly correct. I never said the coats of arms has to do with church. The part you're missing that the symbols go back ancient Egypt. There are no lions in England, do you have a good reason why they would use that symbolism of African lions and Irish harps? Couldn't they find something closer to home to symbolise strength and courage? Or is it that their bloodline/masonic origins can be directly traced back to the royal dynasties of Egypt, as I have said. However, while were on the subject of similar symbolism on flags around the world, it is important to know that you cant just create your own flag....it is the Royal College of Arms in the UK that has the authority over that. I dont think there exists anywhere in the world a country flag that doesnt consist of a star, stripe, or some other planetary symbol. That is one example of evidence of the extension of power that the royal crown in england has over the rest of the world. Does it mean conspiracy? No, but we sure know where to look if there ever was one.


Before the last ice age lions existed in England, but you have a very selective, no linear view of history so who cares, right? The other thing is that this is not an exclusively English thing, obviously, and noblemen all over Europe knew what lions were. This is a weird hill to die on. By the way, if you knew anything about what you were talking about you'd know that harps started coming into coats of arms around the time British Imperialism started taking off with plantation in Ireland.

Secondly, yes you can just create your own flag. I don't think you know how the College of Arms works. I don't think you know what a coat of arms is. I don't think you know what a flag is. British/Commonwealth people are allowed to use a coat of arms for their family if they get permission, usually through getting some form of OBE. The College of Arms only has authority over use of coats of arms for British people. Other countries dole out coats of arms in different ways and have different bodies in charge of them.

Finally, and if you had a clue about anything you wouldn't say such dumb things, but obviously the British royal family isn't conspiring with the Catholic church. Unless you think everything that's ever happened in the British Isles is a front for this, which based on your posts you probably do. But at the same time you don't know enough about British history to understand why that's so dumb. 

I'd also like to say that normally I'm not big on patriotism or nationalism, I'm from a part of the world where identity politics has killed a lot of people and hurt lots of others, very recently. But please stop referencing anything Irish in your comments because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in it.

The rest of your comment is just ignorant and blinkered. You said twice either there's no evidence and you don't care, or you disregard the real explanation because you prefer your fairytale to reality.


----------



## TedEH (May 10, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I dont think there exists anywhere in the world a country flag that doesnt consist of a star, stripe, or some other planetary symbol


As a Canadian, I'd like to know which planet is shaped like a maple leaf. 

And yes, I'm aware there are red stripes, but again... what planetary body does that represent?


----------



## possumkiller (May 10, 2019)

TedEH said:


> As a Canadian, I'd like to know which planet is shaped like a maple leaf.
> 
> And yes, I'm aware there are red stripes, but again... what planetary body does that represent?


How about the good ol US of SR?


----------



## Cynicanal (May 10, 2019)

> 1.But, where does the Greek language come from? Phoenecian. Where does that language come from? Michael Tsarion and others before him have pointed out the conclusion that their language was derived from ancient Irish/duidic. the Greeks were the johnny-come-lately with their rescripting and re-appropriation.


Do you even geography?

Jesus lived in the middle east, in modern-day Israel/Palestine. What part of Europe is closest to the middle east? _Greece_. The early European church didn't use Greece because of some fancy symbolism; _they used it because they were Greek_.



> 2. Yeah, the one cherry-picked example of symbolism doesn't prove conspiracy [bla bla bla this is way too long to quote]


WTF does any of this have to do with the shape of communion wafers?



> 3. The reference to the zodiac isn't about the months of a year, it has to do with the procession of the equinoxes. The sun"s rotation through space. The constellation that our sun was "in" from about 2160 B.C. to year 0 was Aires, and from year 0 to current day the constellation is Pisces. The Popes hat looks like a fucking fish. We are approaching Aquarius as the next one. The age of Aquarius. Could the lamb and fish symbolism come from this "slaughter" thing or whatever your talking about? Sure. Could it NOT actually be? Yes, it could not actually be. Is this an end all be all proof of a conspiracy? No. But its proof that religion is based on astro theology because their symbolism is absolutely riddled with it, and the average person doesnt realize it. Such as yourself.


"The sun's rotation through space" causing the equinoxes. Holy crap wat. Please tell me you're not a geocentricist.

The pope's hat looks like a fish? Are you on drugs?

And no, it's not proof that the religion is based on "astro thelology" or that their symbolism is riddled with it, because their symbolism isn't riddled with it. You have one symbol that's used in astrology and Catholicism (the lamb) for very different reasons. You still haven't answered where the crab is in Catholicism.



> 4. Partly correct. I never said the coats of arms has to do with church. The part you're missing that the symbols go back ancient Egypt. There are no lions in England, do you have a good reason why they would use that symbolism of African lions and Irish harps? Couldn't they find something closer to home to symbolise strength and courage? Or is it that their bloodline/masonic origins can be directly traced back to the royal dynasties of Egypt, as I have said. However, while were on the subject of similar symbolism on flags around the world, it is important to know that you cant just create your own flag....it is the Royal College of Arms in the UK that has the authority over that. I dont think there exists anywhere in the world a country flag that doesnt consist of a star, stripe, or some other planetary symbol. That is one example of evidence of the extension of power that the royal crown in england has over the rest of the world. Does it mean conspiracy? No, but we sure know where to look if there ever was one.


Their bloodlines don't trace back to the royal bloodlines of Egypt, WTF. While it's true the Carolingians descended from the Romans, they're not of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Go look at the lions on the family crest of the Normans; notice how doofy looking they are? Do these look like people that were drawing lions from reference to you? Terribly drawn lions are a common theme in medieval and renaissance art (go find some paintings of St. Jerome), you've inadvertently torpedoed your own point with your lack of historical knowledge.



> 6. That didnt explain how I was "ignorant of the topic". You just spewed a bunch of bs.


I'm not sure what you're even referring to here. If you mean my #7, yes, you've demonstrated quite nicely that you're totally ignorant of the history and current practices of Catholicism, if you don't even know what IHS means, where it comes from, why it comes from Greek, and what the Jesuit's symbol is. Or if the best evidence you can come up with for the Catholic church using pagan symbols is that Protestants like to use the symbol of the fish, when the Catholics openly use _tons_ of other originally pagan symbols.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 10, 2019)

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer on why telling your enemy about a spell you're about to perform makes it stronger, according to the principles of the occult as commonly practiced. Use the common example of a magical act in your answer.


----------



## Drew (May 10, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Their bloodlines don't trace back to the royal bloodlines of Egypt, WTF. While it's true the Carolingians descended from the Romans, they're not of the Ptolemaic dynasty.


Wait a second, I was trying to remember why this sounded so familiar. Wasn't this a major plotpoint in the Anne Rice/_Interview with the Vampire_ novels? Is _that_ where this is all going?


----------



## Cynicanal (May 10, 2019)

I'm not familiar with Anne Rice in detail, but given that Cleopatra was the second-to-last of that bloodline, and her three sons were publicly humiliated and are generally presumed to have been executed after Octavinus became Emperor, it does seem to be the sort of thing she'd write about.


----------



## BenjaminW (May 10, 2019)

I can't tell if this is serious or not, but fairly interesting post though.


----------



## Drew (May 10, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> I'm not familiar with Anne Rice in detail, but given that Cleopatra was the second-to-last of that bloodline, and her three sons were publicly humiliated and are generally presumed to have been executed after Octavinus became Emperor, it does seem to be the sort of thing she'd write about.


This would have been high school, I had a buddy who was really into the series who loaned me a couple, and high school was an embarrassingly long time ago, lol. but it sounds AWFULLY familiar.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 10, 2019)

Sure enough, a quick bit of Googling shows that this _was_ a part of the backstory of Anne Rice's novels (in her novels, the three sons secretly weren't killed and were able to continue their bloodlines, and no one outside of the vampires had any idea that the bloodlines were still around, or that they were vampires). LOL.


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (May 10, 2019)

I have an Ibanez JEM with the eye/pyramid logo on it. 

Ibanez starts with an I. 

Vai ends with an I 

Illuminati both starts and ends with an I. 

Coincidence? I think not (think has an I in the middle!)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 10, 2019)

I bet the real reason the Libyan government was taken down was because the Jesuit Shadow Government was upset that the Libyan flag didn't have any stripes, stars, or planetary symbols on it.








Better watch out, Bhutan! You're next!


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

ExileMetal said:


> Science is nothing like religion. There is no faith required, and good scientists want the truth, not to be correct.
> 
> But I agree; with your mindset, everything is a waste of time.


I have to disagree with this. Science has absolutely nothing to do with truth. Science is about facts. You and I could develop our own completely different truths even when presented with the exact same facts.


----------



## narad (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> I have to disagree with this. Science has absolutely nothing to do with truth. Science is about facts. You and I could develop our own completely different truths even when presented with the exact same facts.



Fact: Facts have a lot to do with truth. Truth.


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Before the last ice age lions existed in England





Holy shit dude you're right!






StevenC said:


> The College of Arms only has authority over use of coats of arms for British people




One of many variant flags of Great Britain.....look familiar? Please help me make sense out of this; the American pioneers (who are considered traitors), revolt against the crown in England and says fuck off we're starting our own government elsewhere, have nothing to do with Englands monarchy anymore, where they can come up with their own flag, inevitably come up with this flag?

red white and blue are the kings colours



Cynicanal said:


> BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer on why telling your enemy about a spell you're about to perform makes it stronger, according to the principles of the occult as commonly practiced. Use the common example of a magical act in your answer.


Dude. You didnt read what I wrote. I never claimed to know anything about occult magic or why it makes them stronger, I just said that I read (that little tidbit), somewhere before. How the hell did you get that I know all about magic from that? Nevermind reading between the lines.....you can't even read THE lines. Sheesh!



StevenC said:


> You can't say "ancient Egypt and Irish Druidism" like there's any connection or crossover there


 Shows you very little you know then.



Cynicanal said:


> The pope's hat looks like a fish? Are you on drugs?


----------



## Jason B (May 11, 2019)

What makes you so certain that fish weren’t made to look like the pope’s hat?


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

narad said:


> Fact: Facts have a lot to do with truth. Truth.


Truth can differ from one perspective to the next. Religion is the only truth needed for quite a lot of the population. The OP has his own truth shaped by the lens through which he views the world.

Facts are observed and produced by scientific method.


----------



## narad (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Truth can differ from one perspective to the next. Religion is the only truth needed for quite a lot of the population. The OP has his own truth shaped by the lens through which he views the world.
> 
> Facts are observed and produced by scientific method.



I see where you're going but I would simply say one person's perspective of the truth may differ from another, but truth does not change from one person to another. To say otherwise is just unnecessarily making the speaker's meaning of the word "truth" ambiguous.


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

narad said:


> I see where you're going but I would simply say one person's perspective of the truth may differ from another, but truth does not change from one person to another. To say otherwise is just unnecessarily making the speaker's meaning of the word "truth" ambiguous.


A person can still tell the truth and not have all the facts. They could be incorrect but still not be lying.

My point is that truth is a big grey area. The whole point of facts is no grey area. Facts are facts.


----------



## narad (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> A person can still tell the truth and not have all the facts. They could be incorrect but still not be lying.
> 
> My point is that truth is a big grey area. The whole point of facts is no grey area. Facts are facts.



And I would say science is the process by which we search for truth, a truth that exists irrespective of any individual's own experience or selective observation of facts. And thus science has pretty much everything to do with true and how we discover it in this world, under the assumption that true things are observable and repeatable. 

When a person "tells the truth", it's just an idiom -- they tell their own (potentially flawed) understanding of the truth, not "the" truth. So I would say truth is a no-gray-area zone.


----------



## Jason B (May 11, 2019)

If you ask me, debates in which participants refuse to agree on the definition of common words are never a complete waste of time. In fact, the person unwilling to be pinned down to a definition of “truth” and other non-pertinent terms usually comes away seeming like they hold the most solid, empirically-sound notions from which to draw conclusions that affect all of us.


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

Jason B said:


> If you ask me, debates in which participants refuse to agree on the definition of common words are never a complete waste of time.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

The fact is truth is a lot more open to interpretation.


----------



## StevenC (May 11, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> View attachment 69249
> 
> Holy shit dude you're right!
> View attachment 69250
> ...


----------



## Jason B (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> The fact is truth is a lot more open to interpretation.



And which interpretation happens to suit you at this moment?


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

Jason B said:


> And which interpretation happens to suit you at this moment?


That is exactly the point.


----------



## Jason B (May 11, 2019)

These waters tread too deep for an old chunk of coal like me. Anyway, how do you expect Mr. Narad to understand and contradict your epistemological position on such matters if your truth that all truth is relativistic is _itself_ relativistic? If you don’t, he won’t be able to condescend to you. Why would you deprive someone of such a petty ego boost? Are you a _monster?_


----------



## narad (May 11, 2019)

Unbanned too soon, I see.

At any rate, I think the notion that "science has absolutely nothing to do with truth" is pretty much dead in the water, even just going by the definitions already posted in this thread. That's not condescension, that's just an opinion, of the sort people tend to post in discussion forums.


----------



## Jason B (May 11, 2019)

But _what IS _an opinion, if you really don’t think about it? Can you *Really* define it? What doth life?


----------



## TedEH (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> You and I could develop our own completely different truths even when presented with the exact same facts.





narad said:


> I see where you're going but I would simply say one person's perspective of the truth may differ from another, but truth does not change from one person to another. To say otherwise is just unnecessarily making the speaker's meaning of the word "truth" ambiguous.


I gatta side with Narad here. Dictionary definitions don't matter when a word is being used in a colloquial way- which is the majority of the cases these words get used. We know very well that when a person says "fact" or "truth", in the majority of cases they are referring to the same thing. Otherwise it's not "the truth", it's a perception, an opinion, etc. I don't personally care if a dictionary says otherwise, it's not useful to a conversation to introduce that ambiguity when you know what the user of the word meant.



possumkiller said:


> truth is a big grey area


Also... wait, those dictionary definitions defined truth as fact, right away, before saying anything else. Yeah, I saw the second definition below it, but just because people _can_ use the word to refer to a grey area doesn't mean that they should. Saying something like "truth is a grey area", while you're talking on a semantic level, opens the door for someone to think you said "reality is up for debate". (Which I assume is not what you meant.)



MetalHex said:


> I just said that I read (that little tidbit), somewhere before


But you've used "I read it in a book somewhere" as your backup for just about everything you've said so far. How are we supposed to know which things you've read count and which don't?


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

Db post


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I gatta side with Narad here. Dictionary definitions don't matter when a word is being used in a colloquial way- which is the majority of the cases these words get used. We know very well that when a person says "fact" or "truth", in the majority of cases they are referring to the same thing. Otherwise it's not "the truth", it's a perception, an opinion, etc. I don't personally care if a dictionary says otherwise, it's not useful to a conversation to introduce that ambiguity when you know what the user of the word meant.
> 
> 
> Also... wait, those dictionary definitions defined truth as fact, right away, before saying anything else. Yeah, I saw the second definition below it, but just because people _can_ use the word to refer to a grey area doesn't mean that they should. Saying something like "truth is a grey area", while you're talking on a semantic level, opens the door for someone to think you said "reality is up for debate". (Which I assume is not what you meant.)
> ...


Truth can consist of facts, opinions, beliefs or whatever people think is true. Facts are facts. 

The great thing about facts (such as the facts regarding the definition of truth) is that they are still facts regardless of whether someone accepts them or not. Don't make me bring Dr. Henry Jones Jr. into it. I'm not saying truth doesn't intersect with fact sometimes. I'm saying truth is not always equal to fact and science is about finding facts. Googling "science is the search for truth" brings up a bunch of creationism bs.

A great example is this thread. I'm pretty sure the OP is convinced he's uncovered the truth but he is unable to provide any proof in the form of real facts.


----------



## StevenC (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Truth can consist of facts, opinions, beliefs or whatever people think is true. Facts are facts.
> 
> The great thing about facts (such as the facts regarding the definition of truth) is that they are still facts regardless of whether someone accepts them or not. Don't make me bring Dr. Henry Jones Jr. into it. I'm not saying truth doesn't intersect with fact sometimes. I'm saying truth is not always equal to fact and science is about finding facts. Googling "science is the search for truth" brings up a bunch of creationism bs.
> 
> A great example is this thread. I'm pretty sure the OP is convinced he's uncovered the truth but he is unable to provide any proof in the form of real facts.


Isn't that equally a counter argument, though? OP is convinced he's uncovered the truth, but he hasn't and it's not the truth.


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Isn't that equally a counter argument, though? OP is convinced he's uncovered the truth, but he hasn't and it's not the truth.


That is exactly the point. Facts are both fact and truth while truth is not always fact. Just because we don't believe it's the truth does not mean others can't. His truth ignores many facts.


----------



## narad (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> That is exactly the point. Facts are both fact and truth while truth is not always fact. Just because we don't believe it's the truth does not mean others can't. His truth ignores many facts.



So I believe the gravitational constant is 3, and that's "my truth"? I would just say that's "my belief". And I don't see any dictionary definition that would contradict that. 

The only person I've known in real life to use the "my truth" phrase was a born again christian who didn't want to say "believe" because she was not comfortable acknowledging that we cannot prove or confirm that her faith is warranted.


----------



## StevenC (May 11, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> That is exactly the point. Facts are both fact and truth while truth is not always fact. Just because we don't believe it's the truth does not mean others can't. His truth ignores many facts.


If someone thinks something is the truth they tend to think it's a fact. So are you saying they're only wrong about calling it a fact, not calling it the truth?


----------



## possumkiller (May 11, 2019)

StevenC said:


> If someone thinks something is the truth they tend to think it's a fact. So are you saying they're only wrong about calling it a fact, not calling it the truth?


True


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

During the Sworn Testimony in the court of law (maritime admiralty law) they do not ask you to swear to tell the facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts. That is a fact. (Or truth) They then proceed to ask you a series of individual questions; do you answer those as facts or as truths? The Webster dictionary says that those answers are individual facts. So.....if the culmination of all those facts are truth, then is the webster definition wrong to say that the individual answers are to be considered facts? You have just told the truth, by telling individual facts. Its just that each fact is the truth, or at least what YOU know to be true (or for a fact).

Confusing? Yes it is. That's a fact. (Or the truth)


----------



## Cynicanal (May 11, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> During the Sworn Testimony in the court of law (maritime admiralty law)


Jesuits, geocentricism, and now sovereign citizen idiocy, is there a single ridiculous idea you _don't_ completely buy in to?


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Jesuits, geocentricism, and now sovereign citizen idiocy, is there a single ridiculous idea you _don't_ completely buy in to?


Geocentricism? Where did you get that from? Also what does that have to do with Ritz crackers and Welch's grape juice at communion time?


----------



## Cynicanal (May 11, 2019)

> it has to do with the procession of the equinoxes. *The sun"s rotation through space.*



EDIT: Also, thanks for once again demonstrating you can't tell the difference between Protestant churches and Catholic churches. Protestant churches use grape juice in communion; Catholic churches use real wine.


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> EDIT: Also, thanks for once again demonstrating you can't tell the difference between Protestant churches and Catholic churches. Protestant churches use grape juice in communion; Catholic churches use real wine.


Our whole solar system moves through space. How many times do I have to say this until you look it up? Your whole religion is based on sun worship.......you out of all people should know this.


----------



## jaxadam (May 11, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Our whole solar system moves through space.



SpaceTIME. Spacetime.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 11, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Our whole solar system moves through space. How many times do I have to say this until you look it up? Your whole religion is based on sun worship.......you out of all people should know this.


And what does the movement of the solar system have to do with the procession of the equinoxes? Absolutely nothing, that's caused by the periodic change in the Earth's tilt.

And I'm not currently Catholic; I was raised Catholic. Big difference. And, no, Catholicism isn't based on sun worship no matter how many times you say it. Just because you don't know anything about the religion doesn't mean Jack Chick (which is what most of your links ultimately resolve to) wasn't an insane kook.


----------



## MetalHex (May 11, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> And what does the movement of the solar system have to do with the procession of the equinoxes? Absolutely nothing, that's caused by the periodic change in the Earth's tilt.
> 
> And I'm not currently Catholic; I was raised Catholic. Big difference. And, no, Catholicism isn't based on sun worship no matter how many times you say it. Just because you don't know anything about the religion doesn't mean Jack Chick (which is what most of your links ultimately resolve to) wasn't an insane kook.


First you said I believed in geocentricism, not true. Then you said what does the solar system have to do with the procession of the equinoxes (which it has everything to do with how we perceive the phenomenon).

Then I dont understand your Jack Chick reference at all.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 12, 2019)

The books you've linked supposedly written by priests claiming to unmask the "deep secrets" of the Jesuits are published by Chick Publishing. In case you're not familiar with them, they also publish insane shit like this: https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0046


----------



## MetalHex (May 12, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> The books you've linked supposedly written by priests claiming to unmask the "deep secrets" of the Jesuits are published by Chick Publishing. In case you're not familiar with them, they also publish insane shit like this: https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=0046


This Chick publications is clearly christian, so wouldn't it then behoove them to not publish a book exposing the Jesuits' ugly history?

Regardless, it's still just conjecture. 

What do you think is insane about that comic strip? Is it the fact that they published cartoon strips or is it the content? I mean if you we're a christian, then you would think its sending a good message to stay away from the occult rituals.


----------



## Jason B (May 12, 2019)

@Cynicanal If only you’d posted the one about the devil killing the teens with a chainsaw for having a Halloween party, he might have come around to your side of things. Honestly, the jesuit solar cult is well-established in some of our finer publications, such as the Weekly World News and other democratizations of thought premised upon rampant conflation of plausibility, probability and possibility. So attacking Chick Publishing for publishing the cold, hard truth of the matter is not only beside the point, but downright irresponsible - They’re good people saving other good people from hell (or at least heck).

Edit: _bat boy._


----------



## Cynicanal (May 12, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> This Chick publications is clearly christian, so wouldn't it then behoove them to not publish a book exposing the Jesuits' ugly history?
> 
> Regardless, it's still just conjecture.
> 
> What do you think is insane about that comic strip? Is it the fact that they published cartoon strips or is it the content? I mean if you we're a christian, then you would think its sending a good message to stay away from the occult rituals.


I don't know where you got the idea that the various Christian denominations are one big happy family from. Protestants and Catholics have a rather ugly relationship, and both think the other church is an anti-Christian tool of Satan damning their congregations to hell.

What's insane about that comic strip is obviously the content. "Dungeons and Dragons is going to turn you into a witch and make your friends kill themselves"... WTF?


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (May 12, 2019)

This thread is a very strong contender for SSO Thread of the Year 2019.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 12, 2019)

http://www.boolean-union.com/Chick/Comics/Sabotage/Sabotage.htm

This is probably a better example of just how insane Jack Chick was. Seriously, _you're using this guy as your source_.


----------



## MFB (May 12, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> http://www.boolean-union.com/Chick/Comics/Sabotage/Sabotage.htm
> 
> This is probably a better example of just how insane Jack Chick was. Seriously, _you're using this guy as your source_.



Sounds like somebody can't stand it, is it because you know he planned it? Maybe you should take this time to set straight this Watergate.


----------



## MetalHex (May 12, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> http://www.boolean-union.com/Chick/Comics/Sabotage/Sabotage.htm
> 
> This is probably a better example of just how insane Jack Chick was. Seriously, _you're using this guy as your source_.


Isn't the bible your main source though? We dont need to get into all the BS thats in there now...


----------



## TedEH (May 12, 2019)

possumkiller said:


> Facts are both fact and truth while truth is not always fact.


It's stuff like this that makes me strongly think that we shouldn't treat those words as different. The ambiguity is a detriment to understanding what people are talking about.

I mean, the only reason that the "truth" can mean anything but a fact is when it turns out to be incorrect. If you know it's incorrect, then it ceases to be true. But that same quality applies to facts -> People state things "as fact" that are actually wrong all the time.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 12, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Isn't the bible your main source though? We dont need to get into all the BS thats in there now...


That would be a problem if I was arguing that Christianity (or Catholicism) were correct. But, as I have said over and over in this thread, _I was raised Catholic, but am not currently a believer_. 

I claim nothing about the correctness of Catholicism. I only claim that your claim that the Catholic church is some shadowy cabal secretly running all of the world and is also a satanic occult sun cult is absolute fucking nonsense. The fact that you can't understand this is incredible.


----------



## possumkiller (May 13, 2019)

Well I guess we can all eat crow now that there is hard proof the OP is correct. Start watching at 9'20".


----------



## USMarine75 (May 13, 2019)

Can't believe I made it all the way to page 6 and not one mention of the Rothschilds yet? Pffft. Somebody please tag me in when it happens.


----------



## MetalHex (May 13, 2019)

USMarine75 said:


> Can't believe I made it all the way to page 6 and not one mention of the Rothschilds yet? Pffft. Somebody please tag me in when it happens.


Sure, jump on in the troll pool, I hear the water is fine!


----------



## USMarine75 (May 13, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Sure, jump on in the troll pool, I hear the water is fine!



Cool.


----------



## BlackSG91 (May 13, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Our whole solar system moves through space. How many times do I have to say this until you look it up? Your whole religion is based on *sun worship*.......you out of all people should know this.



Son or Sun?




;>)/


----------



## MetalHex (May 13, 2019)

A cryptic euphemism indeed!


----------



## c7spheres (May 13, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> A cryptic euphemism indeed!


 I've been avoiding this thread cause I'd rather play guitar, but I do check in now and then to see how it's going. Yep. Exactly as expected and until the end of time I suspect. People can't convince anyone of anything, and lots of arguing and semantics. They have to figure out stuff on their own. The truth is that the earth could be flat, geocentricism could be true etc. (I know MetalHex, you don't believe this cause I read and stuff; ) People are just agentic and believe that others are authorities. This belief is based on trust of others, which is a huge mistake. Do not be agentic people. Here's the definition ripped right off googly: "Milgram's theory about the *agentic* state which is the psychological state the obedient subject is in when he or she is obeying authority." Watch the movie called the experimenter, it's all about this. People believe, not know, that whom they are told are authorities in certain matters are authorities. Many times's it's true, but you don't really KNOW some of the time. Some of the time, but it's always in play. You're all wasting your time. SDR. Party hard. Play more guitar.
Here's a 2min clip of the movie. The definition he gives is at 0:56sec. Nice beard!


----------



## MetalHex (May 13, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> They have to figure out stuff on their own.



You couldn't be more right.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 13, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> The truth is that the earth could be flat, geocentricism could be true etc.


It _really_ can't be. In either case.



> (I know MetalHex, you don't believe this cause I read and stuff; ) People are just agentic and believe that others are authorities. This belief is based on trust of others, which is a huge mistake. Do not be agentic people. Here's the definition ripped right off googly: "Milgram's theory about the *agentic* state which is the psychological state the obedient subject is in when he or she is obeying authority." Watch the movie called the experimenter, it's all about this. People believe, not know, that whom they are told are authorities in certain matters are authorities. Many times's it's true, but you don't really KNOW some of the time. Some of the time, but it's always in play. You're all wasting your time. SDR. Party hard. Play more guitar.
> Here's a 2min clip of the movie. The definition he gives is at 0:56sec. Nice beard!



Yep, we shouldn't trust others. Well, aside from people who claim to have been a Satanist, Catholic, Mormon, and Vampire _all at the same time_. Those people we should definitely put our trust in.


----------



## StevenC (May 13, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> The truth is that the earth could be flat, geocentricism could be true


Except those are both not true and incredibly easy to test for yourself. 

You keep talking about people taking others' word for it and that we can't be convinced of anything. But then you spout nonsense like this which requires a tiny amount of maths, your eyes, a stop watch and something to drop to disprove. People have known for thousands of years the earth is round. A flat earth and geocentricism breaks everything we know about the universe that modern civilization is predicated on.

It's OK if you can't be convinced of things because you can't understand things put in front of you, but there are very intelligent and well educated people in this thread who can.


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> It _really_ can't be. In either case.
> 
> 
> Yep, we shouldn't trust others. Well, aside from people who claim to have been a Satanist, Catholic, Mormon, and Vampire _all at the same time_. Those people we should definitely put our trust in.



Completely : ) My basic point was that we really don't and never will actually/can know anything. We can only think we know. What if we all woke up tomorrow and found out we were in the Matrix? How would we know we're not just in another matrix of the Matrix? Whatever the subject, it just keeps going on forever. I like to be more practical in what I believe and feel is my life so I just wing it and error on the side with the round earth, 432, and solar cults etc. I'm gonna back out of all this for a while now but I do believe that solar cults/religions are an heirloom of modern day religion for sure. There's always a weirdo way weirder than anyone ever thought that pops outta the woodwork every so often. Just think how many never see the light of day (no pun intended). 

Here's why to not elope. My friend married (well eloped) a girl who was a Mormon (he didn't know). They were literally married in Vegas by Elvis in a drive thru after knowing each other for 2 days. Amazingly, they have been married for 15 years now with 2 kids and seem to get along fine. Anyways, A couple months after marrying her they finally told her parents and went to visit. Turns out her dad was a Mr. Big Shot behind the scenes up in the Mormon church/temple in Salt Lake City. The first time he met him they went to pick him up at the temple from work or something like that, and went into an off limits area there. She didn't seem to think anything of it, but my friend having been forced Mormon when he was younger, never noticed or heard of before anything like what he saw, which was in this little off limits room. It was guilded in gold pentagrams and deities all around the perimeter with frescos and stuff and halfway up near the ceiling. He said it looked like an alter of some type was in there. It really took him back and while he met her dad, she was taken to the side and apparently scolded for letting him back there to wait. When he came up and shook his hand it was the whole weird handshake thing you hear about with the Masons and stuff. He just smiled overly confident at him and stuff and gave a bad vibe. Apparently he has never seen him again even though she goes back to visit her parents twice a year. My friend ain't weirded out by stuff, but this still wierds him out if I bring it up to him. It's understandable? at best that some of these symbols might remain in the old Mormon architecture, but this is a different thing altogether. The Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses as well, are known/believed to have roots in Free Masonry. Supposedly the J.W.'s abandand it and the Mormons too, but this indicates otherwise. This is an example of where I have no proof with this Mormon thing my friend told me, but having known my friend for over 20 years at the time, he has no reason to lie about this and frankly wouldn't lie about it. I don't know it to be true, but believe it to be. If someone else told me this, I probably would be much more hesitant and require more to go on.


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

StevenC said:


> Except those are both not true and incredibly easy to test for yourself.
> 
> You keep talking about people taking others' word for it and that we can't be convinced of anything. But then you spout nonsense like this which requires a tiny amount of maths, your eyes, a stop watch and something to drop to disprove. People have known for thousands of years the earth is round. A flat earth and geocentricism breaks everything we know about the universe that modern civilization is predicated on.
> 
> It's OK if you can't be convinced of things because you can't understand things put in front of you, but there are very intelligent and well educated people in this thread who can.



I agree with you. The earth is not flat etc. This is why MetalHex may be getting upset, if he's getting upset. You're not fully comprehending the words people are saying. That is not an insult towards you either. I never said I believed it. I was talking to a more basic point entirely. I never said he can't convince you. I said people. This is a generalization. I'm not attacking anyone. I also said you are all wasting your time. I don't have issue with anyone's views here. You, I think, are taking it like were talking directly to you or about you or something and you're not reading everything for what it is. You're reading into it too much. I'm not looking for anything. I'm not looking to be convinced of anything. I don't need to be told what's ok or not. I'm making a much more basic point.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 14, 2019)

Nope, the idea that "we're in a computer simulation and divorced from objective reality" doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's literally impossible to simulate an entire universe; the best you could possibly do is have one elementary particle in your computer as a single bit high or low, which would mean in order to create a computer that could simulate a universe you'd need... all of the matter in the universe. For that reason, and a whole host of other reasons, we have to believe that the data we gain from our senses approximates physical reality.

(Also, the Pentagram was a symbol of the early Christian church. Its meaning in occult and satanic circles is based on people not understanding its usage in older grimoires. It was a ward against demons, not a symbol to call or attract them.)


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Nope, the idea that "we're in a computer simulation and divorced from objective reality" doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's literally impossible to simulate an entire universe; the best you could possibly do is have one elementary particle in your computer as a single bit high or low, which would mean in order to create a computer that could simulate a universe you'd need... all of the matter in the universe. For that reason, and a whole host of other reasons, we have to believe that the data we gain from our senses approximates physical reality.
> 
> (Also, the Pentagram was a symbol of the early Christian church. Its meaning in occult and satanic circles is based on people not understanding its usage in older grimoires. It was a ward against demons, not a symbol to call or attract them.)


It doesn't have to be a computer simulation like the matrix of the movie I mentioned. It could be other things as well. It could be an empty room if we believe it to be real. It could be that one day we wake up and realize we've been in hibernation and are actually a totally different being, or the same. We just don't know is all I'm saying. The Christian bible talks about the use of idols and paganism and that it is not allowed. The mere use of it at all is anti-christian appropriate, but very Christian indeed. Like murder, homosexuality, worship of other gods, drinking blood, looking to the heavens. etc. The god in the bible states what it wants, but the people don't deliver, at all. Christianity is another form of Paganism and Satanism is a form of Christianity. I'm leaving now til tomorrow. Take care.


----------



## Jason B (May 14, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> Completely : ) My basic point was that we really don't and never will actually/can know anything. We can only think we know.



What’s your academic background? I ask because grades of certainty according to conceptual, empirical, and universal-theoretical bases have been utilized since the concept of auxiliary hypotheses were adopted as essential to sound theories.

How certain is your knowledge that we can’t know anything; how do you think you know it, and how does someone else merely thinking the opposite of your knowledge either succeed or fail to invalidate what either of you think you know?


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Nope, the idea that "we're in a computer simulation and divorced from objective reality" doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's literally impossible to simulate an entire universe; the best you could possibly do is have one elementary particle in your computer as a single bit high or low, which would mean in order to create a computer that could simulate a universe you'd need... all of the matter in the universe. For that reason, and a whole host of other reasons, we have to believe that the data we gain from our senses approximates physical reality.
> 
> (Also, the Pentagram was a symbol of the early Christian church. Its meaning in occult and satanic circles is based on people not understanding its usage in older grimoires. It was a ward against demons, not a symbol to call or attract them.)


You just hardcore-triggered the staunch materialists/anti-idealists/anti-mystics with your simulation point.

The pentagram however is older than Christianity.


----------



## narad (May 14, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Nope, the idea that "we're in a computer simulation and divorced from objective reality" doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. It's literally impossible to simulate an entire universe; the best you could possibly do is have one elementary particle in your computer as a single bit high or low, which would mean in order to create a computer that could simulate a universe you'd need... all of the matter in the universe. For that reason, and a whole host of other reasons, we have to believe that the data we gain from our senses approximates physical reality.



I don't like the weird proving method that the simulation theory relies on, but I think your criticism fails to refute it, for a number of reasons. (1) If we're on the verge of quantum computing now, you have to assume at least that level for a computer simulating our world -- not the on/off bit you mention. But (2) moreover, it's literally not impossible to simulate an entire universe, assuming a vastly larger one on the next level up. Our universe is unimaginably vast, but there's no reason to believe that another universe couldn't be arbitrarily larger, and more importantly, (3) dictated by different physical laws that make simulating our universe feasible.

But since nothing in a level up is bound in anyway by our experience, it becomes a really boring thing to contemplate IMO.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

narad said:


> there's no reason to believe that another universe couldn't be arbitrarily larger,



This is a million times more cooky than proposing that there are hidden hands controlling _this_ world


----------



## Jason B (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> This is a million times more cooky than proposing that there are hidden hands controlling _this_ world



He isn’t saying he believes it - He’s giving an example of an auxiliary claim someone could make up to _seem _to lend more weight to their “universal simulation” hypothesis.

So long as someone is claiming their falsifiable claims are unfalsifiable (Logic mandates that claims be falsifiable to be considered a claim - Otherwise they’re just a notion that popped into someone’s head and was accepted as epiphany and revelation without revision due to cognitive distortions having conditioned them to become addicted to seeing improvements in themselves that aren’t there), any amount of subsequent claims may be made for the sake of “reinforcing” the initial one. This is where tax codes come from.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

Jason B said:


> He isn’t saying he believes it - He’s giving an example of an auxiliary claim someone could make up to _seem _to lend more weight to their “universal simulation” hypothesis.
> 
> So long as someone is claiming their falsifiable claims are unfalsifiable (Logic mandates that claims be falsifiable to be considered a claim - Otherwise they’re just a notion that popped into someone’s head and was accepted as epiphany and revelation without revision due to cognitive distortions having conditioned them to become addicted to seeing improvements in themselves that aren’t there), any amount of subsequent claims may be made for the sake of “reinforcing” the initial one. This is where tax codes come from.



"there's no reason to believe that another universe couldn't be"
It still sounds c(k)ooky though. What good reason is there to believe that? Based on what? I believe what I posted to be true but my theory is more objectively believable


----------



## Jason B (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I believe what I posted to be true but my theory is more objectively believable



The post of mine you quoted addresses it. Honestly, I’m just killing time at my workplace; and have nothing of substance to add. Ever. But I can do it on this site and not feel as bad.


----------



## Cynicanal (May 14, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> It doesn't have to be a computer simulation like the matrix of the movie I mentioned. It could be other things as well. It could be an empty room if we believe it to be real. It could be that one day we wake up and realize we've been in hibernation and are actually a totally different being, or the same. We just don't know is all I'm saying.


The hallucination/dream/"hibernation" theory doesn't hold up based on experience. When awake and in non-altered states, we experience reality in consistent ways. If I put my hand on a lit stove, it hurts; if I touch the table, it pushes back; etc. This doesn't match up with experiences of dreams or hallucinogens. 



narad said:


> I don't like the weird proving method that the simulation theory relies on, but I think your criticism fails to refute it, for a number of reasons. (1) If we're on the verge of quantum computing now, you have to assume at least that level for a computer simulating our world -- not the on/off bit you mention. But (2) moreover, it's literally not impossible to simulate an entire universe, assuming a vastly larger one on the next level up. Our universe is unimaginably vast, but there's no reason to believe that another universe couldn't be arbitrarily larger, and more importantly, (3) dictated by different physical laws that make simulating our universe feasible.
> 
> But since nothing in a level up is bound in anyway by our experience, it becomes a really boring thing to contemplate IMO.


Addressing your points out of order because 3 leads into 2 nicely:

1. Quantum computing is probabilistic in the sense that any quantum algorithm will not consistently produce the correct solution. This is troublesome for the simulation of physical laws.

3. This would be truly strange. We'd have to assume that a computer capable of simulating a universe would have been made by sentient beings; if super-ultra-computers were a common enough pattern, we'd likely have computers in our universe without people designing them. However, why the hell would sentient beings simulate a universe vastly different than their own? Where would they get the ideas they'd need to do it from? Again, not technically impossible, but weird enough that I think that we can safely discard the idea.

2. There's still the issue that, if sentient beings need to create this computer, they need access to the matter of this vast universe. How are they getting it? The extreme distances of space travel needed in a universe far larger than ours, assuming similar-ish physical laws (see point 3 above) make it highly unlikely that they'd be able to make use of the matter of a universe far larger than ours (or even far smaller, for that matter). There's a further issue at hand, though. Every pro-"we're in a simulation" argument I've ever seen claims that it's an infinite recursion situation -- that is, that if any universe is simulated, that the simulation can run a simulation within it, which runs a simulation with in it, so-on and so-forth forever. However, if each universe has to get (vastly) smaller and smaller... this isn't possible. Furthermore, since each nested simulation is smaller and smaller, _statistically we're more likely to be in a higher simulation_, which would mean we'd expect to live in a world where we _currently_ were simulating universes with computers. We don't live in such a world.


----------



## Jason B (May 14, 2019)

The computer rests on the shell of a massive turtle. Well, not _massive. _But decent.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

Its also sounds ridiculously silly when people comapre the human brain to a computer, since the computer wasn't around before 100 years ago since the beginning of time and is man-made.


----------



## narad (May 14, 2019)

Yea, I mean, I have to be clear: I'm not arguing for simulation theory. I think it's a dumb thing to spend time on. It's just that I think it's impossible to reason about the physics and practicalities of a world capable of simulating our own, or the motivations of those who would do so. There's not a lot of things we could say definitively that they cannot do. Within that whole giant space of possible things, it seems impossible to say they don't have the compute power.



Jason B said:


> The computer rests on the shell of a massive turtle. Well, not _massive. _But decent.



It's monotonically decreasing turtles all the way down!


----------



## Jason B (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Its also sounds ridiculously silly when people comapre the human brain to a computer, since the computer wasn't around before 100 years ago since the beginning of time and is man-made.



Let’s modify the comparison until it’s _non-ridiculously _silly, then: The human brain is like an apple. Which is also a computer. Therefore...


----------



## StevenC (May 14, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> I agree with you. The earth is not flat etc. This is why MetalHex may be getting upset, if he's getting upset. You're not fully comprehending the words people are saying. That is not an insult towards you either. I never said I believed it. I was talking to a more basic point entirely. I never said he can't convince you. I said people. This is a generalization. I'm not attacking anyone. I also said you are all wasting your time. I don't have issue with anyone's views here. You, I think, are taking it like were talking directly to you or about you or something and you're not reading everything for what it is. You're reading into it too much. I'm not looking for anything. I'm not looking to be convinced of anything. I don't need to be told what's ok or not. I'm making a much more basic point.



You're not comprehending what I saying. I'm not trying to attack you here. But you're making claims about people in general that aren't true. On the other hand:



c7spheres said:


> I've been avoiding this thread cause I'd rather play guitar, but I do check in now and then to see how it's going. Yep. Exactly as expected and until the end of time I suspect. People can't convince anyone of anything, and lots of arguing and semantics. They have to figure out stuff on their own.



You did say this which sure reads like you're talking about this thread. But even if you're not, what you're saying is people need to be more proactive in determining what is and isn't reality. Which sounds an awful lot like preaching to the choir in this thread considering the backgrounds of those involved. 

But as I said before, your commentary is just plain wrong. People as a whole are better and better educated, and capable of doing more and more of their own due diligence. There is a loud minority of loonies who claim to have done all the groundwork but in reality are closer to what you're talking about. (See: MetalHex) 

The point being that showing up, making weak claims and not backing it up with anything leads to a lot of people calling you out on this forum. 

But worse than making weak claims is not taking part in discussing them. A world view that we can't ever know anything and it's a waste of time discussing it is not what Socrates meant. 



MetalHex said:


> "there's no reason to believe that another universe couldn't be"
> It still sounds c(k)ooky though. What good reason is there to believe that? Based on what? I believe what I posted to be true but my theory is more objectively believable



He's saying there is no basis to make claims about, or reason to put limits on, the physical properties of a hypothetical world that exists essentially for the sake of a discussion.


----------



## Fred the Shred (May 14, 2019)

My gripe with all these super intricate conspiracy theories is that not only they typically are meant to serve a given agenda (as clearly demonstrated by a guy that has a body of work dedicated to, putting it mildly, demonstrating the Catholic Church is the devil's work as the source of the material), but they also only have superficial "evidence" based on easy to dismantle logic and rather fallacious correlations between events.

One thing that stands out, and the case as exposed by MetalHex is another example, is the symbolism that for whatever reason needs to be present in the most mundane of objects, as if any super powerful organization would not be able to use far harder to detect techniques to communicate allegiance (assuming the powers that be would really require purchasing a pack of Marlboro 100's as a token of fealty or something along those lines). The other is the immutable nature of some things throughout time, meaning that even this communication isn't too effective, being "unmasked" doesn't phase the powers that be one bit, and whomever this may be destined to appears to have a hard time getting the memo, pardon the sarcasm.

The problem with most of these is that the things that are not easily dismantled are simply hearsay as in "personality X ordered Y to [insert heinous act of oppression / manipulation / whatever the conspiracy is about here] as overheard by Z or in a super secret letter that absolutely nobody but Z has seen and went through great peril to confide such information" or similar, which in light of how we approach things to ascertain veracity, just won't work.

In a thread about theism here ages ago, I was questioned, being a theist myself, whether how I could distinguish someone claiming a god like Puff the Magic Dragon is the ultimate deity and ruler of all creation or the Hebrew God. And it boils down to faith and said faith making sense to you as an individual - we're discussing intangible things and in a realm of transcended reality and inability to apply any empyrical means of validation, all things are possible. Thing is that when you leave the realm of intagible things such as divinity, the hereafter, reincarnation and the like, and move on to a very tangible reality and make outrageous claims, then you do have the required means of verification, and what was a metaphysical argument gives way to empyrical evidence. In such conspiracy theories, unsurprisingly, we are usually presented none.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

My OP was supposed to be a preface background, just a start. The "who". I was going to get into the what and the how and why (the way I see it), but looking at the poor reception lack of interest, and mud-slinging generated from my OP I realized it's not worth continuing since I'm preaching to a wall of material number worshippers (no offense)

I was hoping it was going to start a conversion but instead it started a shit-slinging fest


----------



## mastapimp (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> My OP was supposed to be a preface background, just a start. The "who". I was going to get into the what and the how and why (the way I see it), but looking at the poor reception lack of interest, and mud-slinging generated from my OP I realized it's not worth continuing since I'm preaching to a wall of material number worshippers (no offense)
> 
> I was hoping it was going to start a conversion but instead it started a shit-slinging fest



The guy that started the pope thread that got the ball rolling for you is 14 years old. In 5 years, he'll likely grow up and realize what was once "interesting" about these debates is just a self-perpetuating pile of bull shit. The internet is great for a lot of things, but it also adds fuel to the fire for anyone's ridiculous claims. If you're looking for support or other people to buy into these theories, perhaps posting on a more focused forum would benefit.


----------



## StevenC (May 14, 2019)

mastapimp said:


> The guy that started the pope thread that got the ball rolling for you is 14 years old. In 5 years, he'll likely grow up and realize what was once "interesting" about these debates is just a self-perpetuating pile of bull shit. The internet is great for a lot of things, but it also adds fuel to the fire for anyone's ridiculous claims. If you're looking for support or other people to buy into these theories, perhaps posting on a more focused forum would benefit.


Or a more focused post.


----------



## TedEH (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> material number worshippers (no offense)


What does that even mean?  Does asking for backup for your claims mean that we "worship numbers"? Did you mean science?

Realistically, there's nothing stopping you from continuing to post your how and why, but I don't know why you'd expect a different response than what you've been getting the whole time, unless you can come up with a better way to back up your claims. I'm probably the least knowledgeable here about the topics in this thread (religion, history, etc), and even I don't think you know what you're talking about.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

TedEH said:


> What does that even mean?  Does asking for backup for your claims mean that we "worship numbers"? Did you mean science?
> 
> Realistically, there's nothing stopping you from continuing to post your how and why, but I don't know why you'd expect a different response than what you've been getting the whole time, unless you can come up with a better way to back up your claims. I'm probably the least knowledgeable here about the topics in this thread (religion, history, etc), and even I don't think you know what you're talking about.



In the pope thread I made a claim to which people said "bullshit where did you get that from?" I posted a couple books I've read as reference, "those books are conspiracy theorists garbage, etc.." Buuuuut did you at least read them? "I dont have to read them, Amazon reviews said its garbage!" Ok so you refuse to read them. Here maybe you will read these links then?? "This is just some random guy, what are his credentials??, etc..." Ok but did you try reading the links? "Links are not proof! I want even better sources and citations!!" Buuuuuuuuuuut will you at least READ THEM? People werent happy when I provided nothing. People werent happy when I provided something. 

Read it, then come back and say that you disagree. We can shake hands then walk away.


----------



## TedEH (May 14, 2019)

I'm not in a position to be able to judge the content of the links because it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. But I'm well aware that anyone can write a book, and anyone can throw together a website. I did skim them, but I've got no background understand of the source for any of it to be meaningful to me. A lot of the links you post cite zero references, let alone ones that look credible. They also use what looks like the same site templates and hosting solutions under different domains, which is a little weird. Amazon links to books aren't going to convince anyone of anything - in part because nobody is going to read a whole book if they don't think the premise it's based on is valid to begin with - but also because the information within the book isn't worth anything if the author doesn't appear to be credible either.



MetalHex said:


> This is just some random guy, what are his credentials??, etc...


These things are legitimate questions. Given the whole "you can't trust information from anywhere" talk in this thread, I think it's fair to say that any piece of information needs to be evaluated in these ways to be accepted as convincing.



MetalHex said:


> People werent happy when I provided nothing.


For obvious reasons.



MetalHex said:


> People werent happy when I provided something.


Because what you provided wasn't convincing.

At the end of the day, people are not convinced. It's on you to convince them, not on them to disprove a thing they already don't believe.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

TedEH said:


> did skim them, but I've got no background understand of the source for any of it to be meaningful to me. A lot of the links you post cite zero references



Michael often gets criticized for posting TOO MANY quotes, references and resources, so I believe you when you say skimmed through them. He has also connected alot of dots and drawn conclusions that havent been done before him. So, to post references is just half of the battle, if that, and yeah, sometimesnit is just one of those "reading between the lines" things, that you cant necessarily prove by posting scattered references that will not make much sense or connect the dots until one does so themself. I certainly cannot connect the dots for anyone else, but if someone wanted to pick up the trail, he has provided the best place to start. 

But if people dont want to, then they wont. I dont need to prove anything to anyone. No one has to respond to my posts...if no one is interested or doesn't buy it, then dont get involved.


----------



## Drew (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> "This is just some random guy, what are his credentials??, etc..." Ok but did you try reading the links? "Links are not proof! I want even better sources and citations!!" Buuuuuuuuuuut will you at least READ THEM? People werent happy when I provided nothing. People werent happy when I provided something.


Reiterating @TedEH's point...

The internet is amazing for a lot of things, but some of them are clearly a mixed blessing. One of the biggest is that it can give literally _anyone _a platform. There's some legitimately good things that have come out of that, and to a point democratization of intellectual discourse is a positive.

_PAST_ that point though... The internet also brings with it anonymity and limited accountability, and it's not a big step from "everyone gets a voice on the internet" to "all ideas are equally valid and are just as worthy as each other, and your ignorance is just as valid as my expertise." That, coupled with a general anti-scientific bent on the political right (and, let's recall that the scientific method starts with first assuming you're wrong, and then trying to prove that) has gotten us to a a point where, evidently, it's somehow wrong to ask what a person's credentials are, when trying to evaluate whether or not what they have to say should be taken seriously.

Basically, if one of your sources' credentials are so weak that asking what a person's credentials are is something you perceive as an _attack_ on your source, maybe that says something about the sources you're using to defend your viewpoint.



MetalHex said:


> But if people dont want to, then they wont. I dont need to prove anything to anyone. No one has to respond to my posts...if no one is interested or doesn't buy it, then dont get involved.


I also don't accept this, and see it as kind of a spinoff of the "my ignorance is just as good as your expertise" thing above.

You can't say "only post in this thread if you're going to agree with me" and expect to be taken seriously. I'd argue the reverse, if anything - if you post something, be prepared to defend it, and if your defense is lacking to the degree that maybe you _can't_ defend it, maybe be prepared to potentially re-evaluate what you believe. If you're not prepared or willing to defend your beliefs, you probably shouldn't be sharing them publicly in the first place.


----------



## TedEH (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> I dont need to prove anything to anyone


To put it as blunt and simply as possible: Yes you do, if you want anyone to believe you.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

Drew said:


> Also, we can't have a conversation about religion and about strange correspondences without this:


Regarding your denial of trolling in this thread, in the P&CE thread.....this is you downright trolling ^



Drew said:


> Wait a second, I was trying to remember why this sounded so familiar. Wasn't this a major plotpoint in the Anne Rice/_Interview with the Vampire_ novels? Is _that_ where this is all going?


This is you not engaging in the conversation at hand and distracting/borerline trolling.


Drew said:


> This would have been high school, I had a buddy who was really into the series who loaned me a couple, and high school was an embarrassingly long time ago, lol. but it sounds AWFULLY familiar.


See above.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Regarding your denial of trolling in this thread, in the P&CE thread.....this is you downright trolling ^
> 
> 
> This is you not engaging in the conversation at hand and distracting/borerline trolling.
> ...



Yeah, but this is a bullshit thread that you, the dude who started it and supposedly has strong convictions about, can't even take serious enough to either explain your beliefs or meet questions and criticism about those beliefs without deflecting and whining about how you just can't get a break.


----------



## jaxadam (May 14, 2019)




----------



## Drew (May 14, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Regarding your denial of trolling in this thread, in the P&CE thread.....this is you downright trolling ^
> 
> 
> This is you not engaging in the conversation at hand and distracting/borerline trolling.
> ...


So, you're skipping over all my OTHER posts in the thread, and at least one of the second two, and possibly both, posts you quoted are directed at someone else, not at you. 

As for the pirates vs global temperature chart, I HAVE to assume you've seen that before and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't new to you... but I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying "correlation =/= causation" by providing an _extremely_ famous example of two things that correllate that have nothing to do with each other. In any event, it was a quick add-on to THIS post: 


Drew said:


> Excellent, excellent, excellent post. Really not much to add, save agreement - the Jesus/fish thing was based on the greek spelling of his name, and something he was aware of and played up - the "fisher of men" thing, though of course a number of his followers actually WERE fisherment.
> 
> Ditto with the correspondence between pagan holidays and catholic ones - this is a pretty openly discussed part of the Catholic church's missionary strategy, taking local customs and holidays and grafting on catholic themes, so that the locals they were trying to convert would still get to celebrate all their usual holidays, but would now be honoring the _right_ god. Subsersive? Sure, just not in the way you maybe might think.
> 
> ...



...which was a LOT of content, clearly none of which was trolling, and which I thought the chart tied it all together in a nice, humorous manner. 

So, sure, you can say I'm just trolling... but to do so you have to ignore most of my posts in this thread, misinterpret the ones directed at you, and then start pointing to conversations I was having with _other _people to try to "prove" I'm just trolling. 

Nice try, though.


----------



## MetalHex (May 14, 2019)

Drew said:


> So, you're skipping over all my OTHER posts in the thread, and at least one of the second two, and possibly both, posts you quoted are directed at someone else, not at you.
> 
> As for the pirates vs global temperature chart, I HAVE to assume you've seen that before and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't new to you... but I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying "correlation =/= causation" by providing an _extremely_ famous example of two things that correllate that have nothing to do with each other. In any event, it was a quick add-on to THIS post:
> 
> ...


Dude, that's the most long winded attempt at saying "yeah, I trolled, but it's justified. So what?"

Also I have no idea about the pirate chart or speghetti monster thing.

Also, "but the conclusion I think I'd come to wouldn't be that they're all part of some global puppetmaster conspiracy"

I never came to such a conclusion based on one or two things....if you read my previous post to Ted, (i think), you would see the point I made....the point that theres too much information to roll out into one post that would correlate to proof of conspiracy. I was just starting to lay the groundwork/background, and where I started with my research that would lead to conclusions yet to be discussed, however with the backlash based on my OP, I decided to not continue, thus leaving alot of loose ends open.


----------



## StevenC (May 14, 2019)

Drew said:


> So, you're skipping over all my OTHER posts in the thread, and at least one of the second two, and possibly both, posts you quoted are directed at someone else, not at you.
> 
> As for the pirates vs global temperature chart, I HAVE to assume you've seen that before and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't new to you... but I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying "correlation =/= causation" by providing an _extremely_ famous example of two things that correllate that have nothing to do with each other. In any event, it was a quick add-on to THIS post:
> 
> ...


Well he did quote the "excellent post" but and essentially call everyone who liked it an idiot.


----------



## bostjan (May 14, 2019)

So, the core claim is that the leaders of the Catholic Church are members of a cult, including the Pope? So the old expression "Is the Pope Catholic?!" (Expressing disbelief toward someone asking a question with an obvious answer) takes on a new meaning.


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

Jason B said:


> What’s your academic background? I ask because grades of certainty according to conceptual, empirical, and universal-theoretical bases have been utilized since the concept of auxiliary hypotheses were adopted as essential to sound theories.
> 
> How certain is your knowledge that we can’t know anything; how do you think you know it, and how does someone else merely thinking the opposite of your knowledge either succeed or fail to invalidate what either of you think you know?



That's exactly my point. I'm just typing and there is no reason any of us should believe anything any of us have to say. I could say my background is this or that, and why believe me? It doesn't matter if it's a book, an internet forum, an article, a published paper etc. What matters more is the view people have of the source of the information. Just because more people believe or have faith in "x" doesn't make "y" or "z" wrong. Anyone just thinking the opposite of me invalidates whatever I think I know. That's exactly my point.


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

StevenC said:


> You're not comprehending what I saying. I'm not trying to attack you here. But you're making claims about people in general that aren't true. On the other hand:
> 
> I made no flase claims against anyone at all. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.
> 
> ...



I made no false claims against anyone at all. In fact, I said the opposite. Regarding part 2 of your reply I don't know what you're referring to. ON a different note, What I just noticed that is really f'd up is that when I screwed up on editing this comment trying to put in your quotes i realized that I can edit what you said too. I could actually go back and make it look like you said different stuff and unless someone else or you pointed it out and were vigilant about every comment you ever made and constantly monitored them and came to your defense when someone rewrote over what you wrote, pointing out the original quote location, then you would look like something your not. That makes me not trust this system of communication at all. Since I can't go back a delete my original posts, I think I'll have to create a new account since I don't trust this system of communication now. It's like a new outlet that takes a partial line and spins it. I don't want that to happen to me.


----------



## narad (May 14, 2019)

c7spheres said:


> ~This quoting thing could be problematic.



It's true, but I feel like if this was used for malicious purposes ever, it'd be an immediate ban. I mean, you can click on the "up arrow" of someone's quote to go back to the original message and see if it matches up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 14, 2019)

narad said:


> It's true, but I feel like if this was used for malicious penis ever, it'd be an immediate ban. I mean, you can click on the "up arrow" of someone's quote to go back to the original message and see if it matches up.



In over a decade, it hasn't been a problem, and I doubt it was in the few years before that.

All forums that use quote tags have this "quirk".


----------



## c7spheres (May 14, 2019)

narad said:


> It's true, but I feel like if this was used for malicious purposes ever, it'd be an immediate ban. I mean, you can click on the "up arrow" of someone's quote to go back to the original message and see if it matches up.



Very funny narad. I see what you did there!  I'm new to all this stuff so I didn't know about it.


----------



## Schmeer (May 15, 2019)

bostjan said:


> So, the core claim is that the leaders of the Catholic Church are members of a cult, including the Pope? So the old expression "Is the Pope Catholic?!" (Expressing disbelief toward someone asking a question with an obvious answer) takes on a new meaning.


 Well, regarding that expression..


----------



## Drew (May 15, 2019)

MetalHex said:


> Dude, that's the most long winded attempt at saying "yeah, I trolled, but it's justified. So what?"
> 
> Also I have no idea about the pirate chart or speghetti monster thing.
> 
> ...


Oh jesus. 

One, no, that's NOT a roundabout way of saying "I trolled, so what." It's a roundabout way of saying 1) _you didn't understand what I was talking about_, and 2) decided to take a sidebar conversation I was having with someone else as trolling. Considering I wasn't even _addressing you_, how is that trolling?

Two, the main reason for the "oh jesus" is if pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are so unfamiliar to you that you literally didn't even recognize the pirates vs global temperatures chart, then I don't really know what to tell you. Read this:

https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I have no idea how this is new to you, this is internet comic gold. Have we really reached a point where kids today have never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, changing data with His Noodley Appendage?

Again, I shared what I understood to be a _damned-near universally recognized example of spurious correlation_, with the implicit point being that, as I described in the post above it you instead ignored, a lot of what you were talking about WAS spurious correlation. The fish thing, pagan and christian holidays, lambs... all of that, your argument is based on correspondences that are literally correlated, but have no actual causal correlation, or rather do but do not have the causal correlation YOU claim they do.

Hell, even right now, you accuse me of trolling, I explain how and why I'm not, and direct you to one of the more substantial posts I made that needs to be taken in line with the chart, and your reply is "that's just a long winded way of saying I trolled but so what?" You're _still_ doing it, rather than trying to have a substantial conversation or addressing any of the actual points others are raising here.

Meanwhile, I'd go back and read this post, because this is the crux of why you're getting a negative reaction to this post, and you decided to ignore it and continue to try to accuse me of trolling you.


----------



## Lemonbaby (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/


Bloody hilarious... "Him, Trees, Mountain, Midgit."


----------



## Drew (May 15, 2019)

Lemonbaby said:


> Bloody hilarious... "Him, Trees, Mountain, Midgit."


Please tell me this isn't new to you too.


----------



## Lemonbaby (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> Please tell me this isn't new to you too.


Never seen that before. Here in Germany, we have similar legendary internet conspiracy jokes like the "Bielefeld Theory" or "Dihydrogen-Monoxyde"...


----------



## Drew (May 15, 2019)

Lemonbaby said:


> Never seen that before. Here in Germany, we have similar legendary internet conspiracy jokes like the "Bielefeld Theory" or "Dihydrogen-Monoxyde"...


I mean, I guess if you're from Germany, you wouldn't have much reason to know anything about an open letter to a US state board of education after they moved to be "more inclusive" and include "intelligent design" in their curriculums, lol. 

Dihydrogen Monoxide is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. It's no laughing matter.


----------



## Xaios (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> I have no idea how this is new to you, this is internet comic gold. Have we really reached a point where kids today have never heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, changing data with His Noodley Appendage?


They don't even teach children about Djod in schools anymore. It's a sad state of affairs indeed.


----------



## spudmunkey (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> Dihydrogen Monoxide is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. It's no laughing matter.



I've heard that they find traces of it every single time they do an autopsy on a dead child that's consumed Mott's applesauce, and it's used as coolant in nuclear power plants!


----------



## zappatton2 (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> Oh jesus.
> 
> One, no, that's NOT a roundabout way of saying "I trolled, so what." It's a roundabout way of saying 1) _you didn't understand what I was talking about_, and 2) decided to take a sidebar conversation I was having with someone else as trolling. Considering I wasn't even _addressing you_, how is that trolling?
> 
> ...


Honestly, I think this is one of those "don't attribute to malice things." I mostly sit on the sidelines for these debates, but I enjoy many of the points and links being posted, and I share your frustration at what seems like utter intransigence. But I honestly don't think some posters here understand the points you and others have been making. I don't think I'm terribly intelligent by any means, but as an enthusiast of the natural sciences, I am a strong booster for the scientific method and critical thinking as the best means by far of cutting through the BS and best refining our collective knowledge as a species.

That said, I really do think there is not nearly enough emphasis on proper, scientific critical thinking skills in the North American school systems. Critical thinking is not a natural way for people to think, it is a learned and developed skill that usually goes against the grain of more self-validating thought processes. Conspiracy theories have a romantic element; they are simply more fun to believe because they always promise juicy reveals and a grandiose vision of reality. But unless you've really got a grasp of what it means to examine ideas from a critical place and weigh the value of your sources, then all sources are equal, and the ones that verify your conceptions are of equal value to the weight of volumes of collective evidence to the contrary. I truly don't think anyone is trolling, I just don't think those who don't truly grasp the points you're making are capable of properly countering them.

I know that makes me sound like an elitist A-hole, fine, but I try debating my parents on this stuff all the time (who for the record are much more knowledgeable than me on a great many things), but they don't really "get" the critical thought perspective, they are much more likely to ground things in moral certainties born of religion, conspiracy and elaborate but personally validating narratives. And I would argue that is the more common and natural way for humans to think. It's why I genuinely worry about the rise of populism in all its forms. Unless we start boosting the scientific method as a critical educational tool, _especially in the era of social media and the glut of misleading online information_, I fear genuine civilizational backslide (within getting too dramatic, lol).


----------



## StevenC (May 15, 2019)

The other great thing about conspiracy theories is that believing in them inherently makes you think you're smarter than everyone else, which is appealing to dumb people who can't admit they're wrong.


----------



## MetalHex (May 15, 2019)

Heres a video thats basically the video form of one of the sites I posted. It breaks down the Royal Ceremony of the Queens Coronation, and goes to show how it is absolutely riddled in masonic symbols and rituals. Symbols and rituals that orginated in Ancient Egypt and Ancient Ireland. Symbols such as Egyptian lions being used to represent the constellation Leo, (not because there may have been lions there before an ice age). This isnt to prove any sort of conspiracy but, it is clearly evident, that there is a seemingly, 1:1 correlation between (Irish/Egyptian) free masonry, and British Royalty.

The purpose of this video is just to show similarities, and that it does extremely well.


----------



## MetalHex (May 15, 2019)

Drew said:


> Friedrich Nietzsche is probably worth reading in this context....



"The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing" - Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## narad (May 16, 2019)

StevenC said:


> The other great thing about conspiracy theories is that believing in them inherently makes you think you're smarter than everyone else, which is appealing to dumb people who can't admit they're wrong.



It's pretty cute. "What if all the smart people weren't really smart! And we, the people who failed out of everything and get our information from youtube videos, we are actually the smartest! The truly discerning!"

It reminds me of the Christian camel/eye-of-the-needle type stuff. Should I resent the rich people? No, we the poor people are the ones who are truly rich!


----------



## possumkiller (May 16, 2019)

narad said:


> It reminds me of the Christian camel/eye-of-the-needle type stuff. Should I resent the rich people? No, we the poor people are the ones who are truly rich!


That's what they want you to think...


----------



## MetalHex (May 16, 2019)

Drew said:


> a lot of what you were talking about WAS spurious correlation.



Yeah, a correlation showing one group borrowed a motif from another. That does NOT equal a proof of conspiracy, and I never claimed it did. But of course YOU didn't read the rest of my above post where I said I was laying the background for what was my conspiracy theory yet to come, which I haven't gotten that far.


----------



## TedEH (May 16, 2019)

I'm not sure you picked up on the "spurious" part of "spurious correlation".

Backing up a couple of steps, it's pretty well known that a lot of things that are now thought of as "Christian" are borrowed from what came before it. Even I know that, and I'm pretty dumb when it comes to history and religion. Borrowed symbolism doesn't prove anything about supposed solar cults secretly running the world somehow.



MetalHex said:


> I was laying the background for what was my conspiracy theory yet to come, which I haven't gotten that far.


I'm still waiting to hear whatever this is leading up to. Maybe a better approach would be to start with the big conspiracy theory then work your way back as a way to try to address the inevitable criticism that will come with it. Otherwise, I'm not sure you're going to convince anyone of the lead up enough to actually make it to the big theory.


----------



## StevenC (May 16, 2019)

TedEH said:


> I'm not sure you picked up on the "spurious" part of "spurious correlation".
> 
> Backing up a couple of steps, it's pretty well known that a lot of things that are now thought of as "Christian" are borrowed from what came before it. Even I know that, and I'm pretty dumb when it comes to history and religion. Borrowed symbolism doesn't prove anything about supposed solar cults secretly running the world somehow.


He's not saying it proves anything, he's saying there's a correlation between the symbolism and the stuff he's made up.


----------



## TedEH (May 16, 2019)

StevenC said:


> He's not saying it proves anything


Then why bring it up at all? Basically this conversation has gone:

- Guys, a shadowy cult is running the world!
- Can you prove it?
- Here's some symbolism nonsense!
- Arguing over definitions?
- What do those symbols have to do with anything?
- Oh nothing, just cool that symbols have been shared in some places.
- .......?

I mean, we're discussing inherited symbolism in a conspiracy theory thread. It's not part of the conversation just because people think it's cool, otherwise why are we talking about it - it's pretty heavily implied that this is leading to a "see! The symbols were there all along!" moment proving that the truth has been in front of us the whole time, or something.


----------



## MetalHex (May 16, 2019)

TedEH said:


> Then why bring it up at all? Basically this conversation has gone:
> 
> - Guys, a shadowy cult is running the world!
> - Can you prove it?
> ...


Because its supposed to be a discussion. How can anyone prove something over the computer?? Why do you keep posting here?

Why dont you go over to the bigfoot conspiracy thread and ask the person who started it, "why"?

Can anyone on this forum prove that Trump colluded with Russia? "No but heres some links saying that he said she said, we're hot on his trail now"!

It's obvious that mind control is the name of the game....that should go without saying. What is the absolute endgame? Idk. I Judeo-Christianity is coming to an end...a new paradigm shift is coming. And it will be replaced with some universal church religion. Thats why the catholic church seems to be "modernizing",....(more open and leniant towards homosexuality and islam it seems)


----------



## Randy (May 16, 2019)

Locking this down because I think the thread has run it's course. OP makes some very broad and dubious claims but the discussion could've still been handled in a more civil way. As it stands, the whole thread is one guy vs the entire rest of the forum and there's really no way of correcting that dynamic, so it's lock time.


----------

