Illuminati

I'm going to post this one last time so that everyone can read it, because I'm absolutely tired of these threads. Now it's in the >DEBATE< forum. To form an argument, there has to be a burden of proof on those saying that it exists.

Here are all my posts thus far:

http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9566283&postcount=53

http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9567214&postcount=61

http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9567927&postcount=64

_____________________________

Edit: I'm copying pasting the "not arguments" for anyone posting after me.

 

^^^^ Blackup

I have posed this question over and over again, but still no response.



How do you discern between circumstantial ties and actual occurrences of illuminati activity. It seems that literally anything related to 9/11, devils, the number "666", Machiavelli, Free Masons, Tupac, or Eyes is instantly classified as "illuminati". The Illuminati obviously exist because shit happens. Illuminati can't be directly tied to the shit because they are secret.... Herp-a-derp.This is bullshit, and just generally bumfuck logic.

Conspiracy theories are so prevalent, not because they have any legitimacy, but just because they're so fucking easy to make up.

 

Micheal was popular for his childhood and his family. He took a backseat after the court cases and moved to the UAE. Never was he upset his career was on the decline or was over. He ended his own career.

2pac was reaching his peak when he got out of jail with the West/East coast rivalry and that is what made him rocket up into such a big role model for people. He was at his peak when he died, he was not on the decline in anyway, but he was made into something alot bigger because he died.

Not like Flava Flav would be a icon if he would die, I mean after all his career is on the decline as well.


Nothing to say to keep on topic because I really just wanted to put my 2cents in about the Tupac/MJ issue you were referring to.

 

To jiglo, there is proof they exist, read the books i posted. If you do not want to read them and want to believe its on you, then do that. There are testaments from former Illuminati members themselves, but i guess that's a consipiracy too. And as far as Tupac/MJ, how did MJ end his career if he was still touring? And Tupac's fan base decreased after he was convicted, his career was not on the "decline" i should have worded that better. And as far as the "not" arguments, I have posted 2 books, you can read from credible doctors/historians, with testaments from former Illuminati members. If you don't have the time/ don't want to read, i can not help you, except by telling you this might not be the thread for you.

 

As far as your question, that would be up to you, how would you discern between a Good person or a bad person? Its your personal opinion. As far as "conspiracies" go, many conspiracies have been proven, so to say that is just bumfuck logic is IGNORANT (add one more to the check list). It would be ignorant because YOU DON'T KNOW. No one here has disproved the Illuminati any more than anyone here has proven them. And as far as seems everything is tied to those events, is probably because alot of people believe those issues were caused/performed by The Illuminati. DUH, if i believe they are responsible every time i see that im going to think of Illuminati. If you don't believe again, please post with some respect instead of calling others views "dumfuck logic".

 

Quote:
Spamming the SFA with rubbish comments and opinions is prohibited. Only properly thought out rational arguments are allowed in this forum.

We don't care if you like bush, or you think global warming is man made.

This forum is about reason, not emotion. If you want to bash your blind opinions against the blind opinions of others then do it in the spam forum. That is what it is for.

You have been warned.
__________________
(Didn't know how to single quote)

Had to make a separate post for this. This quote can be bent to take 90% of the threads in this forum down, including but not limited to, "Do you think the government created aids?", "Do you believe in the death Penalty?" For both of these would be considered "blind opinions" for you have no definite reasoning in believing what you believe, meaning you cannot say you agree with the death penalty, and "post proof" about this opinion, after all it is an OPINION. This thread would fit in if I had posted no proof about the Illuminati's existence, but i have posted, if you have not read/looked deeply into the Illuminati, that is not my fault. I never made a "blind opinion", for everything that is considered a "blind opinion" i have not posted my opinion on, i might have leaned one way or the other, but never have i said "I believe the Illuminati killed Tupac".

 

Whether or whether not conspiracies have been proven before is irrelevant


What is fallacious about your argument, isn't that it supports the existence of illuminati, but rather the structure of your logic. Anything vaguely connected to 9/11 is inherently connected to the illuminati. You jump to so many goddamn conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy



You assert that the illuminati are real. The burden of proof is on you.

:edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
herp there you go

 

Herp, if you read the books i listed then you might learn something instead of copying other people's post and throwing one big word you google'd to make you look smart. Please post ANY evidence they dont exist? I've done my part, you asked for proof, i posted it. Your Turn. And i didn't "jump" to anything, i have done research on this subject how about you? Just trying to sound smart on a subject you know nothing about. Hmmm.

 

Eh? So instead of responding my points, you just attempt to ridicule me based on my word choice.

Well. You posted a book about illuminati in the 1700's, a trilogy of sci-fi novels, and a paper by a 18th century scottish physician. Hmm.

You have not posted sources that corroborate any of your theories. You have no contemporary papers or essays that provide evidence of contemporary illuminati organization.


Also this lolz

So.. The illuminati are affiliated with MJ who was working with the devil who will end the world according to the mayan calendar. K


This really is pointless, you refuse to directly respond to my points


Burden of proof is on YOU. YOU made the assertion.

 

If your going to try to discredit the source's, at least do it correctly. Take the time to at least GOOGLE the books, not asking alot. http://books.google.com/books?id=fOrjPAAACAAJ. There is a very good page you should check, instead of trying to discredit him when it was written in 2009. nice try though.
And second, that part of the conversation was directed to another member, use what i say to you, for his views are different then yours so you arguing what i respond to him is like me arguing something you posted on another topic. Thank you sir.
And i am addressing your points directly THE BURDEN IS NOT ON YOU READ THE BOOK@! how many times can i say that? if you do not want to read then do not discredit. Answer my question. Prove the Illuminati does not exist. I post a book written in this millenium, with testaments from multiple former members of the Illimunati.(as well as current members) All you have done is take bits and pieces of the conversation and tried to disprove by proving educational superiority, which you have done neither of. If you would read this book as i have asked over and over, you would see that whether or not you want to believe it The Illuminati Exists. That part is fact. The skpetical part is how much power they have, but i guess you'd rather google words to seem smart instead of reading a truly great book. (if you pay shipping, ill send you the book.)

 

so true.

Infracted

 

Very convincing.

Infracted

 

This shitt is Real!

Infracted

 

I've read books and listened to people who have said their families were (ex or otherwise) members of the group. It goes by many names, Illuminati, New World Order, Skull and Bones, Freemasons. The books you listed, John Robison's "Proofs of a Conspiracy" is from 1798. And "Perfectibilists: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati" is about the 18th century. 1700-1800. Same time period.

How did MJ end his career if he was still touring? Well let's see...uh...he DIED?

That has nothing to do with my question, my personal opinion on the difference between a good or bad person is not relevant to whether the Illuminati exists or is a prevalent force in the modern day world.

If you go as far as to post those "10 conspiracy theories that were proven to be true", I'll laugh so hard. Those aren't conspiracies, they were speculation that people believed but had no evidence of. Which is different than a conspiracy. A conspiracy is an idea that may not have factual evidence to back it up, but is believed to be true due to speculation between a few different facts. Such as the Illuminati.

There are so many forms of the Illuminati conspiracy that what you're even defending might be true.

I will never change my belief that this argument is perfectly equal to the belief in a religion. Both believe in something that may or may not exist. And then when a skeptic or an atheist (non-believer) approaches them, asking for proof, suddenly it's their burden to prove that they don't exist, rather than prove they exist.

You know why we don't have to disprove of them? BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THEY EXIST.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Absence of evidence is the absence, or lack of, any kind of evidence that may show, indicate, suggest, or be used to infer or deduce a fact.

Realize this, TheJCDaly, that you are not proving any FACTS. You are connecting SPECULATION. If someone saying they're from the Illuminati makes them from the Illuminati, then I can say that I am a famous drug lord from Peru. If you want to point out all sorts of media examples, then I'll point out that although yes, they seem very strange, there is nothing to deduce from them. Symbols can be made to become numerous things. Just because all of the symbols are converted into demonic/satanic ideas, does not make them all one big conspiracy.

You prove nothing here. I personally think you're typing faster than you think, because what you're saying is absolutely dribble. I'm going to go ahead and use your words. You are using "dumb fuck logic".

Um, you're wrong here too. Those threads can be proven. "Do you think the government created AIDS" could potentially be proven. However, if it is not backed by evidence, then it is a faulty argument, and therefore not valid. Questions are NOT bad arguments, OPINIONS AND SPECULATION are bad arguments.

"Do you believe in the death penalty" can also be turned into an argument. If you want, I'll go through and report all the posts that are opinions, but the death penalty can be argued for/against. They can find studies that show the death penalty does (or does not) deter crime.

A blind opinion is "the Illuminati exist because it ties all the bad things in the world together, and the fact that the media is so biased helps prove it".

The death penalty can be argued for/against. They can find studies that show the death penalty does (or does not) deter crime.

You have posted evidence that is not credible. There are hundreds of books about the existence of god(s). Hundreds of "credible" members of society who support the belief in god(s). But the problem with the existence of god(s) is that it is something that cannot be completely proven, as it can be countered completely.

 

You claim to have read "books". please list these VERY interested. and just because something is written about a time period does not mean anything, it might be written about the 1800's, but it includes testaments from people today not from the 1800's.. Please again if you have not read the book do not assume what is in it.

And this is far from religion, for their are testimonies from people who were IN THE ORDER. (Now a days) Their is no books about any testimonies from god. (besides the bible ofc).
And as far as "dum fuck logic" if your going to respond to my post, at least read the post i was responding to. For you to sit here today and call my beliefs on the Illuminati "dum fuck logic" is ignorant. I will stand by this claim. I do not care what you personally think, fact is fact. If your going to sit here and say all 400 people that were credited in that book are not credible, then you are just plain being biased.

And as far as the death penalty/Government creating aids, you are a hypocrite. How can you site one doctor or author about a subject like that (NO PROOF, besides "studies") but then when it comes to another subject you are willing to cite nothing. You are acting like a complete hypocrite. And to prove this you even type "can be potentially proven". Please tell me 1 conspiracy that cannot "be potentially proven". don't tell me whether you believe in it, tell me how it can not be "potentially proven". Hypocrisy at it's best.

"A blind opinion is "the Illuminati exist because it ties all the bad things in the world together, and the fact that the media is so biased helps prove it".

The death penalty can be argued for/against. They can find studies that show the death penalty does (or does not) deter crime."

A blind opinion is not supported. How can you not credit a book from the 1800's when the Illuminati was formed around that time? That would be like saying nothing before today matters historically. How can you just discredit a book by its date? Probably the worst argument you have posted.
And obviously, you have not done enough research, for Illuminati is derived from the free masons, they are not the same thing.

And as far as "credible", your statement would be true, if the book was him saying "I believe in the Illuminati". But its not, its actual testaments from Old/Current Illuminati members, so that throws out the whole god argument.

And im so glad you can say a book is "not credible" based on the subject, not the text. Very Intellectual reasoning used there.

And as far as the someone saying they are from Illuminati not meaning they are Illuminati. You are correct, if someone comes out and says "I am an Illuminati member." This would not be considered credible. But 400 people all claiming in SEPARATE interviews that they belong to the same group, and all describing the group eerily similar is not credible? At least for the existence? What would you consider credible then? Based on your logic explain how we came to the conclusion that dinosaurs roamed the earth? You could make an argument that someone wanted to get famous and just "made up" bones. (Not saying they did just using your logic). This does not mean that dinosaurs ever existed, we have no PROOF that dinosaurs existed, we take the word of many scientists who have claimed to find similar things in independent studies. (Ask yourself if 1 scientist in the history of mankind would have found dinosaur bones, would he be credible?)

 

Um so how do you know atoms exist? Because credible members of the scientific community TELL YOU they do. I doubt you've gone through the process to prove an atom exists. You take their word for it.

 

Well for starters, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy". Oh wait, that's a satire based around the Illuminati. "Behold, A Pale Horse", "The Two Babylons", "Occult Theocracy", and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

All of which seem to tie together, because a lot of the Illuminati based stories fall in line with the movies "The Da Vinci Code" (also a book) and "National Treasure".

Why do these books lack credibility due to age? Well for about the same reason that a written statement from the Catholic church that states that the sun orbits the Earth. It can be proven wrong, and is not factually sound. If the age of the document shows historical context of lacking factual evidence that could be acquired in the modern day, then surely it could be false.

A book about the Illuminati in the 1798 could potentially be about the Free Masons, a group that DID exist. Our leaders were a part of it. However, they did not wreak mass havoc on the country in the name of population control. As I stated in my last few posts, our country was going downhill the second the Federal Reserve and central banking was imposed. I would believe JFK was assassinated due to his attempt to dissolve the Federal Reserve more than the belief that the Illuminati wanted him dead due to him being a prominent figure.

There are testimonies from people who have been "touched by god", "spoken to god", "abducted by aliens". All of whom are not insane. There are books about testimonies from god, there are books about facts of why god exists. I'll use your words here: "Please, if you have not read the book, do not assume what is in it."

Of the both of us right now, you are more a bigot than I. How can you stand there saying "fact is fact", when no "facts" have taken place. You make no references to your books, other than to state that we read them. That's not an argument. Even if we read them, I doubt that we're going to be changed by them. A 220

Because of one simple thing: THESE THINGS CAN BE TESTED. If you wanted, >>I<< could go out into my community and read through records and find out whether the crime rate is higher or lower in communities which allow the death penalty. >>I<< could figure out whether these things exist and report them as a study. I don't need to cite my argument, because I never stated whether I was for or against the death penalty.

Let's see. The belief that HAARP is the one causing earthquakes/hurricanes could not be proven, due to the understanding of hundreds of thousands of years that natural elements cause natural disasters. It could be proven if we were able to find out if control over natures is possible. It could be proven if there were studies to show that machines could control these disasters. But there has been no proof and no evidence of this other than speculation.

The conspiracy that Michael Jackson was assassinated (something that seems to be really big for you guys) can be proven if the man who was his doctor had outside ties. We're still not sure if his personal doctor was the cause of death. Again, this could not really be tested because he was dead. Unless there was an investigation into the life of that doctor and everyone else around Michael Jackson before his death. But as far as anybody else is concerned, the case is closed.

Again, you really don't understand that there are people with arguments of all sorts of things. Belief that the heads of the government are actually reptiles (with proof), the belief that the U.S. government leaders sacrifice SOMETHING (possibly children) at Bohemian Grove according to the lunar cycle (with video proof), the belief that every event in the world is caused by the Illuminati (with proof), the belief that God is real and talks to people/performs miracles (with proof).

So you know what, I guess I can't dismiss your argument, because Reptile Humans, Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati, and God all exist due to statements from credible people who have seen/found the evidence of these things.

Well that's the great thing, we're not allowed in to test and carbon date the dinosaur bones, we just accept that they are real. So I give you this, that we could not prove it for ourselves. That is why there is a big debate by the theists who believe the earth is not millions of years old, which also goes into the theory of evolution.

The only problem with what you're saying is that they would have had to planted these bones hundreds of years ago in order to freak us out today. There are places where fossils are still turning up. Fossilization is a real thing and can be shown/proven.

Another thing you fail to mention is that the people you are trying to "discredit" using my logic are scientists. We can be scientists. If we go to school and get degrees, we can become scientists and study these things. The people in the "Illuminati" are either chosen to be, or are prominent government officials. Something that takes a lifetime to achieve. We cannot go up the ranks and prove it because none of us can suddenly become the leaders.

I just wanted to counter with this. This is not necessarily "New World Order" or "Illuminati", but rather, devil/pagan worship proof. Alex Jones asking a really high ranked official about Bohemian Grove.



What do you deduce from this?

Actually not really, because if I was able to access a microscope with the capability of seeing an atom, I would be able to see that they exist. Not just that someone tells me that it exists, but there is physical evidence that I can look at it, observe it, state that it is there.

 

And if I was able to take a plane to the Illuminati HQ (if they have one) I would be able to see that they exist. Where is your physical evidence you can observe? Oh, you mean the evidence that scientists have claimed they have observed?

 

i have the RS username Illuminati for sale PM on here or my msn [email protected] for more info

 

Please don't try and doubt the legitimacy of modern science, you'll just end up looking like a fool.


This whole thread can be just facefucked by Occam's Razor. Your theories are just too farfetched, and contradicts hundreds of years of proven history and science

Your theories that the illuminati still exist to this day, are incredibly farfetched. There isn't any point to this discussion, because you simply will refuse to believe they don't exist, even if we prove it logically.


You claim that anything decrying the existence of illuminati must actually be supporting them. You claim anything related to the devil, 9/11, and a whole plethora of nonsense must also be supporting, or somehow involved with an illuminati conspiracy. There is no room in your theory for logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


and im out