381 replies to this topic

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

We're all going to die at some point, so I guess you're right about one thing here; we will indeed all have a day of reckoning, yourself included.  Unless the athiests (stated respectfully of course) among us are correct and we just...  end.

I don't think we are going to just 'end'....but we won't know for sure until we die......

If the day of reckoning comes...I think we will judge ourselves.

Perhaps every emotion / response we create in others, throughout our whole life will be part of the reckoning..?

Can't do better than creating a bit of happiness and love....when possible.... maybe. (and not being too hard on ourselves as well)

Here endeth the Sunday Morning Sermon.......lol

.

[Junior Chubb]

Left-Field, on 14 October 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Then surely you should understand the reason behind me responding to any posts you make directly in response to me or otherwise which call into question or attempt to undermine my thoughts about any given topic.

It is so difficult to bite my tongue and respond to you with a calm mind. I will not question your post as I have already stated I am not interested in discussing this further with you. The thread is there for people to read, I have no reason to defend myself.

Enjoy your thoughts on any given topic...

[Left-Field]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

None of this proves that there is an Illuminati.  Sorry, but it doesn't.  Nothing you have presented proves that there is an Illuminati. Sorry, but it hasn't.

I have never claimed anything I've stated or presented "proves" there is an Illuminati. I've actually admitted that nothing I've presented "proves" such things.

The information I have brought forth, however, gives very strong indication that a group encompassing the beliefs associated with the Illuminati has infiltrated key institutions in the world or government, law enforcement, business, and media (among other things) as a means of conditioning and manipulating people, as well as placing themselves in better position to carry forth self serving agendas and covering up their own crimes.

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

You can be convinced of this idea if you'd prefer, but that doesn't mean that anyone else should also believe it.

I have never claimed otherwise. By the same token, those who don't believe what I do shouldn't feel that I need to believe what they do about such things.

This thread is about the Illuminat though, so that is what I've been discussing.

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Nor does it mean that anyone should take the time to go through your evidence point by point in refutation if they find the very idea to be ridiculous, and your evidence to be insubstantial.

If people find the very idea to be so ridiculous to the point they won't look into the information suggesting such things are true, why bother to discuss such a topic to begin with (well, I actually already know at least a partial answer to that, and it's to scoff at, mock, and belittle those who do discuss and/or believe such things).

Furthermore, that very approach only underlines my point that those of you who laugh at such things to do so without having any notable level of knowledge about the topic.

If one truly wants to look into and understand why others believe in things such as the Illuminati than they need to look into all the information presented by those who actually do read about this topic.

You can't very well find the information I or others present (I don't believe I have ever called it "evidence" despite you presenting it that way) insubstantial when you don't look into very deeply - if at all.

This goes for any subject matter whether it be conspiracy related or not.

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Quite frankly, for anyone to go through such an endeavor would require the patience of Job when you consider that the simplest and shortest of responses to your topics often result in a long winded, aggressive (bordering on militant), and sometimes completely nonsensical and unrelated nit-picky rebuttal.

That is your opinion. And it comes from someone who apparently isn't interested in actually discussing the beliefs others have about the Illuminati, but is only really interested in mocking those who do.

You call my commentary "long winded" because you have no interest in learning about, looking into on your own, or confronting the relevant amounts of information I present.

You state my comments are aggressive (and bordering on "militant" apparently) because you don't like the fact I call foolish statements foolish, stupid comments stupid, and ridiculous claims ridiculous.

You claim I'm the aggressive one, yet you have no problem with the fact people have "attacked" me throughout my first post in this thread. You have joined in on this bahavior and encouraged it to continue. Yet somehow I'm the aggressive one?

You claim my comments are nonsensical and off-topic, yet this is only because you refuse to look into the things I state and fail to understand why it is all connected to begin with.

By your own statements in this post of yours I'm quoting you are only proving the fact that you and those who approach topics like this in the same manner you do aren't interested in learning anything about the topic. All you want to do is mingle amongst yourselves and laugh at those who actually have a better understanding of the subject than you do.

If I know nothing about the game of baseball and want to learn all about it I'm going to turn to someone who has acutally studied the game and knows it's history. If possible I'd talk to people who have played and/or coached the sport.

I'm not going to go to someone who says "Oh, I've heard of baseball, but I have never watched a game or played it. And I have no idea what the rules are or terminoligy is. I think it's pretty stupid and ridiculous though anyway."

This applies to any given topic. Just because the uneducated person on the sport of baseball thinks it's stupid does not in anyway mean the sport is actually stupid and ridiculous.

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

What really gets me is that I've seen your interactions in non-serious and humorous discussions.  You come across as a completely likeable and friendly guy in those areas. You make me smile and even laugh (genuinely, not mockingly) in those areas.  Let some of that bleed into your serious discussions and lighten up a bit. You might find that sometimes a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Thank you. I appreciate the compliments.

Truth is, I'm not a "bad guy." I have what I consider to be a pretty good sense of humor. That said I'm not so sure how I'm supposed to lighten up a bit when discussing things I believe in and upon doing so I have people laughing at and ridiculing me for those beliefs.

If I stated my beliefs and others respectfully disagreed it'd be entirely different and I would show them the same level of respect in return. It works both ways.

I am not one who enjoys arguing with people. My preference is to always have respectful and intelligent dialouge with others.

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

Cheers.

Again, thank you. I hope you have a good day (or week, or year... why not, right? lol) too.

[Left-Field]

747400, on 14 October 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Surely everyone knows that...

It'd be nice if everyone did, but the truth is there are a great deal who do not.

747400, on 14 October 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

...but not everyone thinks that it's necessary to have some all-powerful Secret Society who have meetings with Owls and things in order for evil to inflitrate govt, business etc.

Absolutely not. I totally agree with you. That doesn't mean it is not so, however.

For example, the Bohemian Club is a secret society. It's members are comprised of politicians (up to and including Presidents of the United States) along with other high ranking members of society. These people gather on a yearly basis to worship a 40-foot stone owl.

What I state above is fact, yet for some reason people seem to brush it aside as if it meaningless. Why is that so?

Not every wrong doing member of the government (or any other walk of life) is part of an occult, but there is overwhelming amounts of information available indicating many of them are. The same is true regarding information which suggests the "elite" conspire together to cover-up their wrong doings/crime and carry out self serving agendas.

747400, on 14 October 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

In fact, perhaps focussing on the all-powerful Secret Society and its sinister Rituals and so on is rather letting those in Government and Business who are perfectly capable of Evil entirely by themselves off the hook, rather; doesn't it cause a distraction to insist that there has to be an All Powerful secret Society with sinister Symbols and Rituals in order for Evil things to be done?

When such reasoning lies in truth, no.

It's also worth noting that the people accused of operating within these secret societies are members of government and business. It's not as if we (people who believe what I do regarding this subject that is) are dismissing those peoples crimes to focus on that of other groups. We are stating that the same people who carry out these crimes within their day jobs or personal lives are the very people involved in these occult practices.

They are the same people who conspire together as a means of conditioning and manipulating people through the mainstream media, entertainment industries, and news outlets.

Does that mean every single "elitist" in these various industries is "in" on this larger scale of organizational wrong doing? Of course not. That has never been what I have claimed though.

[Left-Field]

747400, on 14 October 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

if there was illuminato symbolism all over the Olympics, what was the purpose of it and did it achieve anything, is what I was asking. Did it in fact further the cause of the NWO? Did it succeed in getting the people used to the  All Seeing Eye of the NWO?

The more mainstream you can present your symbolism the less likely people are to take notice of it as being anything sinister.

Look at all the "All Seeing-Eye" symbolism found all throughout the entertainment industry. This isn't mere coincidence.

Check out how many musicians use such symbolism in their videos and style of dress, how they often cover-up one of their eyes and use the same hand signals (making a circle by pressing the thumb to the pointer finger with your other 3 fingers pointed on an upwards curve for "666"; making the horns gesture is another one).

People will laugh at such things, but it's so prominently done by so many different artists (among others) that it is hard to dismiss. And it certainly isn't coincidental.

How many times throughout the course of a day or even a year do you encounter anyone making that "666" or "horns" hand gesture.

I never see it. None of my friends or family members do such things. None of my coworkers, etc. I never see it walking down the street or through a store on in the mall, etc. Why is this?

You mentioned the NWO. Decades ago (if not longer) conspiracy theorists were telling people this was a goal those who encompass such a thing as the Illuminati wanted to accomplish. Those who doubt the conspiracy dismissed the idea altogether. They said such talk was nonsense and that it would never happened. They laughed at and belittled those who dared make mention of such a thing.

Well, look where we are now. Some politicians have openely discussed a New World Order. The political talk shows have made mention of such a thing as well. Yet, what happens? The very people who laughed at the conspiracy theorists decades ago now hear it mentioned by politicians, etc and fail to realize this has been in the works for decades.

The phrase "New World Order" gradually enters the mainstream to the point people get conditioned to it. They end up thinking there's really nothing wrong with it. That it's not such a bad idea afterall. That if there is talk about than it certainly can't be something sinister.

The very people who though the simple idea of such a thing was so preposterous only a few years ago now hear of it and don't even question it. That's how it works.

The same with the RFID chipping. Conspiracy theorists warned of the widespread use them for quite some time now. The conspiracy theorists doubters however mocked and laughed at those who stated what would be coming about with them.

Well guess what, it's now standard procedure in North Carolina for everyone who has a drivers license in that state to have an RFID chip planted within it. This means they can be tracked everywhere they go with their drivers license (and lets face it, pretty much everyone takes their license with them when they leave the house).

How long do you think it will be before the entire United States has this RFID chip planted in their drives license and that the law will state it must be there?

It's being placed in credit cards and passports as well.

There are some cases where it's already being implanted into peoples body.

This is the very thing conspiracy theorists were ridiculed for discussing years ago only for it to now becoming into fruition and people blindly accept it.

Again, it slowly gets introduced into mainstream use until it gradually becomes so widely spread that it is just looked upon as common practice and people fail to realize the dangers associated with it.

By the time peoples children and grandchildren grow into adulthood they won't think twice about it because they will have grown up not knowing of a time when such things weren't in place as "common practice" and soon enough part of the law.

They do it in the present and pass it on down through the generations. For as much as are freedoms and rights are being stripped from us already it will be that much worse for are children and grandchildren who grow up without having known any better.

Some think such talk is a joke, but it's far from it. It is reality.

[booNyzarC]

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

For example, the Bohemian Club is a secret society. It's members are comprised of politicians (up to and including Presidents of the United States) along with other high ranking members of society. These people gather on a yearly basis to worship a 40-foot stone owl.

What I state above is fact, yet for some reason people seem to brush it aside as if it meaningless. Why is that so?

I am hoping to find the patience to respond to your earlier post to me at some point (edit) nevermind, I found the time and patience after all (/edit), but I'd rather not wait to respond to this particular point.  Not all of what you stated above is FACT.  Please provide even the slightest bit of evidence to support your assertion that the Bohemian Club worships a 40-foot stone owl.  Anything at all.

And once you come to the conclusion that you can't prove this, because you can't, ask yourself why statements like these just might reduce your credibility a tad.

Thanks.

Edited by booNyzarC, 16 October 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

I have never claimed anything I've stated or presented "proves" there is an Illuminati. I've actually admitted that nothing I've presented "proves" such things.

Fair enough.  Maybe it's time for you to abandon the idea then if you can't provide proof.  Or can you?

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

The information I have brought forth, however, gives very strong indication that a group encompassing the beliefs associated with the Illuminati has infiltrated key institutions in the world or government, law enforcement, business, and media (among other things) as a means of conditioning and manipulating people, as well as placing themselves in better position to carry forth self serving agendas and covering up their own crimes.

In your opinion perhaps, but not in mine.  Do you see how easy it is to refute opinion?  With all due respect of course, but until you can substantiate this idea of there being an Illuminati, people are going to continue to think that you believe in something that is, well, unsubstantiated.

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

I have never claimed otherwise. By the same token, those who don't believe what I do shouldn't feel that I need to believe what they do about such things.

This thread is about the Illuminat though, so that is what I've been discussing.

Okay, feel free to discuss it.  Do you mind if I comment about your discussions if I find them less than convincing?

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

If people find the very idea to be so ridiculous to the point they won't look into the information suggesting such things are true, why bother to discuss such a topic to begin with (well, I actually already know at least a partial answer to that, and it's to scoff at, mock, and belittle those who do discuss and/or believe such things).

Furthermore, that very approach only underlines my point that those of you who laugh at such things to do so without having any notable level of knowledge about the topic.

If one truly wants to look into and understand why others believe in things such as the Illuminati than they need to look into all the information presented by those who actually do read about this topic.

You can't very well find the information I or others present (I don't believe I have ever called it "evidence" despite you presenting it that way) insubstantial when you don't look into very deeply - if at all.

This goes for any subject matter whether it be conspiracy related or not.

If you haven't provided any evidence, by your own admission, why should anyone entertain your musings about the topic?  Musings is probably the wrong word to use too, isn't it?  You tell me.  How exactly would you characterize your...  statements?  information?  regarding this Illuminati?

What information exactly are you talking about anyway?  I've looked at a few Illuminati websites.  I'm sorry, but all the ones I've looked at appear to have been compiled by schizophrenics.  They are literally painful to look at.  They are disjointed, erratic, filled with all kinds of nonsensical imagery and commentary.  Reading through the nonsense on most of them is kind of like what I imagine a bad acid trip to be like.  (I imagine this because I've never dropped acid, though I've heard all kinds of stories, and websites devoted to this kind of topic seem to epitomize exactly how I've envisioned the ordeal...)

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

That is your opinion. And it comes from someone who apparently isn't interested in actually discussing the beliefs others have about the Illuminati, but is only really interested in mocking those who do.

I must admit that I'm not overly interested in discussing these things because of the impression I've drawn from the above described nightmares which tout themselves to be authorities on the subject.

That said...  if you can somehow find a way to bring all of this into a comprehendable focus, I'm willing to look.  Please keep it as short as possible though.

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

You call my commentary "long winded" because you have no interest in learning about, looking into on your own, or confronting the relevant amounts of information I present.

You state my comments are aggressive (and bordering on "militant" apparently) because you don't like the fact I call foolish statements foolish, stupid comments stupid, and ridiculous claims ridiculous.

You claim I'm the aggressive one, yet you have no problem with the fact people have "attacked" me throughout my first post in this thread. You have joined in on this bahavior and encouraged it to continue. Yet somehow I'm the aggressive one?

You claim my comments are nonsensical and off-topic, yet this is only because you refuse to look into the things I state and fail to understand why it is all connected to begin with.

By your own statements in this post of yours I'm quoting you are only proving the fact that you and those who approach topics like this in the same manner you do aren't interested in learning anything about the topic. All you want to do is mingle amongst yourselves and laugh at those who actually have a better understanding of the subject than you do.

No, I call your commentary "long winded" because I have found it to be "long winded."

No, I state that your comments are aggressive (bordering on 'militant') because I have found that they are often aggressive (bordering on 'militant').

No, I claim that you are the aggressive one because you attempted to ram your point of view down my throat even after I had asked you to stop and expressed why I wanted you to stop.

No, I claim that your comments are sometimes nonsensical and off-topic because I have found that sometimes they are nonsensical and off-topic.

No, this is not the only reason that I participate in topics like this, though at times I have little more to add than a clever and hopefully humorous observation.  If the truth be told, I'm curious about this Illuminati mentality and how anyone can legitimately arrive at the conclusions that you appear to have found.  It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.  Perhaps you can shed some light on this subject and validate your beliefs?

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

If I know nothing about the game of baseball and want to learn all about it I'm going to turn to someone who has acutally studied the game and knows it's history. If possible I'd talk to people who have played and/or coached the sport.

I'm not going to go to someone who says "Oh, I've heard of baseball, but I have never watched a game or played it. And I have no idea what the rules are or terminoligy is. I think it's pretty stupid and ridiculous though anyway."

This applies to any given topic. Just because the uneducated person on the sport of baseball thinks it's stupid does not in anyway mean the sport is actually stupid and ridiculous.

This is an excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly with the way you have illustrated it.  So tell me.  Lay it on me.

Prove to me that the Illuminati is an actual organized entity as you appear to believe.

I warn you though, I'm not going put on the kid gloves.  If you present complete garbage in an effort to support this idea, I'm going to tell you that I think it is complete garbage.

Left-Field, on 15 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Thank you. I appreciate the compliments.

Truth is, I'm not a "bad guy." I have what I consider to be a pretty good sense of humor. That said I'm not so sure how I'm supposed to lighten up a bit when discussing things I believe in and upon doing so I have people laughing at and ridiculing me for those beliefs.

If I stated my beliefs and others respectfully disagreed it'd be entirely different and I would show them the same level of respect in return. It works both ways.

I am not one who enjoys arguing with people. My preference is to always have respectful and intelligent dialouge with others.


Again, thank you. I hope you have a good day (or week, or year... why not, right? lol) too.

You're welcome, I meant them sincerely.

Cheers.

[Left-Field]

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Fair enough. Maybe it's time for you to abandon the idea then if you can't provide proof. Or can you?

I have enough proof that meets the standards I need to know how the "elite" run the world. No amount of this proof I present to you will change your mind on this topic.

You know this as well as I do.

If you care to respond, however, what exactly would you constitue as proof regarding my beliefs?

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

In your opinion perhaps, but not in mine.  Do you see how easy it is to refute opinion?  With all due respect of course, but until you can substantiate this idea of there being an Illuminati, people are going to continue to think that you believe in something that is, well, unsubstantiated.

People who really look into such things realize that what I and others state is very much substantiated. By your own admission, you do not take this topic seriously nor do you care to delve into it all that deeply.

That being the case it is fair for I and others to reason that you know little of what you state about this sunject and never will unless you at some point decide you are willing to look into the information that abounds indicating the "elite" truly operate in the manner I have stated.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Okay, feel free to discuss it.  Do you mind if I comment about your discussions if I find them less than convincing?

Not at all.

What I mind is when people veer off the path of discussing the topic and instead choose to mock and belittle me as a person rather than have respectful and intelligent dialogue about the topic itself.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

If you haven't provided any evidence, by your own admission, why should anyone entertain your musings about the topic?  Musings is probably the wrong word to use too, isn't it?  You tell me. How exactly would you characterize your...  statements?  information?  regarding this Illuminati?

I see it from this perspective. In the court of law a criminal can be found "not guilty" as long as the jury deems there is even the slightest bit of "reasonable doubt" pertaining to whether or not he committed the crime.

Simply because a good lawyer may be able to twist things in a way that causes reasonable doubt in the mind of even one jury member, however, does not mean the man on trial did not commit the crime he has been accused of.

The information I use to base my beliefs about how the "elite" operate is sound. It all points to my beliefs being quite accurate. The fact that you and others approach the subject constantly looking for anything you can deem "reasonable doubt" and manage to fulfill that pre-exisiting belief of yours however does not mean the "elite" do not operate in the manner I and others righfully believe they do.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

What information exactly are you talking about anyway?

I'm talking about historical events which have occurred throughout history, along with known secret societies that partake in occult like practices and who's membership is comprised of the very "elite" people I have stated operate in the manner I have stated.

I have made mention of a few of these things multiple times. Every time I do so, however, not one person has been willing to address them.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

I must admit that I'm not overly interested in discussing these things because of the impression I've drawn from the above described nightmares which tout themselves to be authorities on the subject.

Whatever your reason may be, you readily admit that you are not "overly interested" in discussing such things. I'm going to assume that means you aren't "overly interested" in looking into any amount of relevant information pertaining to such things either - especially any that doesn't fall in line with your pre-established beliefs.

That being the case I fail to understand why you continue discussing the topic and attempt to present yourself at times as if you are genuinely willing to approach it from an unbiased and truly interested standpoint.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

That said...  if you can somehow find a way to bring all of this into a comprehendable focus, I'm willing to look. Please keep it as short as possible though.

It's nearly impossible to keep it as short as you would like it to be - especially coming from me as I know that presenting my thoughts on things (regardless of subject matter) generally does it fall in line with being concise. Regarding a topic like this as well as I would like would be more like a lenthy report as opposed to a simple one post response.

You may be willing to look at what I would say, but only if it met your requirements. I have presented various bits of information already throughout this thread which your commentary - and admittance to not being overly interested in such discussions - suggests you really aren't willing to look into much at all, let alone give any proper attention to, on your own.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

No, I call your commentary...

I would address each of these statements you made seperately, but I have already done so, and to do so again will only veer this thread in a direction I'd rather not head in again.

I will say that at least one of the things you said is a false misrepresentation of how things truly occurred. Rather than explain why to everyone I will simply leave it at that, however.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

No, this is not the only reason that I participate in topics like this, though at times I have little more to add than a clever and hopefully humorous observation.

Well, based upon that statement it would seem that the reasons I have stated as to why you participate in this topic are at least partially accurate.

By your own admission you "at time... have little more to add than a 'clever' and hopefully humerous observation."

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

If the truth be told, I'm curious about this Illuminati mentality and how anyone can legitimately arrive at the conclusions that you appear to have found. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Perhaps you can shed some light on this subject and validate your beliefs?

I have done these things throughout the thread. Whenever I have made mention of the things that lie at the heart of my beliefs regarding an organization such as the "Illuminati" however everyone who opposes my beliefs has not once addressed the things I have made mention of.

With that being the case it becomes rather tiresome for me to keep presenting the same relevant information over and over again only for those who ask for it to be presented continually overlook it.

And in regards to people who steadfastly believe conspiracy theorists do not exist it has been my experience at this forum (and in general) that no amount of relevant information indicating otherwise will ever change their minds about such things regardless of what conspiracy is being discusssed.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

This is an excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly with the way you have illustrated it. So tell me. Lay it on me.

Prove to me that the Illuminati is an actual organized entity as you appear to believe.

Again, what would you deem to be "proof" that an organization such as the Illuminati exists?

There is overwhelming amounts of information available suggesting the "elite" operate in the manner I have indicated. I can lay it on you repeatedly though and no matter how thickly I do you will not alter your pre-established beliefs about such things.

I should also note that it is not my desire to "prove" to anyone that my beliefs are true. I am simply presenting my reasoning as to why I and others believe what we believe.

Ultimately, if you really want to understand why we believe such things you will need to take a legitimate look into the information that is presented on your own and keep going further and further with it (dig deeer) to come to an understanding of such things.

You have indicated you are not interested enough to do so, however, and therefore I have no doubt that you will never be convinced the "elite" operate in the manner I have expressed them doing so.

booNyzarC, on 16 October 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

I warn you though, I'm not going put on the kid gloves. If you present complete garbage in an effort to support this idea, I'm going to tell you that I think it is complete garbage.

Again, I have little doubt that regardless of any information I present pertaining to this topic it is something you will claim is "complete garbage." Either that, or you will claim the historical information I present has nothing to do with the issue at hand when the truth is that it does.

In attempt to see what you think about one simple thing pertaining to this topic, however, what are your thoughts on this symbolism being present within the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympics?

[RaptorBites]

Left-Field, on 16 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

Again, I have little doubt that regardless of any information I present pertaining to this topic it is something you will claim is "complete garbage." Either that, or you will claim the historical information I present has nothing to do with the issue at hand when the truth is that it does.

Seeing as I have given up even entertaining this topic several pages back.

I would like to note that the presentation would be considered complete garbage if there is no difinitive proof the Illuminati exsists,

You can take many of the world's happening at random moments, things that happen in the media, meetings by politicians, group activites, throw them all into a pot and claim a secret society is trying to take over the world.

Like i said before.

Argumentum Verbosum

As a matter of fact, most of your arguments are based on so much informal infallacies that it gives a good reason to just not bother continuing on discussions with you.

Edited by RaptorBites, 16 October 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Left-Field, on 16 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

*snipped all the other stuff, scroll up if you want to read it*

Ultimately, if you really want to understand why we believe such things you will need to take a legitimate look into the information that is presented on your own and keep going further and further with it (dig deeer) to come to an understanding of such things.

You have indicated you are not interested enough to do so, however, and therefore I have no doubt that you will never be convinced the "elite" operate in the manner I have expressed them doing so.


Again, I have little doubt that regardless of any information I present pertaining to this topic it is something you will claim is "complete garbage." Either that, or you will claim the historical information I present has nothing to do with the issue at hand when the truth is that it does.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, and me a lot of reading, by simply saying "I don't actually have any evidence, but if I did I don't believe you would accept it anyway."

You can't say that I haven't asked for it.  I very clearly requested you to make your case.  If you choose not to, that is up to you.

Left-Field, on 16 October 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

In attempt to see what you think about one simple thing pertaining to this topic, however, what are your thoughts on this symbolism being present within the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympics?

A rising phoenix?  I fail to see how you equate this to be the Lamen of Ordo Templi Orientis.

First of all, the Eye of Horus is notably missing from the triangle above the phoenix.  Secondly, it's a freaking rising phoenix, not a descending dove.  Third, there is no cross in the supposed chalice below.  I suppose you could suggest that there are 'crosses' on either side of the phoenix in the crowd, but then it isn't exactly the Lamen of Ordo Templi Orientis is it?  Fourth, it isn't even a chalice at all, but rather the flaming Olympic cauldron.  Fifth, even if it were supposed to be a chalice, the Lamen of Ordo Templi Orientis has a singular flame at the top, it isn't filled with burning flames like the Olympic cauldron.  Sixth, where are the 24 rays which are supposed to be extending from the triangle with no Eye of Horus?  Seventh, where is the heart shaped Host?

In short, you're trying to shoehorn an interpretation into this imagery which is completely inappropriate.  It doesn't fit.

This is no more symbolic of the Illuminati than a music video is.  It doesn't fit at all.

What does it actually symbolize?  Seems to me that it merely symbolizes the closing of the games.  Nothing more.

Here's a simple article with a less sinister point of view if you're interested.

[Left-Field]

RaptorBites, on 16 October 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

As a matter of fact, most of your arguments are based on so much informal infallacies that it gives a good reason to just not bother continuing on discussions with you.

Then I suggest you do so.

I know how people with your mindset are. You will never believe anything unless there is 100% undeniable proof of it thrown in your face. And even then you will still search for even the slighest bit of doubt you can cling to as a means of assuring yourself it can't possibly be true.

You can claim the reasons I have given for my beliefs are argumentum verbosum (and all your like minded "friends" can lend their support behind that incorrect claim), but in reality they are not. It is simply a response you resort to as a means of avoiding deeper, worthwhile, and relevant discussion about the topic.

It happens time and time again on here. Rather than discuss the topic and the information presented the CTD argue over why they feel the information is irrelevant without ever taking a look into such things.

You dismiss everything off hand even though you guys know you never bother to look into such claims seriously. It stands to reason that those who do look into all the relevant information available and then arrive at their beliefs upon doing so are the ones who actually understand why it is all connected.

It makes no sense, however, for those of you who admittedly don't care to look into such things to somehow believe you know more about the topic than those who take a great deal of interest in it and learn as much as they can about it.

But anyway, I do not discuss my beliefs or present information about such things for the sake of trying to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong. I present the information so that those willing to look into what I state will do so and then arrive at their own beliefs regarding the topics.

While some of you may think the members that post within these discussions are the only ones following the topic that is far from being the case. There are many, many people (be them members or guests) who read these topics and actually do find them worthwhile and interesting and are willing to delve into researching the topic rather than dismiss it out of have because they already have a pre-conceived set of beliefs which they stubbornly stick by regardless of any amount of information presented to them that indicates otherwise.

"Proof" has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of understanding things and not being so blind and stubborn as to what all the things I make mention of indicate.

But even with that said the information available is proof within itself for those capable of understanding it. Some, actually most, will never understand it because you can't even fathom the possibility of the "elite" operating in the way that they do.

Anyhow, I agree with you on one thing - discussing this on and on with the same people over and over again when I already know how you will repeatedly approach every bit of information I present regardless of how much it indicates the "elite" operate in the manner I have stated is growing quite tiresome.

That being the case I think I'm pretty close to simply letting those of you who don't care to take a serious look into anything regarding this topic - and some of you have openly admitted as much - go about making your comments and carrying on in the manner you have been.

If I feel like it I will simply post more information regarding the topic so that the other members and guests who read through this thread can look into what I make mention of is they so choose and come to their own decisions.

And should a member care to chime in that is actually interested in the subject itself rather than criticizing members who believe such things - along with knowing how to have an intelligent, meaningful, and respectful dialogue with others - I will go about discussing it with them.

Attempting to discuss these things with pretty much anyone outside of 74700 so far has proven to be fruitless.

[RaptorBites]

Left-Field, on 17 October 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Then I suggest you do so.

I know how people with your mindset are. You will never believe anything unless there is 100% undeniable proof of it thrown in your face. And even then you will still search for even the slighest bit of doubt you can cling to as a means of assuring yourself it can't possibly be true.

So basically you can't stand to debate with people who do not support your views.

Basically you are saying that those who need 100% confirmation of a conspiracy confirmed with evidence that cannot be refuted are silly.

Basically, you have nothing that 100% confirms your views

Understood.

Edited by RaptorBites, 17 October 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[Left-Field]

RaptorBites, on 17 October 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

So basically you can't stand to debate with people who do not support your views.

Have I not been "debating" throughout this entire thread about my views?

If I express my views, clearly state which things are at the heart of my beliefs regarding an organization like the Illuminati existing, and then those who don't believe such a group exists admittedly overlook and ignore the issues I have raised what am I left to do?

I can repeat everything I have said again if you like. If you are only going to ignore it or simply claim it is "argumentum verbosium" (which it isn't) then what is the point of me stating repeatedly?

Not only that, but others (and perhaps you - I don't recall offhand) have already admitted they don't take this topic seriously enough to put any worthwhile amount of time into researching it - and certainly not any of the information I present which stands in contrast to their pre-established beliefs.

With that being the case explain to me how there is any room for me to "debate" with people who obviously will obviously not believe anything other than what it is they want to believe regarding this subject?

RaptorBites, on 17 October 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Basically you are saying that those who need 100% confirmation of a conspiracy confirmed with evidence that cannot be refuted are silly.

Not quite. What I am saying is that people who need 100% "proof" of pretty much anything are sometimes acting in a foolish manner - it depends on the issue at hand. I will again use the expample of court in which there could be overwhelming amounts of information (and, in fact, evidence) present which could lead almost everyone to believe the person on trial is all but 100% guilty of the crime he is accused of committing.

If that person's lawyer can poke even the slightest hole into any little bit of information and/or evidence presented, however, the jury can then declare the accused "not guilty" based upon what they conclude is either "reasonable" doubt or by saying "Yes, we believe this person committed the crime, but the prosecuter didn't 'prove' it to our satisfaction."

If you want something you and other conspiracy theorists doubters regard as 100% proof regarding the Illuminati you will never find it. No matter how much information and evidence is presented to you about the topic you will always find what you consider to be "reasonable doubt" as a means of dismissing the subject entirely.

I have come across plenty of information that leads me to believe the "elite" operate in the manner I have expressed. The thing is, the CTDs will never look at this information from an unbiased standpoint and as such they will never believe anything other than what they want to believe.

What exactly would you consider 100% proof of the Illuminati to begin with?

RaptorBites, on 17 October 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Basically, you have nothing that 100% confirms your views.

Understood.

I have never claimed that I did and I would never claim that I do. I have stated numerous times that there is plenty of information available to those willing to take an honest look into the subject that indicates the "elite" operate in the manner I and others have stated.

By the same token, however, you and those who side with you have nothing that 100% confirms your views about how the government/elite (or whatever you prefer to refer to them as) operate either.

[Liquid Gardens]

Left-Field, on 19 October 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I have come across plenty of information that leads me to believe the "elite" operate in the manner I have expressed. The thing is, the CTDs will never look at this information from an unbiased standpoint and as such they will never believe anything other than what they want to believe.

You have said several things to this effect, that people who do not believe your theory are biased, have preconceived beliefs that they won't change, and that people that disagree with you are just believing what they want to believe.  This is a fallacy typically called 'poisoning the well'.  From the excellent Skeptic's Dictionary:  "it creates the false impression that the position you hold is held in good faith while the position you oppose is held by corrupt or compromised people".  You are basically saying, 'look at my evidence and if you don't agree with me, it's not because it's actually your honest conclusion from the evidence, it's because you are being irrational'.  Heads you win, tails your opponents lose.  If you think about if the roles were reversed and you were on the receiving end of that statement in a disagreement, I think you'd understand the fallacious nature of it.

Quote

By the same token, however, you and those who side with you have nothing that 100% confirms your views about how the government/elite (or whatever you prefer to refer to them as) operate either.

Agreed.  Which then leads us both toward the position of 'we don't know' exactly how the government/elite operate.  That position is not an issue for people who disagree with you necessarily, as you are the one who is taking the position that you do 'know' how the elite operate to some extent.

[Left-Field]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 October 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I think you'd understand the fallacious nature of it.

I do understand the nature of what you are saying. And if I were stating that everyone who arrives at conclusions which stand in contrast to my own were doing this very thing I'd agree that that is what I have done.

The thing is, however, is that I am making such comments in regards to people who have readily admitted to not taking this topic seriously. People who have readily admitted they will not take the time to look into any information which suggests the "elite" operate in the manner I believe they do.

When people refuse to look into such information, yet they have no qualms about telling those who do look into such things how wrong they are then they are clearly not coming to an honest conclusion based on all the evidence. They are arriving at their conclusions based on their preconceived notions and lack of overall knowledge about the topic.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 October 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Agreed.  Which then leads us both toward the position of 'we don't know' exactly how the government/elite operate.  That position is not an issue for people who disagree with you necessarily, as you are the one who is taking the position that you do 'know' how the elite operate to some extent.

I am the one being told I am wrong for my beliefs about how the "elite" run things. I'm not being told I may be wrong, I'm being told I am flat-out wrong.

If those telling me I am wrong have zero thoughts of their own about how the "elite" operate then how can they possibly conclude that my thoughts on the subject are 100% wrong?

The only way they can claim such a thing is if they have their own thoughts concerning the matter which stand in contrast to mine. And in that regard those people can't provide any amount of 100% proof concerning their beliefs on the subject any more than I can present the 100% proof they are seeking from me.

Yet for some reason, simply because I can't provide 100% proof (which again, I never claimed I could) they automatically declare I am wrong and that my beliefs must be based on nothing more than nonsense because this 100% proof is not being produced.

If that is the case, and if they are being fair about things, then they would also be left to conclude that whatever their thoughts are regarding how the "elite" operate is based on nothing more than nonsense as well.

And if that is so, what makes them feel their nonsensical beliefs are any more valid than the ones they are claiming mine to be?