• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Illuminati, flat earth, satanic rituals, pizzagate etc, others that have waken up?

dfgh1.gif
 
I'd argue that a lot of these conspiracy theories stem from people not being able to accept that everything is out of their control, and that there is no god looking over them "making sure everything is OK" and that good will eventually prevail. There must be a reason(s) why so many of them focus on the state and how "evil people" are controlling it, or that there's a mass conspiracy involving the jews establishing a new world order.

Fuck, I don't blame half of the people who believe this shite. Especially when very strange things have happened before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagbard_(Karl_Koch)

"You simply cannot invent any conspiracy theory so ridiculous and obviously satirical that some people somewhere don't already believe it."

23
 
I agree with you. The god thing is just another shade of our natural tendency to believe in conspiracies, superstitions and hidden explanations for things we can't fully understand. If we get rid of god, we simply fill the void with other supernatural explanations. It's an extension of studies like this, which have discovered that we're naturally wired to think in these ways:

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.
Click to expand...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
 
The "predisposition towards belief" is a misunderstanding. It's a salutary lesson in just how close it is possible to come to a worthwhile point, and still miss it by a country mile1.

Superstitions can be beneficial to survival, iff they serve to reinforce behaviours which are themselves beneficial. For example, funerals: It makes little practical difference whether you bury a dead body, burn it or just drag it out of the camp somewhere and leave it. Anything is better than leaving in the camp, a fertile breeding ground for germs and a beacon to scavengers and predators. Any tribe that develops a funeral rite has gained a survival advantage over a tribe that simply leave their dead where they fall. They do not have to understand the scientific reasons for disposing of corpses; it is sufficient for them just to do something with them, even if their hypothesised explanation is totally wrong.

There is a branch of mathemativs called Game Theory that explains why honesty and co-operation are the basis of a more successful survival strategy, at least in times of plenty, than selfishness and belligerence. So it is no mere co-incidence that every religion agrees on things like killing, stealing and lying being wrong, even if some of them have developed some rather unhealthy attitudes around sexual matters. We also observe that other gregarious predators have a sense of fairness. Just watch puppies or young wolves playing together, learning to be members of a pack.

And once we do know the proper scientific explanation for something, we should cast aside all superstitious explanations as No Longer Relevant. Just because we are hard-wired to be able to believe complete bollocks, does not mean that we should. We are hard-wired to have sex; but that doesn't give you the right to not even buy a girl a drink first, nor to do it in full view of people who might be eating. If we can suppress that instinct for mutual benefit, then surely we can tame the instinct to prefer a beautiful lie over an honest don't know -- or an ugly truth.

This is important, because behavioural codes developed from superstition inevitably acquire "cruft" -- neutral things that get reinforced anyway. Such as not eating certain foods. We now know that there are good reasons to avoid certain foodstuffs -- particularly pork and shellfish, quelle surprise -- under certain circumstances (such as, living in the desert without refrigeration). Pig farmers living at more temperate latitudes, on the other hand, could preserve their fatty meat in the form of sausages, and never needed to work in a taboo against eating pork into their culture. A foreskin is more or less self-cleansing, if you just pee often enough; but where water supplies are limited, and without the benefit of freshly-laundered underwear every day, circumcision might offer a slight survival advantage -- but only if it is performed in a timely manner, while the baby boy still has some of his mother's antibodies in his system. And even although deliberately making sex less pleasurable for someone, through surgery performed while he was too young to give fully-informed consent, is a truly horrible way to limit the spread of sexually-transmitted infections, there is no denying its effectiveness. Still, all Science has to say on the matter is drink plenty of fluids, shower and change your clothes regularly, use a condom every time you have sex and keep your bacon refrigerated between 4 and 8°C.

Even although our present-day understanding of evolution is imperfect, it is less wrong than Charles Darwin's original proposition, and will only grow more correct with each newly-discovered transitional fossil or improvement in understanding DNA (the "missing link" that proves beyond doubt that humans have an ancestor in common with chimpanzees is a set of retroviral signatures in corresponding positions in himan and chimp DNA); but every creation myth dreamed up by every religion ever is flat-out wrong. We don't understand the Cosmos fully, but by the time the next pictures are beamt back from our probes travelling through space, we will be more correct -- and every mythical explanation for the movement of the Sun, Moon and stars and planets is still irrelevant. And every conceived system of divine rewards and punishments for good and bad behaviour is also as wrong as wrong can be, and to continue to teach it precisely because of its simplicity is a grave insult to the intelligence of your students. And when overly-prescriptive behavioural codes, no doubt originally developed with good intentions but still ultimately based on superstition and now known to be scientifically unnecessary, offend the whole modern concept of human dignity, then it is unquestionably the latter that we ought to favour.

1 Defined as the distance one can walk before mid-day, so as to be able to return by nightfall.
 
I have my own beliefs largely formed by DMT which made me throw my entrenched athiest ideas out the window. I have no doubt there is more than what we perceive going on. To me thats now beyond doubt. I have seen an experienced things that simply have no other rational explanation.

As to ideas about behaviour. I think Karma is quite real. I can pretty much count the bad things i have done and it balances with the bad shit that has happened to me. Do good and do no harm is my motto. It serves me well. It certainly cant hurt to follow it anyway
 
Karma is an illusion. "Fairness" is a human concept (though other species certainly have at least some sort of analogous concept; this is blindingly obvious in canine play. Watch some cute little baby wolfie puppy videos, and try telling me with a straight face that those animals have no concept of fairness) which emerges from the need to categorise behaviour at least roughly as "good" and "bad". Note in passing that the circuits within the brain that respond to unfair behaviour are the same circuits which respond to faecal odours, and pause to consider how this metaphor permeates right through every culture.

Also note how the pain-regulatory system is co-opted to produce a feelgood sensation -- literally a hit of the body's own, homebrew smack -- as part of the instinctive response to performing an act beneficial to others at some non-negligible risk to one's own self, and pause again to consider that visceral feeling of being wronged; the descent of the red mist, and the desire to inflict physical pain upon the perpetrator of the injustice. If you look at it through eyes connected to a visual processing system that has evolved to be excellent at recognising apparent patterns even where none exist intentionally, and average it out over long enough, random events do appear to be "fair"; but that's only because the total amount of shit -- see what I did there? -- both random and intentional being distributed does tend to work out more or less the same amount per person. The shit that happens to you is unrelated in any mathematical way to the amount of shit you are causing for other people, but it doesn't seem that way when you catch some shit yourself after flinging shit around.

And it's precisely because fairness is an entirely human concept , that we should work towards it as a noble goal in its own right. Just because there is nobody actually telling us what to do, is no reason not to do the right thing anyway -- in fact, because it is right is arguably a much better reason for doing something than because someone told me. The former demonstrates that someone can think and reason for themselves; the latter gives me no such reassurances. I would be forever wondering, What if someone told that person to kill me?

That can be a hard concept for some people to grasp, if they have been taught the other way around: some people seem to think that "right" and "wrong" do not exist without a God to determine which is which, and it is only the prospect of eternal damnation in Hell versus a Heavenly reward for good behaviour that is keeping them from murdering, raping and cheating their way through life. But, as Mark Lamarr said to Shabba Ranks on The Word in 1992 (Bloody hell, was it really 25 years ago?), That's absolute crap, and you know it!

I grew up in a village, where people talked. To each other, about each other, and usually with other others in each case. The men (it was the 1970s; things have got better since then) talked in the pubs, the women talked in the post office, the butcher's shop, the hairdressser's, the village hall, the bus queue, or wherever they were when they met. The kids they dragged around with them overheard every word with a kind of grim fascination that was only matched by a horror of ever becoming the subject of such a story, particularly by the third or fourth retelling as it seemed to get worse each time. And then the wives talked to the husbands when they were home together, and the cycle of gossip would be repeated the next day. The local newsagent, if when -- she had eyes in the back of her head, that one -- when she caught kids nicking sweets, simply added the cost to their parents' paper bills. If the parents were smart, they would deal with it themselves; and if they weren't, well, she still got paid for the sweets, didn't she?

You could say we made our own Karma, in those days .....
 
consumer said:
I have my own beliefs largely formed by DMT which made me throw my entrenched athiest ideas out the window. I have no doubt there is more than what we perceive going on. To me thats now beyond doubt. I have seen an experienced things that simply have no other rational explanation.

As to ideas about behaviour. I think Karma is quite real. I can pretty much count the bad things i have done and it balances with the bad shit that has happened to me. Do good and do no harm is my motto. It serves me well. It certainly cant hurt to follow it anyway
Click to expand...

But can you coun't ALL the BAD things you did and ALL the GOOD things you did? Does it even out?

I'd like to think of Karma as the result of an action manifesting in someone i.e "my father treated me bad, so I treat me son bad and my son treats other people bad" and so on.

I tend to not like to persue an argument with anecdotes, nevertheless I've experienced this many times: my negative actions towards others has mostly caused other people to act in a negative way, almost echoing what I did or instilled in them. Looking back on my negative action I realised that I did it because someone else did it to me.

Old Bob once said that Karma is like a wheel, and I guess I'd agree with that. You can stop it, or you can continue it.

Bear in mind, this is only my interpretation of it. I'm sure a lot of Indians would laugh at my typical westerner orientalism.

RE: "Karma is an illusion". The "isness" of most things seem to have the qualities of an illusion. Karma, to me, is an abstraction or interpretation of something that I have observed. An "illusion" to me signifies and absolute, as "one thing distorts the actual". To me, there isn't an actual, actually.

:)
 
My piss poor attempt at geurrilla ontology:

The goal of guerrilla ontology is to expose an individual or individuals to radically unique ideas, thoughts, and words, in order to invoke cognitive dissonance, which can cause a degree of discomfort in some individuals as they find their belief systems challenged by new concepts.

The ultimate goal of guerrilla ontology is to promote positive brain change and new ways of experiencing and adapting to reality.
 
BecomingJulie said:
The "predisposition towards belief" is a misunderstanding. It's a salutary lesson in just how close it is possible to come to a worthwhile point, and still miss it by a country mile1.

Superstitions can be beneficial to survival, iff they serve to reinforce behaviours which are themselves beneficial. For example, funerals: It makes little practical difference whether you bury a dead body, burn it or just drag it out of the camp somewhere and leave it. Anything is better than leaving in the camp, a fertile breeding ground for germs and a beacon to scavengers and predators. Any tribe that develops a funeral rite has gained a survival advantage over a tribe that simply leave their dead where they fall. They do not have to understand the scientific reasons for disposing of corpses; it is sufficient for them just to do something with them, even if their hypothesised explanation is totally wrong.

There is a branch of mathemativs called Game Theory that explains why honesty and co-operation are the basis of a more successful survival strategy, at least in times of plenty, than selfishness and belligerence. So it is no mere co-incidence that every religion agrees on things like killing, stealing and lying being wrong, even if some of them have developed some rather unhealthy attitudes around sexual matters. We also observe that other gregarious predators have a sense of fairness. Just watch puppies or young wolves playing together, learning to be members of a pack.

And once we do know the proper scientific explanation for something, we should cast aside all superstitious explanations as No Longer Relevant. Just because we are hard-wired to be able to believe complete bollocks, does not mean that we should. We are hard-wired to have sex; but that doesn't give you the right to not even buy a girl a drink first, nor to do it in full view of people who might be eating. If we can suppress that instinct for mutual benefit, then surely we can tame the instinct to prefer a beautiful lie over an honest don't know -- or an ugly truth.

This is important, because behavioural codes developed from superstition inevitably acquire "cruft" -- neutral things that get reinforced anyway. Such as not eating certain foods. We now know that there are good reasons to avoid certain foodstuffs -- particularly pork and shellfish, quelle surprise -- under certain circumstances (such as, living in the desert without refrigeration). Pig farmers living at more temperate latitudes, on the other hand, could preserve their fatty meat in the form of sausages, and never needed to work in a taboo against eating pork into their culture. A foreskin is more or less self-cleansing, if you just pee often enough; but where water supplies are limited, and without the benefit of freshly-laundered underwear every day, circumcision might offer a slight survival advantage -- but only if it is performed in a timely manner, while the baby boy still has some of his mother's antibodies in his system. And even although deliberately making sex less pleasurable for someone, through surgery performed while he was too young to give fully-informed consent, is a truly horrible way to limit the spread of sexually-transmitted infections, there is no denying its effectiveness. Still, all Science has to say on the matter is drink plenty of fluids, shower and change your clothes regularly, use a condom every time you have sex and keep your bacon refrigerated between 4 and 8°C.

Even although our present-day understanding of evolution is imperfect, it is less wrong than Charles Darwin's original proposition, and will only grow more correct with each newly-discovered transitional fossil or improvement in understanding DNA (the "missing link" that proves beyond doubt that humans have an ancestor in common with chimpanzees is a set of retroviral signatures in corresponding positions in himan and chimp DNA); but every creation myth dreamed up by every religion ever is flat-out wrong. We don't understand the Cosmos fully, but by the time the next pictures are beamt back from our probes travelling through space, we will be more correct -- and every mythical explanation for the movement of the Sun, Moon and stars and planets is still irrelevant. And every conceived system of divine rewards and punishments for good and bad behaviour is also as wrong as wrong can be, and to continue to teach it precisely because of its simplicity is a grave insult to the intelligence of your students. And when overly-prescriptive behavioural codes, no doubt originally developed with good intentions but still ultimately based on superstition and now known to be scientifically unnecessary, offend the whole modern concept of human dignity, then it is unquestionably the latter that we ought to favour.

1 Defined as the distance one can walk before mid-day, so as to be able to return by nightfall.
Click to expand...

I've no doubt it's not by chance that we evolved these traits. For most people, it gives their lives some kind of meaning and purpose.

It can be very scary when you think you're alive just because you are, and then you die, and that's it.
 
CFC said:
I've no doubt it's not by chance that we evolved these traits. For most people, it gives their lives some kind of meaning and purpose.
Click to expand...
For sure, superstitious behaviour got us to the point where we could learn the actual reasons why things happen. But now that we have a better explanation, we should discard the old, superstitious ones. For the reasons mentioned above, it is problematic when, if taken literally, a superstitious belief with no scientific support calls for certain groups of people to be killed. And that is exactly what many holy books prescribe as the appropriate punishment for those who do not believe, and behave, as you do. That risk is not worth the benefit of a bit of false comfort that could be replaced by finding some real meaning and purpose in their lives, instead of insulting their intelligence with "easy" stories.

CFC said:
It can be very scary when you think you're alive just because you are, and then you die, and that's it.
Click to expand...
Not half as scary as the thought of some nut-job running around thinking that just because some dusty old book says as plain as day, Kill all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and other perverts, or Kill all those who will not submit themselves to God,that makes it O.K. for them actually to try it.

Just because reality can be scary, doesn't give you the right to deny it -- not if, in the course of your denial, you cause harm to anyone else. Such as irreversibly mutilating the genitals of a child too young to make an informed decision, forcing someone to deny the love of their life just because their sex, their skin colour or their beliefs are "wrong", or artificially restricting their lifestyle, behaviour or diet.

It is part of our obligation, as humans living in a civilised society, to help others fulfil their potential.
 
Wow, the post-hoc rationalisation is strong in that thread .....

And the cycle only looks set to go on, as long as men remain in denial about the abuse they have suffered. I don't homestly hold out much hope for it coming to an end anytime soon :(
 
Considering the amount of lies and deceit that has being on going for centuries anything at this point is possible. The Khazars and the jewish entities controlling and manipulating the economic systems in the west rotschild and rockefeller is somewhat plausible. These are Zionists not semitic jews. The Khazars were a warlike confederation of turkic/maybe proto turkic tribe spanning the caucasus region whose reign of dominnce ended in the tenth century a.d by the kievan Rus hence the long standing antagomism to Russia. Orthodox christian power to its north and islamic muslim power and influence to the south the Khazars converted to Judasism so as means of being an independent entity so guranteeing their own independence. These Khazars run the state of Israel as being the ruling establishment. This is not anti-semitic rant for the simple reason that the jewish ruling establishment in Israel and around the world are ethnically not semitic from the levant region but turkic cebtral asian then caucasus fiefdom. George Soros is the modern bogey man of the hour.

Again not anti-semitism rant. I am against all forms of racism, discrimination and hate based whether n class, race or religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top