The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[Enemem]

I'm more surprised at how many people these conspiracists keep in the loop.

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for a "coincidence theorist" to reply..

 

[Famine]

You should probably browse the rest of the thread then. I've replied before.

Incidentally, I don't ascribe to any particular mindset regarding conspiracy theories that cover the rich and powerful. I just find it interesting how these people determine that the best conspiracies are the ones that as many people as possible know about.

 

[Enemem]

I just find it interesting how these people determine that the best conspiracies are the ones that as many people as possible know about.

These people. That's a generalisation. No, the best conspiracies are the ones that noone believes. There are no conspiracies after all. How could there be? Notice when it comes to discussing conspiracies, that they are put under more scrutiny than the coincidenences. Just an observation. (Because this statement makes everything okay).

 

[Famine]

These people. That's a generalisation.

Yes it is. No less of one than "the American/Israeli government".

No, the best conspiracies are the ones that noone believes.

The best conspiracies would be the ones no-one knows about. It's kinda fundamental to a conspiracy for there to be at least two people involved and discussing in secret. The more people know, the less secret it is.

Belief's just as irrelevant as it is to anything else. Can't have faith in reality.

There are no conspiracies after all.

Got to wonder why we have a word for it then.

Notice when it comes to discussing conspiracies, that they are put under more scrutiny than the coincidenences. Just an observation. (Because this statement makes everything okay).

Actually they're put under exactly the same scrutiny - that of providing objective evidence. Except by folk who operate from belief.

 

[Enemem]

Famine, when you say "these people", who exactly do you mean?

 

[Boone]

There is no possibility of credible information leaking or whistleblowing ever in this world. Everything is concrete. Go back to sleep. Umm...sarcasm?

 

[Swagger897]

Umm... wikileaks..?

 

[Enemem]

So if you believe the theory then you're a conspiracy theorist, unless it's your theory in which case it's not actually a conspiracy theory, because if it was, you'd be a nutter and so it couldn't possibly be true. You need to believe both sides of the argument before you can find the truth. Then you just got to figure out which one sits better with your current reality-system.

 

[Pupik]

You need to believe both sides of the argument before you can find the truth.

Not every question/theory is a clam shell which must be forced open with equal and opposing pressure.

One can give thought to an opposing or alternate side, but you don't have to believe a word of it. Someone is not perpetually ignorant because they ignore or refuse to accept falsehoods, vapors, fallacies, misleading statements, double-talk, appeals to emotion, and/or other made-up stuff. Saying they have to believe it in order for truth to be found is a potential misnomer.

 

[Enemem]

Not every question/theory is a clam shell which must be forced open with equal and opposing pressure.

One can give thought to an opposing or alternate side, but you don't have to believe a word of it. Someone is not perpetually ignorant because they ignore or refuse to accept falsehoods, vapors, fallacies, misleading statements, double-talk, appeals to emotion, and/or other made-up stuff. Saying they have to believe it in order for truth to be found is a potential misnomer.

How do you know that's true? Have you ever tried holding a view which you disagree with, and more importantly then defending it? It may provide some useful insights.


- "the pharmaceutical industry have no interest in selling drugs to make profits for themselves, they do it to help people get better" or "the pharmaceutical industry are in it for the money".

 

[Encyclopedia]

How do you know that's true? Have you ever tried holding a view which you disagree with? It may provide some useful insights.

You mean considering another viewpoint?

 

[Famine]

Famine, when you say "these people", who exactly do you mean?

The people who conspire. The conspirators, if you will.

So if you believe the theory then you're a conspiracy theorist, unless it's your theory in which case it's not actually a conspiracy theory, because if it was, you'd be a nutter and so it couldn't possibly be true. You need to believe both sides of the argument before you can find the truth. Then you just got to figure out which one sits better with your current reality-system.

Or ignore belief. Belief is what you have when you don't have evidence and what's the use of thinking something is true without evidence?

How do you know that's true? Have you ever tried holding a view which you disagree with, and more importantly then defending it?

Yes, that's called "debating". We had a debating competition on GTPlanet once.

But dealing exclusively in belief would lose you the debate. Actual information needs to be brought to the table.

 

[Enemem]

You mean considering another viewpoint?

No it's totally different. To consider - is different to - to adopt.

Belief is what you have when you don't have evidence and what's the use of thinking something is true without evidence?

I had evidence that the tooth fairy was real, but it wasn't true.

Not every question/theory is a clam shell which must be forced open with equal and opposing pressure.

So. We weren't talking about every/question/theory.

One can give thought to an opposing or alternate side, but you don't have to believe a word of it.

Ever tried it?

 

[kikie]

Wow, a triple post. Are you conspiring against the mods?

 

[Famine]

I had evidence that the tooth fairy was real, but it wasn't true.

Then it wasn't evidence. QED.

 

[Enemem]

Then it wasn't evidence. QED.

That statement is just wrong.

Illustrations, statistics, testimony, analogies, comparisons are all examples of evidence- they aren't necessarily true, but its still evidence.

The firearms officers at the scene had evidence that suggested the gang-banging, drug-dealingh scumpot known to be in possession of illegal firearms had illegal firearms on him. They correctly thought he was a threat, but didn't know he wasn't an immediate threat.

Wrong evidence, and they incorrectly thought he was a threat.

 

[Famine]

That statement is just wrong.

Nope. Evidence has to be true - or it's not evidence of anything.

Illustrations, statistics, testimony, analogies, comparisons are all examples of evidence

Only testimony is - and only in courts. And since when did the courts ever get to what was true and what's not?

Legal definitions of evidence are not suitable in the pursuit of truth. Actual evidence is only evidence if it's true.

 

[Enemem]

I point you to my evidence above your post that you contradict yourself and therefore your words mean nothing.

 

[Famine]

I point you to my evidence above your post that you contradict yourself and therefore your words mean nothing.

No contradiction and your correction was wrong.

Have another try.

 

[Enemem]

No contradiction and your correction was wrong.

Have another try.

See that's what you do, you don't provide evidence.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. You have to say what is wrong specifically and why. What exactly were the words that you have decided were wrong and why?

So did they have evidence that he was carrying a firearm or not?

 

[Famine]

See that's what you do, you don't provide evidence.

Generally speaking I provide lots of evidence. I just know when not to bother because it won't be accepted.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. You have to say what is wrong specifically and why. What exactly were the words that you have decided were wrong and why?

There was no contradiction despite you saying there was one and the addition of "in" made the sentence false. It was wholly appropriate as it was.

So did they have evidence that he was carrying a firearm or not?

Yes, both legally and in reality.

Since the firearm was recovered a few feet from the scene after he'd binned it out of the window.

 

[Enemem]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Look at evidence of Witness B. The 'evidence' contradicts the police 'evidence', since they are both 'evidence' , then can they both be right. I suspect not. Therefore one of the 'evidences' is false. But it's still 'evidence'.

 

[Famine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Look at evidence of Witness B. The 'evidence' contradicts the police 'evidence', since they are both 'evidence' , then can they both be right. I suspect not. Therefore one of the 'evidences' is false. But it's still 'evidence'.

Legal definitions of evidence are not suitable in the pursuit of truth. Actual evidence is only evidence if it's true.

You're still using a legal definition of evidence.

 

[Carlos]

You're still using a legal definition of evidence.

Like images, cameras, finger prints?

 

[Famine]

Like images, cameras, finger prints?

They could all be legally satisfactory evidence and also objective evidence - though commonly the interpretations of them that would meet legal standards wouldn't meet objective ones.

 

[Enemem]

So if we are only to take what we know to absolutely true without question, as being evidence, then we really don't know a lot about anything. Is the illuminati real? Asks the question - what is the illuminati? Is it a formal organisation (conspiracy) or an informal organisation (coincidence)? In my opinion, both smaller formal groups which coincide with other formal groups (Banks, energy, pharmaceuticals, politicians) and these are all 'held together by'/'operate under' the judicial system- who are effectively agents for the banks - please approach the bench (bank).

 

[Famine]

So if we are only to take what we know to absolutely true without question, as being evidence, then we really don't know a lot about anything.

Well... we know quite a lot about a great deal of things, but yes there are very many things about which we - both as groups and individuals - know little.

Is the illuminati real? Asks the question - what is the illuminati? Is it a formal organisation (conspiracy) or an informal organisation (coincidence)?

I'd say that an informal organisation - one formed of cooperation without any codified connection - could be a conspiracy too. A coincidence would, in this context, be two (or more) groups working independently of others for the same goal.

In my opinion, both smaller formal groups which coincide with other formal groups (Banks, energy, pharmaceuticals, politicians) and these are all 'held together by'/'operate under' the judicial system- who are effectively agents for the banks - please approach the bench (bank).

What would be the aims of these groups in order for them to form cooperatives such as "illuminati"?

 

[Enemem]

What would be the aims of these groups in order for them to form cooperatives such as "illuminati"?

Power.

 

[Famine]

Then the cooperative is foolish - there's less power available when there's more people to share it with.

 

[Vegard]

@Enemem

Let me start by saying; everyone that haven't been living under a rock knows that conspiracies exist, and have done so for a long time.
Conspiracies have played a significant role in events that have influenced the course of history.

However; many of the popular theories floating around the internet these days are more akin to an LSD induced interpretation of The Matrix, much like the Book of Revelation. One of the results of this is that people tend to be sceptical about claims of conspiracy.

If you wish to persuade anyone about any specific theory I would advice you to present evidence that supports it, so that people can make their own informed conclusions.

If wish to stimulate critical thinking, do it subtly.

That's my advice to you, take it or leave it.