Truthism?
Posted on: June 22, 2007 - 12:43pm
Offline
Truthism?
This was given to me in response to my "CONVERT TO BENISM" video. Apparently this person thought I was serious...
Anyway, Truthism is just about every conspiracy theory rolled into one. Also, like all modern conspiracy shite, it borrows liberally from the Matrix. If you read throug it, you'll notice how it gradually morphs from halfway logical and plausible, to kind of bonkers, to completely off-the-wall bonkers, and you barely notice the shift.
my personal highlight of the site (especially "Science's Pink Elephant in the Living Room"
:
One ultra-important issue that religions attempt to skirt around, and that science all-out ignores, is the concept of intentional deception. Deception is not something that sits idle in this universe, and it is the modus operandi of the Reptilians and other highly intelligent, power-hungry beings. Yet, the scientific method does not take into account the concept of intentional deception. The Reptilians created all of Earth's religions, as well as science. And now, they like to pit religion and science against each other. Unfortunately, though, atheists are actually foolish enough to think that science is on their side. For someone to actually use such a mainstream, public-sanctioned, government-sponsored, corporate-sponsored, thought-controlling, limited doctrine such as science in order to discover the real truth about reality is laughable, and shows that they are ignoring the concept of intentional deception (and, ignoring the concept of intentional deception is, in fact, selective reasoning). Real truth seekers are aware that the ruling elite have their own ulterior motives, and thus incorporate this important fact into their reasoning. In contrast, science tries to act like one can seek the truth without needing to worry about the ruling elite's influence on the world or about the legitimacy of mainstream information. According to science, intentional deception does not exist, conspiracies do not exist, aliens do not exist, and the ruling elite are benevolent (and, of course, this is because the Reptilians are the very ones who created science in the first place).
Ironically, people who call themselves "skeptics" are not really skeptics. Rather, they are only selective skeptics. This is because they may be skeptical about fringe ideas, but they are never skeptical about status quo ideology (such as science) or about mainstream news from the mass media. This is due to the fact that human beings make the grand mistake of correlating credibility with power. Thus, since the Reptilians literally have all the power in the world, their implanted belief systems have the undeserved credibility that comes along with such power.
As for your own encounter with intentional deception, one day, probably years ago, you decided that you would adopt a belief system (be it a specific religion or atheism), without even thinking for a second that you were intentionally being deceived. You were unaware that your adopted belief system was a trap, waiting for you to walk right into it. Now, confronted with the truth, you are suffering from paradigm paralysis and cognitive dissonance.
Science's Pink Elephant in the Living Room In the scientific community, the concept of government secrets is taboo, and is the "pink elephant in the living room" that scientists and atheists refuse to acknowledge. Scientists and atheists do not want to admit such a simple and obvious fact: If all government secrets were exposed today, then all of the truth about reality would finally be revealed--and thus, society would fall apart, science would fall apart, all religions would fall apart, the mass media would fall apart, and there would be no more need for websites such as this. Science = Faith Whereas a religion has faith in the existence of an imaginary god, science has faith in the trustworthiness of the government--something which real truth seekers would never dare have. Mind you that the scope of "trusting the government" covers trusting mass media information, trusting what is told in history books, and, basically, trusting anything else that is considered to be "official" (such as the "official" version of history). People never ask for proof or evidence when information comes from an official source. Instead, they simply rely on their faith in the trustworthiness of the source.
Right now, you are reading the information on this website in a skeptical manner, erroneously thinking that by doing so, you are being a noble defender of logic, reason, and reality. Well, here is some news for you: Your status quo worldview is not the truth. In actuality, by being a skeptic, all you are really doing is behaving like an obedient sheep for the ruling elite; you are a well-behaved pawn in their game of control. Who do you think created the status quo in the first place? It sure wasn't you. You are merely a follower, a calf that sucks knowledge from the udders of authority. And, it is rather strange that you think you already know what the truth is, considering the fact that you do not have full access to Top Secret government information. You simply base reality upon what the media tells you and what Earth's authority figures tell you.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
Somebody's smokin' something funny.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I resent the implications of that pic Deludedgod. Marijuana can in no way induce hallucinations of this magnitude, and is relatively safe for consumption compared to many day to day toxins already in common contact with humanity.
Something of this magnificent example of imagination run wild could only be produced by a coke addict who consumed 15+ grams of LSD which was mixed into tequila of a quantity of at least a 60ozer, mexican quality.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I have to agree with you guys, but you don't go far enough....paranoid schizophrenia combined with every drug on the planet, with a bit of imagination, could come up with this, and believe it.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
I resnt the implications of that statement Vastet. I've come up with way stranger stuff on less drugs than those guys. They're just plaigerizing from the real psychonauts!
Wait i have used and still do on occasion, some good marijuana, and i have yet to even think of some MAJOR consipiracy that voids all logical forms of how humans are (eventually we gossip, need to tell someone, especially on something this large, the amount of people required to keep it quiet is HUGE) and besides I have heard some really really weird stuff from completely sober and clean people....ok they were mormons and Jehova witnesses but hey, they were sober and clearn at least to my knowledge.
That's what happens when you have kids and don't sober up during the entire pregnancy.....
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So don't be a obedient sheep for them, be an obidient sheep for US!
DON'T THINK DON'T THINK. FOR THAT IS - uh... NOT THINKING!!!
You mention the Matrix. I am always happy to be given reason to have a diatribe about that movie. I will attempt to avoid discussing my ongoing hate-affair with Keanu Reeves.
I was pleased with the first movie because it was thinly veiled Existentialism. Ooops, you woke up and found out the world didn't really exist and nothing really matters. However, as soon as they made the second and third ones, I learned that anyone can shit into a camera in Hollywood and make money from it.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Ah, the Good Old "The Sims/Matrix" Theory. I guess that is as "scientific" as religion can ever get.
On OP, nice post. It makes me think of that weird website way back talking about trisecting a line being the way to immortality or something. Whatever these people are smoking, I would definitely love to get my hands on.
"I resent the implications of that pic Deludedgod. Marijuana can in no way induce hallucinations of this magnitude, and is relatively safe for consumption compared to many day to day toxins already in common contact with humanity."
Wow... You learned this from?... A website? Some stupid ass writing about stupid shit that you thought was real? The thought that marijuanna is good is more idiotic then the thought of "Truthism".
Btw, in your Signature you have "Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God.".
#1. The love of one country leads to the hate of another.
#2. Atheism is horrible. It is based on the literal state of HATE. You may say religion is bad because it is based off faith. But atleast, they aren't based entirely on hate of something else.
#3. "Gaming God". If you ever say that about any one, especially yourself, you probably play Counter-Strike or Role Playing Games. If you do, you should definitely believe in Atheism, i mean hell... If your going to be doing stupid shit, might as well seal the deal eh?
This is a fallacy of equivocation. The dictionary definition of atheism merely means an expression of non belief in a deity. One cannot hate that which one does not believe in, as this would be contradictory. The term atheist per se does not necessarily imply the hatred of religion (if that is what you were attempting to imply). That is called antitheism. While these two positions are sometimes found together they are not identical, and not necessarily complementary. Also, one does not necessarily have to be atheist to despise religion. I have encountered plenty of deists and agnostics who show venomous hatred of religion, which I, of course, applaud, not that it matters.
You would do well to discuss matters that you are not willfully ignorant of.
This, again, is a strawman fallacy of equivocation. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Haha. Am I the only one that, on reading the word "Truthism" thought that it was named using the same sort of thought process as "Scientology", and then saw the website and was totally vindicated?