Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

[muir]

And this is the key. You assume I am wrong and don't honestly consider my perspective because you assume it's government propaganda. But that's not the case. I will talk about science.

This is where you need to develop a less naive world view

'Science' is not united....'science' is divided

YOU do not speak for science so stop claiming to

Science is a method which is being used as a tool to try to seek out the the truth which has not yet been arrived at

I admit that the first conversation we had (the one about politics) was different, but that's why I had to step out of that conversation.

No you did not have to step out of the conversation...you could have asked me questions...you chose to step out of the conversation because what you really wanted to do was debate NOT learn

But in the vaccine debate, the cancer debate, I used science.

You posted some state sanctioned articles and i posted some scientific studies which counter acted them

You do not speak for 'science'

You dismiss me because my perspective disagrees with yours so you think that I've fallen prey to the government conspiracy to rationalize the case.

No i dismiss your perspective because it is wrong

I dismiss your perspectives (the ones we have debated about *except the politics one*; I don't know enough to debate some of your other points) because they disagree with science,

No they don't...you do not speak for science

and I rationalize that by following scientifically accepted rationalizations. It is possible your perspective on the conspiracy is correct, I have not actually argued that. All I'm trying to point out is that your conspiracy is not enough to prove things like vaccine toxicity or cancer is a fungus.

Thats why i provided supporting evidence...scientific papers

Concerning the cancer is a fungus issue....you are railroading my argument there....that is not the central thust of my argument concerning cancer.....my main argument is that there are ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO CURE CANCER

Here's what I see that's happening. You assume the government is wrong.

No i don't assume anything....if i know the government is right about something i won't assume it is wrong, but if i know the government is wrong about something i will say so

You don't get to say when i am assuming anything....the only way you can know that is if you ASK ME FOR MORE INFORMATION

You see me saying the same things as the government, so I must be using the governments propaganda. Therefore I must be incorrect and anything I say is as unreliable as the government. I am being manipulated by the government in your eyes, and I'm blind to that. Poor me, but it's my own fault.

No i see you saying things that i know are wrong which the government is also saying....there's no 'assumption'

Now let me ask you this. Did it ever occur to you that I might be saying some of the same things the government did because we are both basing our perspectives on science?

You need to wise up on this...scientific evidence is provided by both sides on many isssues...it is NOT unanimous and whats more science does not even know the nature of our reality....'science' and by that i mean the currently held views of the scientific community (those using the scientific method) hold paradigms which periodically are OVERTURNED

What I see is you make such assumptions,

No you see what you want to see because you are not trying to learn what i have in my head

and you use supposed proofs to disagree with the government is saying to further your perspective that everything the government is saying is incorrect. Further than that, when you see something that you can't rationalize in this way, you dismiss it as part of the greater conspiracy that includes the government. I noticed this pattern in the cancer debate. You talked about Dr. Simoncici saying his perspective was correct. The government says there's no cure to cancer. Dr. Simoncici disagrees with the government, so he must be correct because he has scientific credentials, he must know what he is talking about.

No.....WRONG!

i am intrigued by Dr Simonici's testimony because he is saying his treatment has worked... it has nothing to do with the 'conspiracy'

You probably read about it from Dr. Simoncic's perspective, but you don't actually understand medicine. You take his perspective because you assume the government is wrong in every way, and he offers an alternative that sounds good and satisfies your understanding of the situation. This is why you disagree with me and I disagree with you so much. I see you making this assumption of the government, you see me as falling pray to the government.
One big difference is you allow yourself to dismiss science that disagrees with your perspective. I do not allow myself to do that (or at least I try my hardest not to). This is exactly the point I tried to make earlier in this thread.

Wrong

He is an oncologist saying he has found a treatment that works....I would argue that should then be looked into

I expect you to even dismiss what I am saying now as me being controlled by the government or some child with a lot to learn. You won't honestly consider what I am saying here. It is the pattern you have shown so far. Maybe you'll accuse me of being a member of the government sent here to sow discord and confusion from your truth or something like that. You might respond with hostility if you react without thinking, or your might respond with your condescending tone of a superior being that knows what's what talking down to a naïve child if you retain control of your emotions and don't take undue offense to what I am saying.

I have never said the government is not corrupt. I have no doubt that certain parts of the government are corrupt, however I don't know which ones. That's why I'm often skeptical. It's also part of the reason why I don't like politics. You talk about restricted thought, well that's the way I see you. I'm not saying I'm not, it makes sense that any time you have structured thought, you will have restrictions, but that's the way we as humans exist. There's no way around that. I recognize my biggest restriction is in the way I analyze information. I'm currently exploring the concept of manipulating that fact.

What you are doing is spending a lot of time writing words down BUT not digging into the issues

This is a waste of time

If you are interested in learning then stop arguing for arguments sake and learn to LISTEN and ask questions. I learned to do this and have been able to get new information that moved me off the position that you currently stand on regarding what is going on in the world.

The only thing standing in your way is your own pride

You see what you want to see. That which you think you see cannot be proven by people like us, only believed in. As for if you are correct, well that's up for interpretation.

You nwill not know that unless you find out what is in my head and the only way you will be able to do that is if you learn to LISTEN and ask questions....are you capable of doing that?

Another example of your assumption as to my credibility. I have studied science in several of its forms. That is what my information is based on. Not what you call government propaganda. It's wrong of you to dismiss it as such simply because it disagrees with your perspective. I rarely even watch the news, and when I do it's only local. I never read the newspaper. Anytime I get information about the government, I have to ask other peoples perspectives because I also don't trust myself on political matters (that's probably the area of science I am the most lacking in, I've never found interest in studying it. I'll leave that study up to other people). I have certain people whose perspectives I trust, however I am always skeptical even of their perspectives.

If you are 19 then you can't have studied too much

By your age i had studied ALL THE 3 SCIENCES AT SCHOOL TO THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL. I chose all 3 as my subjects

You sure like to dismiss my perspective as government propaganda. Notice this is what I and others predicted is a pattern used by conspiracy theorists. Dismissal of another persons perspective because it disagrees with yours.

No that is what you are doing

Also you are repeating yourself again and again and again and filling the page up with words but NOT looking at the issues or asking me to speak about them...this is why you have a false idea of my position on this stuff...because you do not know what is in my head, because you keep refusing to invest the time to find out

You would rather, it seems, spend the time writing lots of words that do not move the discussion any further forward than trying to actually dig for the truth

Rationalization of the concept as being a part of the conspiracy. Perhaps those "blanket statements" aren't so unreasonable after all...


I did. I wish you would do the same.

A puzzle whose solution you think you already know. You recognize any tidbit of information, no matter its reliability if it agrees with your perspective and dismiss any that disagree. That is bias. Not reliable. That's why I disagree with your perspective.

No you disagree with my perspecvtive because you refuse to listen to what i'm saying and you refuse to ask questions because you want to cling to your currently held perception

In the end, whether which one of us is a more reliable source of information, well I guess that's up to interpretation. Personally, I think we rather well represent a common argument on this topic. You, knowing of your conspiracy theories, and me responding with science. Then follows the way each of us responds to the others perspective. If anything, some of the patterns you have shown so far as I have seen support many points made in this thread about conspiracy theorists.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and ask me some questions about what is going on in the world

If you do not do this then you are not giving the person you have declared a 'conspiracy theorist' a fair hearing and instead are being closed minded


Stop wasting my time with your rationalisations about why you don't want to listen to the perspectives of people that you want to be able to brand as 'conspiracy theorists' so that you can dismiss them without listening to them

Do that if you want but stop wasting my time

If you are interested in new perspectives then listen; if you cannot do that then we cannot continue to speak together

 

[Stu]

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and ask me some questions about what is going on in the world

If you do not do this then you are not giving the person you have declared a 'conspiracy theorist' a fair hearing and instead are being closed minded '

ok, what is going on, 500 words, no vids. include the aliens

 

[muir]

ok, what is going on, 500 words, no vids. include the aliens

What aliens?

If you speak to occultists and/or join their magickal orders you will find that they are trying to contact 'entities'. They are likely to call these 'discarnate intelligences'

So what are they?

Carl Jung spoke about archetypes in the collective unconscious.

Mckenna said that UFO's were produced from our psyche

So what these two learned gentlemen are saying is that there is a link between our outer physical reality and our inner psychic reality

This is of course what magicians have been saying for thousands of years. They believe that by changing something internally they can change something externally

If this paradigm were correct it would of course explain all the strange phenomena whether psychic, paranormal, UFO's, ghosts, poltergeists, remote viewing etc that the current scientific paradigm cannot encompass

Some argue that such phenomena as UFO's are just 'in our heads'

Lon Milo Duquette answered to that by saying 'yes it is in our heads, but don't under estimate how big your head is'. So what does he mean here? If as the mystics tell us we are all one consciousness and that you 'Stu' or me 'muir' are simply single points of awareness of that consciousness then of course all things are occuring in our minds because our minds are everything......we are not in the ocean of consciousness...we ARE the ocean of consciousness

This then ties ito the holographic universe concept that every part of the whole is contained within every other part

This was told to us by mystics who spoke about a web of wyrd (a unified field) of consciousness...an interconnectivity of all things

Often people were using entheogenic plants which acted for their consciousness the same way that a microscope does for their eyes...it changes the perception of reality

These altered states of consciousness allowed people to enter states tht have been named things like 'samadhi' or 'cosmic consciousness' where their sense of self has dissipated and they have literally become one with everything

The buddhists speak of the illlusion of seperateness as being called 'maya'

The other things experienced in these altered states of consciousness are communications with 'entities'. Nowadays a person in church might be given a sip of winebut really this is a mere shadow of the older intoxication cults based around entheogens such as magic mushrooms or the blue nile lilly or marijuana which tweak a persons perceptions enabling them to perceive reality in a different way

These entities are known in all cultures and have inspired cave art and even popular culture for example tales of 'little green men', fairies, elves, leprichauns, santa claus, mescalito and so on

Magicians don't just use intoxicants to alter their consciousness, they also use meditation, fasting, chants, prayers, rituals and so on to enter other realms of consciousness where these 'inter-dimensional entities' can be found

Some people have described meeting friendly or benevolent entities and some have described meeting horrifying and nightmarish entities. A common theme is reptillian entities which have then found their way into the symbology of humanity whether it is with 'dragons' or serpents in the bible or the snake pyramids of the aztecs etc

The occultists will seek to use tried and tested techniques to seek out these 'entities' and even to synche with them in the same way that a christian might pray to be filled with the love of their God Jesus Christ an occultists might work with another form of energy

So that's the 'alien' issue to a certain extent

Concerning it's place in the wider world....the unconscious has a massive shaping effect whether it is the 'revealed' abrahamic religions or mystery schools such as freemasonry which use rituals to communicate with the unconscious mind

Powerful people become powerful because they hunger for power. They don't just pursue it down one avenue though for example through accumulating money....they seek influence through every channel they can...because they want to get one up on everyone else.

The unconscious mind is one more avenue of power...one that has a massive shaping effect on our physical world. So the powerful seek to hoard magickal knowledge for themselves whislt giving the public watered down exoteric religions. To control consciousness is to control our outer physical reality so the powerful make it illegal for people to use entheogenic plants whilst they produce and sell harmfull drugs like alcohol, nicotene, caffiene and various big pharma synthetic drugs and suppress the healing and consciousness expanding plants...because they do not want people to expand their consciousness

They want people to be divided, alienated and feeling small and powerless. If a person undergoes a consciousness expansion however then they become empowered, they begin having ideas of their own and they start questioning rules and regulations and they begin thinking and acting by and for themselves...in effect they stop being so easily controlled and that is exactly what the powerful want to prevent

 

[Stu]

So the powerful seek to hoard magickal knowledge for themselves whislt giving the public watered down exoteric religions. To control consciousness is to control our reality so the powerful make it illegal for people to use entheogenic plants whilst they produce and sell harmfull drugs like alcohol, nicotene, caffiene and various big pharm synthetics and suppress the healing and consciousness expanding plants...because they do not want people to expand their consciousness

They want people to be divided, alienated and feeling small and powerless. If a person undergoes a consciousness expansion however then they become empowered, they begin having ideas of their own and they start questioning rules and regulations and they begin thinking and acting by and for themselves...in effect they stop being so easily controlled and that is exactly what the powerful want to prevent

Kudos to you Mr Muir but you loose me on the last part quoted above. Is it possible you are projecting onto the conscious ego the role of oppressor? The ego has a job to do, granted it takes itself way to seriously and ruins the appreciation of life for most people (myself included) but that does not necessitate a group of power hungry individuals.

 

[muir]

Kudos to you Mr Muir but you loose me on the last part quoted above. Is it possible you are projecting onto the conscious ego the role of oppressor? The ego has a job to do, granted it takes itself way to seriously and ruins the appreciation of life for most people (myself included) but that does not necessitate a group of power hungry individuals.

My current personal position regarding this is a strange contradictory position where i hold simultaneously the perception that this is all simply an experience being had by the one consciousness and that ultimately nothing really matters (detachment) whilst at the same time feeling that whilst i am here in this relaity i might as well immerse myself in it and engage with it (attachment)

This allows me to care without drowning in it

I watched the film ground hog day recently and if you haven't seen it, it is about a weather man going to a rural town to report a festival that he has to report on each year so he's very jaded about it and hates the town and calls the people 'hicks'. However he keeps repeating the same day over and over again waking at 6am on the same day again and again

This can serve as a good analogy for the idea of an omnipotent being

Imagine that you are God emerging from NO-THING

What are you going to do with yourself?

Would you not seek to split yourself into different people to have company? For that game to work you would have to also give each individual amnesia of their divine state

You are the one consciousness operating in a timeless realm of infinate possibility

So what do you do?

In groundhog day the character at first is shocked and disturbed at finding themself waking again on the same day and seeing the same scenarios playing out each time. However quickly he begins to realise that by knowing what is going to happen next he can use that knowledge to his advantage. For example he can find out information about people that he can then use in the next reincarnation

So he becomes more playful, however a few bad experiences leads him to start becoming more reckless. He reasons that if he is going to repeat the day again he has nothing to lose and he ends up being chased by he police and arrested.

But he wakes up again and begins anew. He then tries to win the heart of his work colleague which he has come to admit he is attracted to. Repeated failures despie his pre-knowledge manipulations leads to him become depressed......he goes through all these experiences and feelings and stages

He decides to try and end it all by killing himself...it fails and he wakes up again at 6am on the same day. He keeps trying to kill himself again and again for a while in different ways.

Then he has a shift of consciousness...he starts thinking ''well if i am here in this experience why don't i do something...i could for example learn the piano and how to ice sculpt''...so he does over many incarnations

He begins helping people around him and treating them better. He begins making friends with them and he begins being appreciated around the town. He even begins to like the town and the people there. He becomes less judgemental and more easy going....he begins to go with the flow and as a result good things begin to happen for him. His work colleague even begins falling in love with him

So anyway...imagine if you were one consciousness emerging from NO-THING.....over countless ages you would want to experience everything there was to experience...even the bad stuff. You would even destroy yourself through nuclear war and explore space and do wonderful things and terrible things and so on

You would do it all

But if an individual point of awareness overcomes the amnesia and remembers their divinity and the divinity of everyone else then how are they going to treat those other people? (they'll treat them how they would want to be treated themself...the 'golden rule') If they see other people as themselves then are they going to want to hurt them knowing that they are hurting themself or would they try to love their neighbour knowing that to love them is to love themself?

How destructive to the current system would such thinking be? If many people were thinking in such ways would a war economy be possible? No of course not

Would a debt based system be possible? No of course not

Would human trafficking be possible? No

and so on

So...one group of people try to get people thinking in these terms whilst another group of people try to violently shut them down...and so the cosmic dance continues

 

[Stu]

In Groundhog Day, the late Harold Ramis' masterpiece, things don't really turn around for the protagonist until he is struck with compassion for the homeless guy...and the only person trying to shut our hero down is himself.

 

[muir]

In Groundhog Day, the late Harold Ramis' masterpiece, things don't really turn around for the protagonist until he is struck with compassion for the homeless guy...

Is it not through our own suffering that we learn to better empathise with the less fortunate?

and the only person trying to shut our hero down is himself.

If we are all one consciousness then the only thing stopping us is ourselves

 

[dogman6126]

This is where you need to develop a less naive world view

And there you go. The predicted dismissal. What you call a naïve world view, I call a skeptical world view.

'Science' is not united....'science' is divided

You are correct in that respect, however the parts that I argued are not that divided. In my posts about theoretical physics, yeah those are far more controversial.

YOU do not speak for science so stop claiming to

You know, I will repeat what you said to eventhorizon one time. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one does. I talked to a doctor about my points about the vaccine toxicity, and this is a doctor who actually agreed with you that there was something fishy with vaccines because one of her, family members had a kid that got autism, and the parent swore it was because of the vaccine. She hadn't looked into vaccines as thoroughly as she wanted to, but she mentioned the mercury, the aluminum, overactive immune response. Basically everything you did, and I gave her my counter arguments and she agreed with me completely. I also mentioned the cancer as a fungus thing and she knew exactly what I was talking about, and even scoffed at the idea. That's when she educated me more on the topic and made the point that fungus rarely even causes cancer because fungus is such a fragile cell. Not durable like a virus. So not only is cancer not a fungus, it also rarely causes fungus.
This is someone who has a PhD and is a member of a national medical think tank.

Science is a method which is being used as a tool to try to seek out the the truth which has not yet been arrived at

You mean they haven't arrived at your truth. All the same, science is far more reliable than wild conjecture.

No you did not have to step out of the conversation...you could have asked me questions...you chose to step out of the conversation because what you really wanted to do was debate NOT learn

I'm sorry muir, I do not see you as a reliable source of information. Not based on how you tried to prove your points. I do talk to my friends that are politically adept when I have questions. The one that read your arguments said they agreed with your points, but not your conclusions. He gave me a reason why for each of the things he said, and I just forgot how he worded them or the things he quoted.

You posted some state sanctioned articles and i posted some scientific studies which counter acted them

Most of what I posted was logic based arguments, then scientific articles. Once I posted government articles, but that's because I misunderstood you and so I posted other articles.

No i dismiss your perspective because it is wrong

Well, then that's your belief. I'm not going to be like you and dismiss you because you disagree with me. I can recognize the chance that I could be wrong about the greater conspiracy thing you always talk about. However the things that I have looked into, I base my perspectives on scientific reasoning. Not wild conjecture.

No they don't...you do not speak for science

Well no I don't speak for science, but I do speak of science. Weird work choice, but ok.

Thats why i provided supporting evidence...scientific papers

Well that's true. Ranging from fraudulent papers to early evidence papers that where later refuted by further evidence, to biased

Concerning the cancer is a fungus issue....you are railroading my argument there....that is not the central thust of my argument concerning cancer.....my main argument is that there are ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO CURE CANCER

No, the cannabinoids where found to kill cancerous cells and inhibit growth in cultures, not cure cancer. This is an example of the wild claims and conjecture I'm talking about, and others have talked about are inherent to conspiracy theories.

No i don't assume anything....if i know the government is right about something i won't assume it is wrong, but if i know the government is wrong about something i will say so

You don't get to say when i am assuming anything....the only way you can know that is if you ASK ME FOR MORE INFORMATION

I have done exactly that several times not. The graphene debate, vaccines debate, and the cancer debate I did exactly that. However even when I gave you actual scientific evidence, it didn't make a bit of difference. That's why I'm pretty well done debating with you long term like that.

You need to wise up on this...scientific evidence is provided by both sides on many isssues...it is NOT unanimous and whats more science does not even know the nature of our reality....'science' and by that i mean the currently held views of the scientific community (those using the scientific method) hold paradigms which periodically are OVERTURNED

And while some do that, many more do not. And there's a difference between fundamental shifts or furthering understanding. The fact is science is reliable. It gives logical reasons for what it says based on available evidence that is applicable.

No you see what you want to see because you are not trying to learn what i have in my head

Your air of superiority is expected based on how I've seen you act so far. You must think yourself so much smarter than everyone else. We must be all stupid children that are beneath you that need educating to your truth.

i am intrigued by Dr Simonici's testimony because he is saying his treatment has worked... it has nothing to do with the 'conspiracy'

Of course he would say his treatment is working, he's being paid to use it. It doesn't logically work, and no one has been able to repeat his results. His theory and application are flawed, and so is his reasoning. Not to mention several of his patients died.....

Wrong

He is an oncologist saying he has found a treatment that works....I would argue that should then be looked into

Of course it was looked into. People aren't that thick headed. But no one can replicate his results or even explain why it could possibly work. His own reasoning is flawed as an explanation. Where's your logic in that?

What you are doing is spending a lot of time writing words down BUT not digging into the issues

This is a waste of time

If you are interested in learning then stop arguing for arguments sake and learn to LISTEN and ask questions. I learned to do this and have been able to get new information that moved me off the position that you currently stand on regarding what is going on in the world.

Like I said, I do not see you as reliable on any perspective based in science. Your to willing to accept conjecture or statements that sound good as fact.

The only thing standing in your way is your own pride

Well I'm sorry that you see me that way.

You nwill not know that unless you find out what is in my head and the only way you will be able to do that is if you learn to LISTEN and ask questions....are you capable of doing that?

I have already done exactly that on a few topics. And you showed me what you think. That's how I realized how unreliable as a source of information you are.

If you are 19 then you can't have studied too much

By your age i had studied ALL THE 3 SCIENCES AT SCHOOL TO THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL. I chose all 3 as my subjects

So let me get this straight, your saying that because I'm young, I can't actually know anything, but when you were my age you did? Wow your arrogance is almost palpable. And the way that you're dismissing me because of my age is shameful on your part.

You would rather, it seems, spend the time writing lots of words that do not move the discussion any further forward than trying to actually dig for the truth

That's because you are unwilling to discuss the truth, all you will do is try to act as a teacher of your truth. This is what you have been doing. I have tried to get you to change that, but you won't. Again this is another thing predicted by us for conspiracy theorists.

No you disagree with my perspecvtive because you refuse to listen to what i'm saying and you refuse to ask questions because you want to cling to your currently held perception

That's definitely incorrect. You just can't put up an actual logical argument. You rely to much on supposition or conjecture. I've changed my perspective on things before, for example I had a discussion with sprinkles and he showed a very logical reason why I was incorrect in classifying benign tumors as cancerous growths.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and ask me some questions about what is going on in the world

If you do not do this then you are not giving the person you have declared a 'conspiracy theorist' a fair hearing and instead are being closed minded

I have tried and seen you to be closed minded.

Stop wasting my time with your rationalisations about why you don't want to listen to the perspectives of people that you want to be able to brand as 'conspiracy theorists' so that you can dismiss them without listening to them

Why is it that you try to throw back my arguments in a new form? Trying to fold my arguments back to negate them? Well just saying that I'm doing something doesn't prove that I am doing something. I read every one of your related posts on every debate we had before. I gave honest effort into every one of them. You have no grounds to make such a claim. I however have seen you do otherwise.


And again you ask me to keep an open mind when yours is closed? That's called hypocrisy. A shameful practice.

 

[muir]

And there you go. The predicted dismissal. What you call a naïve world view, I call a skeptical world view.


You are correct in that respect, however the parts that I argued are not that divided. In my posts about theoretical physics, yeah those are far more controversial.


You know, I will repeat what you said to eventhorizon one time. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one does. I talked to a doctor about my points about the vaccine toxicity, and this is a doctor who actually agreed with you that there was something fishy with vaccines because one of her, family members had a kid that got autism, and the parent swore it was because of the vaccine. She hadn't looked into vaccines as thoroughly as she wanted to, but she mentioned the mercury, the aluminum, overactive immune response. Basically everything you did, and I gave her my counter arguments and she agreed with me completely. I also mentioned the cancer as a fungus thing and she knew exactly what I was talking about, and even scoffed at the idea. That's when she educated me more on the topic and made the point that fungus rarely even causes cancer because fungus is such a fragile cell. Not durable like a virus. So not only is cancer not a fungus, it also rarely causes fungus.
This is someone who has a PhD and is a member of a national medical think tank.


You mean they haven't arrived at your truth. All the same, science is far more reliable than wild conjecture.




I'm sorry muir, I do not see you as a reliable source of information. Not based on how you tried to prove your points. I do talk to my friends that are politically adept when I have questions. The one that read your arguments said they agreed with your points, but not your conclusions. He gave me a reason why for each of the things he said, and I just forgot how he worded them or the things he quoted.




Most of what I posted was logic based arguments, then scientific articles. Once I posted government articles, but that's because I misunderstood you and so I posted other articles.


Well, then that's your belief. I'm not going to be like you and dismiss you because you disagree with me. I can recognize the chance that I could be wrong about the greater conspiracy thing you always talk about. However the things that I have looked into, I base my perspectives on scientific reasoning. Not wild conjecture.


Well no I don't speak for science, but I do speak of science. Weird work choice, but ok.



Well that's true. Ranging from fraudulent papers to early evidence papers that where later refuted by further evidence, to biased


No, the cannabinoids where found to kill cancerous cells and inhibit growth in cultures, not cure cancer. This is an example of the wild claims and conjecture I'm talking about, and others have talked about are inherent to conspiracy theories.




I have done exactly that several times not. The graphene debate, vaccines debate, and the cancer debate I did exactly that. However even when I gave you actual scientific evidence, it didn't make a bit of difference. That's why I'm pretty well done debating with you long term like that.


And while some do that, many more do not. And there's a difference between fundamental shifts or furthering understanding. The fact is science is reliable. It gives logical reasons for what it says based on available evidence that is applicable.




Your air of superiority is expected based on how I've seen you act so far. You must think yourself so much smarter than everyone else. We must be all stupid children that are beneath you that need educating to your truth.



Of course he would say his treatment is working, he's being paid to use it. It doesn't logically work, and no one has been able to repeat his results. His theory and application are flawed, and so is his reasoning. Not to mention several of his patients died.....




Of course it was looked into. People aren't that thick headed. But no one can replicate his results or even explain why it could possibly work. His own reasoning is flawed as an explanation. Where's your logic in that?




Like I said, I do not see you as reliable on any perspective based in science. Your to willing to accept conjecture or statements that sound good as fact.


Well I'm sorry that you see me that way.


I have already done exactly that on a few topics. And you showed me what you think. That's how I realized how unreliable as a source of information you are.


So let me get this straight, your saying that because I'm young, I can't actually know anything, but when you were my age you did? Wow your arrogance is almost palpable. And the way that you're dismissing me because of my age is shameful on your part.


That's because you are unwilling to discuss the truth, all you will do is try to act as a teacher of your truth. This is what you have been doing. I have tried to get you to change that, but you won't. Again this is another thing predicted by us for conspiracy theorists.



That's definitely incorrect. You just can't put up an actual logical argument. You rely to much on supposition or conjecture. I've changed my perspective on things before, for example I had a discussion with sprinkles and he showed a very logical reason why I was incorrect in classifying benign tumors as cancerous growths.



I have tried and seen you to be closed minded.


Why is it that you try to throw back my arguments in a new form? Trying to fold my arguments back to negate them? Well just saying that I'm doing something doesn't prove that I am doing something. I read every one of your related posts on every debate we had before. I gave honest effort into every one of them. You have no grounds to make such a claim. I however have seen you do otherwise.


And again you ask me to keep an open mind when yours is closed? That's called hypocrisy. A shameful practice.

Like i said lots of words but no searching for truth

Just lots of rationalisations about why you don't want to listen to views that challenge your own currenty held perceptions

If you decide you can screw your neck in and listen i'll be happy to talk some more, until then i think we should discontinue our communications

 

[dogman6126]

Like i said lots of words but no searching for truth

Just lots of rationalisations about why you don't want to listen to views that challenge your own currenty held perceptions

If you decide you can screw your neck in and listen i'll be happy to talk some more, until then i think we should discontinue our communications

Like I said. I have tried debating with you. You're just to closed minded for an open discussion. That is why I dislike conspiracy theories/theorists. Thank you for helping me to make that point here muir

 

[muir]

Like I said. I have tried debating with you. You're just to closed minded for an open discussion. That is why I dislike conspiracy theories/theorists. Thank you for helping me to make that point here muir

Everything you have said has shown that you haven't read my posts or the supporting evidence i posted

That shows a closed mind which illustrates my point about those who are afraid to challenge their own currently held perceptions, thanks for helping me to make that point here

 

[dogman6126]

Everything you have said has shown that you haven't read my posts or the supporting evidence i posted

That shows a closed mind which illustrates my point of those who are afraid to challenege their own currently held perceptions

lol, throwing my own arguments back at me again. Not to creative are you?

 

[muir]

Its not really possible to look at and analyse the explosion of speculation that we have seen in recent years as people begin to seek answers to the strange and often frightening events we see regularly in the news without mentioning a particular person who has been a key figure in the process: David Icke

http://neonnettle.com/features/210-the-reason-david-icke-is-an-important-voice

Its not just Lizard theory

By: Andrew Cribb
on 27th June 2014 @ 11.39am

David Icke many years ago had a Spiritual awakening which to those 500 million of us in the western world sounds a bit wacky, but to the other 6.5 Billion people on the planet is considered a very normal experience that follows with a great responsibility.

An awakening is the beginning of bioenergetic process that leads to an end goal termed supraconsciousness – the merging of the conscious mind with the sub-conscious mind & therefore becoming aware of your subconscious. It is usually a very painful experience that has many symptoms, most of which are hellish, but there are some very pleasant symptoms also. Once the process has finished, you are left in a state of complete contentment as the egoic mind has been almost completely dismantled.


So what does this mean? What is the egoic mind? When we are born, we are pure awareness, but then the conditioning begins. We are given an identity (name), we are told what is right & what is wrong, we are taught subjects at school, take on other peoples character traits so we can try to fit in with the societal norm, we watch the news, we are taught authority, etc. All of this becomes your identity, your ego & we believe every bit of it to be true. It’s basically a mass psychosis.

So what would happen if all this dissolves and all those compartments in our minds are no longer there? The simple answer is we become pure awareness again, just as we were born to be before our conditioning began. We become more child like by making the most of every moment. We stop worrying about yesterday or tomorrow, the what if’s disappear and our minds become very quiet indeed. Monks spend decades meditating to try to achieve this state of being but for the very few lucky ones, it happens naturally. Once you achieve this state of being you begin to notice everything around you ‘in the now’, all the beauty that you never noticed before, but you also notice all the bad stuff and it doesn’t take long for you to come to the conclusion that something is seriously wrong in the world and once you reach this point, you will want answers to questions that have never come up before, you can’t help it, & believe me, there are a million and one questions and each one of those questions leads to more questions.

David spent decades asking these questions & devoted his whole life to sharing his findings with the world. Over the years, his followers have increased exponentially & this is not because he claims to be any kind of Messiah like some people would have you believe, but because these followers have also come to their own conclusions that something is seriously wrong with the world and are looking for answers.

Love him or hate him, David is in no way trying to force his beliefs on other people, just simply wanting to share his findings with the sole intention of getting more people to ask more questions. Truth is all that matters & it’s always up to ourselves to decide what is true. Neon Nettle supports David Icke & what he stands for as Neon Nettle also has the same goal – to bring awareness to our readers, create free and open debate, and create a platform for our contributors to voice their opinions without fear of being judged.

Question everything and come to your own conclusions

 

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], your complaining about people throwing out words and not getting to the "big" issues, but you know that's not the point of this thread, right? You seem to conveniently forget that a lot. This thread is about why some people like conspiracy theories and why others don't. Not really about what those conspiracy theories are. Your complaints are inherent to the fact of what this thread is about. If you want to talk about your conspiracy theories, make a thread for it (oh wait, you have) and stop force feeding others.

 

[muir]

lol

You're like a dog after a bone dogman!

Just try to settle down a little....stop seeing me as your opponent....take some deep breaths and allow some objectivity into the situation...

Then have another look at the article i just posted; it is completely relevant to the thread which is exploring, as you say, the phenomena of 'conspiracy theorys' but what is really a mass awakening of political consciousness and why some people are currently more engaged with it than others

 

[Lark]

Conspiracy theories are self-reinforcing and dont need evidence, as theories go they arent falseifiable hypothesis in any scientific way, when what looks like evidence seeking behaviour is taking place often its just confirmation bias.

 

[muir]

Conspiracy theories are self-reinforcing and dont need evidence, as theories go they arent falseifiable hypothesis in any scientific way, when what looks like evidence seeking behaviour is taking place often its just confirmation bias.

Lol i think you're actually describing the process of a person maintaining the fiction in their head that is given to them by the mainstream media

Conspiracy theorists are people who aren't afraid to think outside that box

as it said in that james Corbett report any police detective investigating a crime involving more than one perpetrator must be a 'conspiracy theorist' in order to investigate possibilities

And that's what this 'conspiracy theory' phenomena is that we are witnessing...its people investigating different possibilities and sharing the information that they find through that process

That's not to say that some possibilities aren't hocum or dead ends but that's where a curious person must be discearning and do their own research so that they can come to their own informed opinion

Once a person gets over that hurdle of how they have been conditioned to react dismissively towards possibilities that don't align with the official state account of events then they will actually find that there is a WEALTH of evidence and knowledge out there that will radically change the way they perceive history, economics, religion etc

If you can take those brakes on your mind off there is an incredible journey of discovery to be had

 

[Lark]

Lol i think you're actually describing the process of a person maintaining the fiction in their head that is given to them by the mainstream media

Conspiracy theorists are people who aren't afraid to think outside that box

as it said in that james Corbett report any police detective investigating a crime involving more than one perpetrator must be a 'conspiracy theorist' in order to investigate possibilities

And that's what this 'conspiracy theory' phenomena is that we are witnessing...its people investigating different possibilities and sharing the information that they find through that process

That's not to say that some possibilities aren't hocum or dead ends but that's where a curious person must be discearning and do their own research so that they can come to their own informed opinion

Once a person gets over that hurdle of how they have been conditioned to react dismissively towards possibilities that don't align with the official state account of events then they will actually find that there is a WEALTH of evidence and knowledge out there that will radically change the way they perceive history, economics, religion etc

If you can take those brakes on your mind off there is an incredible journey of discovery to be had

Carry on your writing there dude, I'm still laughing at what you had to say about Hegelianism being behind it all.

 

[muir]

Carry on your writing there dude, I'm still laughing at what you had to say about Hegelianism being behind it all.

if you can grasp that one then you can understand 911, ISIS, the war on terror and various 'terror' acts perpetrated over the last half century

if you want to hear more about how marxism and fascism are used as tools by the cabal to move the world towards a new world order there is a book called 'revolution from above' by Dr Kerry Bolton that you might find interesting

David Icke has his own terminology for this kind of double dealing. he calls it 'problem, reaction, solution'.

You know how Noam Chomsky says that in order to do things like wage wars 'democratic' governments aren't supposed to force their populations to do things so they have to 'manufacture their consent'

Well the way they manufacture the consent of the public is to demonise their enemies in the eyes of the public (eg the 'red terror') so that the public then support them when they attack their stated enemies

So lets say that the US wants to attack Syria....what they do is they give chemical weapons to some mercenaries and get them to fire the weapons into a civilian area. This then creates the 'problem' which is a shocking event.

The US government then uses the corporate media to tell everyone about the event and to drum up anger and outrage in the public...this then is the 'reaction' from the public

Then the US government present their solution which is either to publically arm and fund the mercenary 'rebels' (and train them with special forces) or to launch an actual ground war

The above example of course was a real occurance....this did actually happen. The New York Times ran a big article saying that Assad had gassed his own people and the US government then started trying to make the case for war but public refusal took the wind out of their sails so they had to just send arms and money and training instead

later on the gas attack was found to be a fraud and the New York Times retracted their story.....but if they had pursuaded the US public to go to war it would never have mattered that the story was a lie in the first place because by then the false flag attack would have turned into a real 'hot' war

 

[Lark]

A bigger but associated idea in relation to conspiracy theories, in relation to any theory like it pretty much, whether its labelled leitmotif, Weltanschauung, metanarrative, is not simply why people believe them but what consequences it has.