The Instigator
GeoLaureate8
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
85 Points

Religion, Atheism, and Science are Dead Wrong About Reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,413 times Debate No: 7659
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (22)

 

GeoLaureate8

Pro

(Strap yourself in because this one's gonna be tough.)

Religion, atheism, and official science are all fronts for the true essence of reality.
(You may dismiss some info at first, but keep reading, and it will be understood)

They have been established for purposes of divide and rule and to suppress the truth from the people by ruling elites and secret societies since the epoch of civilization. The architects of control such as the most powerful cult, the Illuminati (dates back to the ancient world under different names), knew that in order to control the masses, you have to feed people false realities and information that belittles and suppresses the true nature of who they are. Through the use of religion, people are told to believe that they are impure and unworthy right out of the womb. They are also being held in a mind prison because of a rigid belief system that keeps them in line through fear. The truth about religion is that the true occult knowledge preserved by the Freemasons, the Druids, and other secret societies, was used by elitist priests, like the Levites and Jesuits, to create prison belief systems using symbolic references, allegories, and a few stories based on actual events of the past. Usually to establish theocracies and such. The secret was to manufacture doctrines containing these symbolic references, and to get people to take it literally and live life by it. Many of the stories behind all of the religious deities are based on the Zodiac and movement of celestial bodies. So the real truth and occult knowledge is still to this day, preserved and withheld by the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Order of the Golden Dawn, and the powerful Druidic knowledge passed on from the Atlanteans, that is in the hands of the Illuminati.

"The other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." - Albert Pike (33rd Degree Freemason, leader of the Illuminati)

Now, the Atheists have been mislead because they realize how ridiculous and unreasonable the religious claims are, but as a result, they are lead to deny everything, including the true nature of reality. Atheists beliefs rely heavily upon official science, and this is a major problem. Here's why:

"Newton, like the founders of the Royal Society, knew that much of what official "science" tells us to be true is utter garbage. But that was the idea, to sell us a lie to keep us from the truth. It is far easier to control people if they believe they are cosmic accidents, who come into existence merely by chemical reactions and then go back to oblivion at death. It is much harder to control those who are aware of their multi-dimensional infinity." - David Icke

Atheists heavily rely on Darwin's theory of evolution which is another belittling belief system denying our true potential. The truth about evolution is this. There is no proof in genetics, no proof in molecular evidence because it shows similarities, but does not explain how the similarities came about, or a legitimate fossil record. Steven J. Gould said that Darwinism is effectively dead as a general theory. Though environment and external forces do compel species to adapt and sometimes change physical form, this does not mean that a self replicating molecule has a mind of its own that can choose to be a blood cell, a brain cell, or a skin cell. Another problem with the scientific community is that they all must follow the status quo or be rejected as a legitimate scientist. Scientists are scared to step outside the box for research and also must be a believer in Darwinism to be accepted. Another problem with atheism is that it usually has weak arguments just like creationists. "You can't prove or disprove flying spaghetti monster, so God is just another fairy tale." Or "Why don't you believe in Zeus, Apollo, or Mithra?" Well, if your idea of God is a bearded man with supernatural abilities (religions sort of believe that), then you got the wrong idea all together. Another problem Atheists have is that they don't believe anything unless they can see it. Well hey, we might as well be blind, because we can only see about 5% of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the known spectrum could very well be a fraction of all the wavelengths of the universe.

Thankfully we have open minded scientists like Michio Kaku, Gregg Braden, Michael Talbot, David Bohm, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, David Wilcock, and others and researchers like David Icke and Michael Tsarion to keep is on track.

The truth about reality is that we are all infinite consciousness expressing itself differently in a holographic, multi-dimensional multiverse of infinity. Consciousness is energy. We have been trapped in a 3 dimensional apparently solid world of matter. How can this be if everything is made up of atoms (furthermore broken down, massless superstrings), and atoms have no solidity. Our minds are just perceiving the world to be solid because we are decoding frequency fields depending on the density of the holographic matter. Every individual is consciousness residing in a genetic space suit, body computer connected to a holographic internet. We are all one living in the delusion that we are separate. Time has no beginning because it's not a line, it's a loop. There may have been a big bang starting point for our universe, but every universe is just a bubble residing in the 11th dimension of hyperspace infinity. There is an infinite intelligent force in the multiverse, there are extraterrestrials all over the multiverse, there are multiple planes of existence and dimensions, and our goal must be to break away from this prison reality matrix.

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Einstein
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Sup dawg, I herd you liek tinfoil, so I'll put something even better in your hat so you can actually evade dat mind control while you think you evadin' mind control :).

Whenever someone tells you that two or more opposing things are in league, are fundamentally the same, check if they have a reason for it, and a good one. If they don't-- they are what they denounce, THEY are the ones trying to control you. Conspiracy theory, I'm afraid, is usually lacking in theory and entirely a delving into Applied Conspiracy-- e.g., how to make one.

Religion is certainly wrong about reality, though the "Illuminati" have nothing to do with it-- it doesn't take some vast coordinated conspiracy to do what mad disorganized mystics and people who want to evade responsibility can do for you.

"Official science" is a meaningless construct. Science is not a belief system, it is a method-- a method that states that looking at reality repeatedly with your eyes wide open will give you a good idea of what is real. Now wtf is wrong about that exactly?

"
"Newton, like the founders of the Royal Society, knew that much of what official "science" tells us to be true is utter garbage. But that was the idea, to sell us a lie to keep us from the truth. It is far easier to control people if they believe they are cosmic accidents, who come into existence merely by chemical reactions and then go back to oblivion at death. It is much harder to control those who are aware of their multi-dimensional infinity." - David Icke.." The person theorizing that the world is run by REPTILE PEOPLE is not a good sauce for an ad authoritatem fallacy.

Atheism is merely a denial of God. To this position evolution is essentially irrelevant. Nevertheless....

"The truth about evolution is this. There is no proof in genetics, no proof in molecular evidence because it shows similarities, but does not explain how the similarities came about"
The similarities in genes are by DEFINITION what the theory of evolution predicts and explains.

" or a legitimate fossil record."
Oh? Evidence?

"
Steven J. Gould said that Darwinism is effectively dead as a general theory."
Ad authoritatem fallacy, one of many in your argument. Furthermore, you're taking things out of their proper context, he was referring to gradualism, not the theory of evolution as such.

"Though environment and external forces do compel species to adapt and sometimes change physical form"
That, it happens, is the theory of evolution in a nutshell.

"this does not mean that a self replicating molecule has a mind of its own that can choose to be a blood cell, a brain cell, or a skin cell."
And that, it happens, is a straw man, having nothing to do with the theory of evolution, or indeed any other theory I've ever heard.

"Another problem with the scientific community is that they all must follow the status quo or be rejected as a legitimate scientist. Scientists are scared to step outside the box for research and also must be a believer in Darwinism to be accepted."
In climatology, where science is not used, your criticism might have merit. In biology, people investigate evolution all the time-- they simply can't commit blatant fallacies or ignore the data. The problem is, when you don't, it stands up the investigation :).

"Another problem with atheism is that it usually has weak arguments just like creationists. "You can't prove or disprove flying spaghetti monster, so God is just another fairy tale." Or "Why don't you believe in Zeus, Apollo, or Mithra?" Well, if your idea of God is a bearded man with supernatural abilities (religions sort of believe that), then you got the wrong idea all together."
The first is a strawman in it's formulation, the second a valid epistemic criticism, since there is exactly as much evidence for those "Gods" as the usual ones. Do you have a different God to bring up? It's not "the wrong idea" to criticize something unless the person you're criticizing it to has a different concept.

"Another problem Atheists have is that they don't believe anything unless they can see it. Well hey, we might as well be blind, because we can only see about 5% of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the known spectrum could very well be a fraction of all the wavelengths of the universe."
Well hey, we can see the rest of it with machines, duh. The problem is that we have to detect it SOMEHOW to believe in it-- which has to be, because any other position on epistemology demands belief in unicorns, fairies, and reptile people :).

"
The truth about reality is that we are all infinite consciousness expressing itself differently in a holographic, multi-dimensional multiverse of infinity."
Problem: Epistemology. Prove it.

Another problem: This violates the Law of Identity. Everything which exists has a specific, LIMITED (not infinite) identity-- specific traits, it has to be something in particular-- or nothing in particular.

Another problem: Contradicts the evidence-- when I smack my hand on the desk, the desk is clearly not a hologram.

Another problem: Contradicts the evidence again, infinite consciousness means we should know everything, yet clearly we don't.

Another problem: Define universe, and multiverse in terms of universe.

:Consciousness is energy.
Prove it.

:We have been trapped in a 3 dimensional apparently solid world of matter.
Trapped from what?

:How can this be if everything is made up of atoms (furthermore broken down, massless superstrings), and atoms have no solidity.
The trait "Solidity" has presumably as it's ultimate referent the repulsive forces of particles, which logically render a surface impenetrable. Thus, atoms do indeed have solidity-- not, perhaps, in relation to a stray electron, but certainly in relation to another atom, especially if it's a noble atom.

As for superstrings, those are unevidenced conjecture and therefore irrelevant.

"Our minds are just perceiving the world to be solid because we are decoding frequency fields depending on the density of the holographic matter."
If it were "mere perception" with no reference to actual traits, we should be able to push through by ignoring our senses. Yet we aren't, therefore the perception has an actual meaning.

"We are all one living in the delusion that we are separate."
If this were the case, we would all agree. Yet we clearly don't.

:Time has no beginning because it's not a line, it's a loop.
Time certainly has no beginning (law of identity) but it "looping" is unproven as all heck.

:There may have been a big bang starting point for our universe, but every universe is just a bubble residing in the 11th dimension of hyperspace infinity.
Use a better term than universe, in philosophy "universe" refers to the whole of existence. Also, proof.

:There is an infinite intelligent force in the multiverse
An infinite intelligent force is a contradiction in terms. Intelligence is a means of thinking about specific, limited things in a specific, limited way, and nothing can have a nonspecific existence.

:there are extraterrestrials all over the multiverse
Maybe, maybe not, depending what meaning you attach to that poorly chosen word.

In conclusion of this round, I plead to my opponent-- Please, quit repeating what the anti-Illuminati (read: Wannabe-Illuminati) shove into your head, and THINK. Think with evidence. Keep your eyes wide open, and all your other senses too. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
GeoLaureate8

Pro

*** Conspiracy theory, I'm afraid, is usually lacking in theory and entirely a delving into Applied Conspiracy-- e.g., how to make one. ***

This is not conspiracy "theory" it's conspiracy fact. No one's making assumptions or guessing what might be taking place behind the scenes. The elite's have written specifically what they plan to do and how to do it in their books. It's a matter of taking a walk to the bookstore.

*** Religion is certainly wrong about reality, though the "Illuminati" have nothing to do with it-- it doesn't take some vast coordinated conspiracy to do what mad disorganized mystics and people who want to evade responsibility can do for you. ***

The Illuminati have everything to do with it. If you understand the structure of the Illuminati, it is comprised of all the highest ranking members from various secret societies. If you deny the influence of secret societies on religion, you have much to learn. The Knights Templar and the Freemasons have very strong ties to Judeo-Christianity. Joseph Smith was a Freemason. The Jewish Kabbalah is basically an Occult book. Look at any church and you will see massive Masonic and Templar symbolism. Rosicrucians and the Priory of Scion have strong ties with Catholicism. Many religious doctrines are all founded on twisted occult knowledge. That should tell you enough right there. Remember though, religion in general is not really apart of the conspiracy because the followers and priests believe it's real so it's self perpetuating. It's the origins and the religious leaders that are. How could religion be so wrong on accident? It's not an accident.

*** "Official science" is a meaningless construct. Science is not a belief system, it is a method-- a method that states that looking at reality repeatedly with your eyes wide open will give you a good idea of what is real. Now wtf is wrong about that exactly? ***

The mainstream scientific community is a belief system. In order to be a scientist, you must conform to the scientific norms (some exceptions).

*** David Icke.. The person theorizing that the world is run by REPTILE PEOPLE is not a good sauce for an ad authoritatem fallacy. ***

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

And what's with this "ad authoritatem fallacy" BS? Who's to say who's legitimate or an authority in a subject? David Icke is an expert in ALL subjects and has been researching for 20 years in over 40 countries.

*** Atheism is merely a denial of God. To this position evolution is essentially irrelevant ***

Yes, but usually evolution comes attached with Atheism. Evolution is a core belief in Atheism.

*** "Though environment and external forces do compel species to adapt and sometimes change physical form"
That, it happens, is the theory of evolution in a nutshell. ***

I thought it had to do with the selfish gene and life emerging from microbes.

*** "this does not mean that a self replicating molecule has a mind of its own that can choose to be a blood cell, a brain cell, or a skin cell."
And that, it happens, is a straw man, having nothing to do with the theory of evolution, or indeed any other theory I've ever heard. ***

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explained the origins of life as the result of the first self replicating molecule.

*** The first is a strawman in it's formulation, the second a valid epistemic criticism, since there is exactly as much evidence for those "Gods" as the usual ones. ***

I don't care about all of this debate terminology about "strawmans" and what not. If I am misrepresenting your position, then just say so. I don't think pointing out "unsound" arguments should be a factor in winning a debate. Just refute it or say you don't hold those beliefs.

*** Well hey, we can see the rest of it with machines, duh. The problem is that we have to detect it SOMEHOW to believe in it-- which has to be, because any other position on epistemology demands belief in unicorns, fairies, and reptile people :). ***

We can detect some of the other frequencies outside of visible light, but we haven't searched all of them with regaurds to detecting ETs and such.

*** The truth about reality is that we are all infinite consciousness expressing itself differently in a holographic, multi-dimensional multiverse of infinity."
Problem: Epistemology. Prove it. ***

Holographic Proof
http://www.wariscrime.com...
http://www.rense.com...

Multiverse Proof
http://scienceline.org...

Multi-dimensions Proof
http://www.indiadaily.com...

Consciousness Proof
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org...

*** Another problem: This violates the Law of Identity. Everything which exists has a specific, LIMITED (not infinite) identity-- specific traits, it has to be something in particular-- or nothing in particular. ***

Everything is interconnected, so things that are limited are connected with that which is infinite.

*** Another problem: Contradicts the evidence-- when I smack my hand on the desk, the desk is clearly not a hologram. ***

That's because your mind is perceiving the desk to be solid. The desk is at a density that which your physical senses decode to be "solid." In reality, solidity is relative to that which is observing. Your body perceieves matter that is condensed tighter than it, it is decoded as solid. Matter that is less dense than your body is perceived as gasous. If you existed on a higher frequency, you would be able to walk through walls, just as radio waves can travel through walls.

*** Another problem: Contradicts the evidence again, infinite consciousness means we should know everything, yet clearly we don't. ***

We have been disconnected from the infinite consciousness and have been trapped in the left brain and the physical matrix. We don't know much because we haven't reached higher levels of consciousness. The Illuminati is manipulating and suppressing us with electromagnetic polution and media hypnosis and indoctrination. People have been stuck in intellect, but intelligence is stupid compared to consciousness.

*** Another problem: Define universe, and multiverse in terms of universe. ***

Generally, universe means everything that exists, but when we are talking about the multiverse, universe refers to the bubbles that emerged from big bangs in the 11 dimensional hyperspace.

*** :Consciousness is energy. Prove it. ***

Brain waves = energy. Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves.

*** :We have been trapped in a 3 dimensional apparently solid world of matter.
Trapped from what? ***

Trapped in the 3rd dimensional matrix, disconnected from the higher dimensions of infinity.

*** As for superstrings, those are unevidenced conjecture and therefore irrelevant. ***

They have been mathematically proven. We just don't the technology to actually observe a superstring.

*** If it were "mere perception" with no reference to actual traits, we should be able to push through by ignoring our senses. Yet we aren't, therefore the perception has an actual meaning. ***

This is true. The thing is is that we are not the body, and our bodies are programmed not to penetrate dense objects. Our consciousness however, can leave the body and travel anywhere.

*** Time certainly has no beginning (law of identity) but it "looping" is unproven as all heck. ***

By looping, I meant like a circular infinite timeline. Lines are limited, therefore, finite.

*** An infinite intelligent force is a contradiction in terms. Intelligence is a means of thinking about specific, limited things in a specific, limited way, and nothing can have a nonspecific existence. ***

True, "conscious" would be a more appropriate term.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"This is not conspiracy "theory" it's conspiracy fact. No one's making assumptions or guessing what might be taking place behind the scenes. The elite's have written specifically what they plan to do and how to do it in their books"
Those who would like to be elite? Maybe. Those with demonstrable power writing these things? I'm afraid not.

"It's a matter of taking a walk to the bookstore."
In a debate, YOU HAVE TO BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. You can't ask your opponent to do your research for you.

"
The Illuminati have everything to do with it. If you understand the structure of the Illuminati, it is comprised of all the highest ranking members from various secret societies."
Proof?

"If you deny the influence of secret societies on religion, you have much to learn."
Then teach :)

"The Knights Templar and the Freemasons have very strong ties to Judeo-Christianity."
The Knights Templar and Freemasons were Christians, but the influence of both has long since waned. Modern banking (banking being the function of the Knights Templar, mad mysticism that of the Freemasons) is separate from religion, and the Freemasons were never of primary importance anyway-- they were comprised of people who were important,. but important for doing separate things. For all intents and purposes, the Freemasons were a club you'd get into if you had influence or wanted to be a lackey. Describing them as a conspiracy is to mistake the effect for the cause.

"How could religion be so wrong on accident?"
People are evasive.

"
The mainstream scientific community is a belief system."
A community is not a belief system, sorry, try again, it's a collection of people. And irrelevant to the resolution anyway.

"
And what's with this "ad authoritatem fallacy" BS? Who's to say who's legitimate or an authority in a subject?"
Anytime you can't explain validly why we should go for the intellectual corner-cutting of picking an authority on a subject, establishing both their trustworthiness and their expertise, it's a fallacy.

"David Icke is an expert in ALL subjects"
It is a contradiction in terms to be an expert in all subjects. Expertise refers to the result of specialization. I don't think even the North Korean propagandists would have the balls to say such a thing about Kim Jong, it's hilarious enough when they call him an "internet expert."

"and has been researching for 20 years in over 40 countries."
Betcha if ya add up the freemason's research they have way more. Betcha won't trust them :).

"
Yes, but usually evolution comes attached with Atheism. Evolution is a core belief in Atheism.
"
Contradiction-- for something to be a "Core belief" of something else, it has to be a constant, not a "usual."

"
I thought it had to do with the selfish gene and life emerging from microbes.
"
Selfish gene is a metaphor. Microbes ARE life, so life emerging from them would be question-begging, not evolution.

"
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explained the origins of life as the result of the first self replicating molecule.
"
First, a sauce would help your case here. A little.
Second, that's a HYPOTHESIS, not the theory of evolution. A very logical hypothesis, but not a scientifically testable one.

"
I don't care about all of this debate terminology about "strawmans" and what not."
That isn't "debate terminology," it's terminology for any discourse in which logic is relevant.

"I don't think pointing out "unsound" arguments should be a factor in winning a debate."
The result of that is spamming a million unsound arguments with no consequence but victory.

"
We can detect some of the other frequencies outside of visible light, but we haven't searched all of them with regaurds to detecting ETs and such."
In otherwords, you admit that you have no reason to believe in such ETs.

"Holographic Proof
http://www.wariscrime.com......
http://www.rense.com......
"
Your first link doesn't work. Your second commits false induction. A metaphysical unity between two particles does not imply a metaphysical unity between all particles-- indeed, since the evidence on which that unity is based is not present for all particles, it strongly suggests the opposite.

"Multiverse Proof
http://scienceline.org...;
Does not mention the word multiverse, nor speak of any similar concept.

"Multi-dimensions Proof
http://www.indiadaily.com...;
The only references to that website I can find anywhere on the internet are a forum post describing the site as an Indian answer to the Weekly World News-- i.e., a fake news source that profits off the gullible. The content of the site plays this out. When making extraordinary scientific claims, peer review is helpful :).

"
Consciousness Proof
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org...;
This fellow has even less study in quantum mechanics than me, apparently, or absolutely none in statistics. The whole POINT of quantum mechanics, last I heard is the random behavior of small particles-- statistical laws dictate that aggregates bring randomness toward the average. The brain is too big to deviate often from that average, i.e., too big for quantum effects to be more than extremely negligible.

"
Everything is interconnected, so things that are limited are connected with that which is infinite.
"
You missed the point. Nothing is infinite.

"
That's because your mind is perceiving the desk to be solid."
No, it's because my hand attempted to go through and was repelled by the solidity of the desk. The repulsion happened prior to, not after, the awareness of solidity.

"In reality, solidity is relative to that which is observing."
Irrelevant.

"If you existed on a higher frequency, you would be able to walk through walls"
First, you've got it backwards-- high frequency (of encountering particles)= more solid. Second, I wouldn't be able to walk at all, as I wouldn't be able to repulse from the floor :).

"We have been disconnected from the infinite consciousness"
Contradiction again. An infinite thing has no limit at which to disconnect.

"We don't know much because we haven't reached higher levels of consciousness"
Then how do you know they are there? :)

"The Illuminati is manipulating and suppressing us with electromagnetic polution and media hypnosis and indoctrination."
Wow, I didn't know when I talked about tinfoil hats that you ACTUALLY BELIEVED the theory that leads to tinfoil hats. "Electromagnetic pollution" evidence? (and please, not from another foreign Enquirer equivalent).

"People have been stuck in intellect, but intelligence is stupid compared to consciousness."
Intelligence= a consciousness engaged in activity.

"
Generally, universe means everything that exists, but when we are talking about the multiverse, universe refers to the bubbles that emerged from big bangs in the 11 dimensional hyperspace.
"
In otherwords, undemonstrable pseudoscientific babble.

"
Brain waves = energy. Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, and Gamma waves.
"
This makes the assumption that those waves are the only referent of consciousness, again undemonstrable.

"
They have been mathematically proven."
Where? By whom? In what paper? On what principle? With what referent for every single number in every equation?

"
This is true. The thing is is that we are not the body, and our bodies are programmed not to penetrate dense objects."
Bodies are not programmed. Furthermore, I can penetrate dense objects-- Water, for example. Yet, nevertheless, the repulsion occurs prior to the perception.

"Our consciousness however, can leave the body and travel anywhere."
Send your consciousness to my keyboard, and make me type a swear word :).

"
By looping, I meant like a circular infinite timeline."
A definition is not the same as evidence.

"
True, "conscious" would be a more appropriate term"
The same contradiction applies to consciousness- awareness of specific, limited things.
Debate Round No. 2
GeoLaureate8

Pro

*** Those who would like to be elite? Maybe. Those with demonstrable power writing these things? I'm afraid not. ***

DAVID ROCKEFELLER, one of the most powerful men in the world (Honorary Chairman of Council on Foreign Relations, high ranking member of the Bilderberg Group (most powerful elite organization in the world), and founder of the Trilateral Commission.

He said in his book Memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a SECRET CABAL working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of CONSPIRING with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - ONE WORLD, if you will. If that's the charge, I STAND GUILTY, AND I AM PROUD OF IT."

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it" - Adam Weishaupt (Founder of the Bavarian Illuminati)

*** In a debate, YOU HAVE TO BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. You can't ask your opponent to do your research for you.***

Fair enough.

*** "The Illuminati have everything to do with it. If you understand the structure of the Illuminati, it is comprised of all the highest ranking members from various secret societies."
Proof? ***

My research has shown this to be true. Illuminati Grand Master, Leo Lyon Zagami of the Italian aristocratic bloodline, said this in an interview. Also books written by Jim Marrs and David Icke demonstrate this to be true. According to Zagami, they are all united at the top of the pyramid of each secret society, and this is the Illuminati. Leo Zagami has also said that secret societies are responsible for manipulating religious texts since the ancient times and that the Illuminati's origins are from Sumer and Babylon during the epoch and have since exercised power. The Illuminati are the ones who are illuminated into knowledge. Knowledge not known to the public. These are the suppressors of truth. It's not really worth debating the Illuminati because you haven't been illuminated into this advanced knowledge.

*** "If you deny the influence of secret societies on religion, you have much to learn."
Then teach :) ***

I broke it down for you in my initial argument.

*** The Knights Templar and Freemasons were Christians, but the influence of both has long since waned. Modern banking (banking being the function of the Knights Templar, mad mysticism that of the Freemasons) is separate from religion, and the Freemasons were never of primary importance anyway-- they were comprised of people who were important,. but important for doing separate things. For all intents and purposes, the Freemasons were a club you'd get into if you had influence or wanted to be a lackey. Describing them as a conspiracy is to mistake the effect for the cause. ***

Woah, you've got to be kidding me. The Knights Templar and Freemasons were Christians!? That is outragious! The Knights Templar may have been responsible for Christianity, but in actuallity, worship Luciferic deities, and burn crosses. The Freemasons are like the continuation of the Celtic Druids who date back to the destruction of Atlantis, long before Christianity. Freemasons never of primary importance? George Washington was a mason. Washington D.C. is the center for Masonic symbolism. The Freemason logo is even on the Statue of Liberty! LOOK AT THE BACK OF A DOLLAR BILL! Illuminati and Freemasonic symbolism and numerology all over the place.

*** "and has been researching for 20 years in over 40 countries."
Betcha if ya add up the freemason's research they have way more. Betcha won't trust them :). ***

Freemasons don't have to research. They are the keepers of this forbidden knowledge. 33rd Degree Freemason and historian, Manly P. Hall, has written a book entitled, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages" which is a compilation of this preserved wisdom and knowledge dating back to Atlantis. David Icke gets a lot of his information from the works of Manly P. Hall.

*** "Contradiction-- for something to be a "Core belief" of something else, it has to be a constant, not a "usual." ***

I don't care about all this semantic criticism. You know what I mean.

*** "Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explained the origins of life as the result of the first self replicating molecule.
"First, a sauce would help your case here. A little. ***

He said this in his interview with Ben Stein.

*** We can detect some of the other frequencies outside of visible light, but we haven't searched all of them with regaurds to detecting ETs and such."
In otherwords, you admit that you have no reason to believe in such ETs. ***

No reason to believe in ETs? Much of my knowledge comes from extraterrestrial wisdom.

*** "If you existed on a higher frequency, you would be able to walk through walls"
First, you've got it backwards-- high frequency (of encountering particles)= more solid. Second, I wouldn't be able to walk at all, as I wouldn't be able to repulse from the floor :). ***

The faster the vibration = the higher the frequency = the less dense.

*** "The Illuminati is manipulating and suppressing us with electromagnetic polution and media hypnosis and indoctrination."
Wow, I didn't know when I talked about tinfoil hats that you ACTUALLY BELIEVED the theory that leads to tinfoil hats. "Electromagnetic pollution" evidence? (and please, not from another foreign Enquirer equivalent). ***

"I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being BLACK MAGIC, that is to say, ELECTRO-MAGNETIC POWER, hypnotism and powerful suggestion. We are convinced that the Order is being controlled by some Sun Order, after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself." - The Duke of Brunswick (Grand Master of World Freemasonry)

Scalar weaponry is in the hands of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program).

*** "Generally, universe means everything that exists, but when we are talking about the multiverse, universe refers to the bubbles that emerged from big bangs in the 11 dimensional hyperspace.

"In otherwords, undemonstrable pseudoscientific babble. ***

Tell that to Dr. Michio Kaku, an authoratative by your standards. You may have found some of my web sources to be somewhat uncredible, but all of my assertions about multi-dimensions, the multiverse, and consciousness can be confirmed by Dr. Michio Kaku. He is co-creator of string field theory, Harvard Bachelor, Ph.D graduate of Berkeley, and lecturerer at Princeton University. He is regaurded as today's Einstein by continuing Einsteins dream of discovering a Unified Field Theory.

And not to mention the fact that the Pleiadians and the Andromedans also confirm that there are in fact multiple dimensions, a multiverse, and the fact that God is infinite energy (consciousness). These ET's are about 50,000 years more advanced than us. We are the new kids on the block in this universe. You want to claim superior intellect to the Pleiadians and Andromedans? I doubt it. Your view of reality is the result of interdimensional control and manipulation from the Reptilians, some of which who reside 100 miles into hollow earth.

*** Where? By whom? In what paper? On what principle? With what referent for every single number in every equation? ***

Superstring theorists have worked it out mathematically and it checks out.

In conclusion, don't dismiss anything without proper research. The lie is the norm, the truth is obscure.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
DAVID ROCKEFELLER, one of the most powerful men in the world (Honorary Chairman of Council on Foreign Relations, high ranking member of the Bilderberg Group (most powerful elite organization in the world), and founder of the Trilateral Commission.

He said in his book Memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a SECRET CABAL working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of CONSPIRING with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - ONE WORLD, if you will. If that's the charge, I STAND GUILTY, AND I AM PROUD OF IT.""
Globalization and this Illuminati crap are two completely different things. The former is simply prudent policy given the economic fact that a wider market can expand a production possibilities curve.

"
"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it" - Adam Weishaupt (Founder of the Bavarian Illuminati)"
Performative contradiction. If it was concealed, you wouldn't have heard this quote. He's stroking his ego unjustifiably. That is all.

"
My research has shown this to be true. Illuminati Grand Master, Leo Lyon Zagami of the Italian aristocratic bloodline, said this in an interview."
Which does not contradict the more likely explanation that he is a wannabe.

". Also books written by Jim Marrs and David Icke demonstrate this to be true."
Also does not contradict the above.

"Leo Zagami has also said that secret societies are responsible for manipulating religious texts since the ancient times "
Fail. If they actually did it, they wouldn't say it. If they do say it, the only rational explanation is that they are lying.

"
Woah, you've got to be kidding me. The Knights Templar and Freemasons were Christians!? That is outragious! The Knights Templar may have been responsible for Christianity, but in actuallity, worship Luciferic deities, and burn crosses."
The Knights Templar were an officially Christian order, your unsourced accusations being irrelevant as they are just that, unsourced.

"The Freemasons are like the continuation of the Celtic Druids who date back to the destruction of Atlantis"
There is no evidence that Atlantis ever existed, fail.

I should correct myself-- most, not all, Masons were Christian.

"George Washington was a mason. "
Irrelevant to my point-- he was a mason because he was already George Washington-- being a mason was not instrumental to his becoming the George Washington we know.

"The Freemason logo is even on the Statue of Liberty! LOOK AT THE BACK OF A DOLLAR BILL!"
Apparently you don't understand the nature of dollar bills. They are worthless pieces of paper, it is fairly obvious that their value relies on a mix of coercion and conning, conning being the more efficient method to the extent it can be pulled off. Such conning is eased by giving people stupid pointless meaningless symbols to puzzle over.

The Statue of Liberty, being a lie of much the same caliber (since America has never lived up to the promise of liberty, however close it has come at times), also has its value aided by such stupid pointless meaningless symbols.

"
Freemasons don't have to research. They are the keepers of this forbidden knowledge."
How the heck do you think someone gets knowledge to forbid it in the first place if they don't work on learning it?

"33rd Degree Freemason and historian, Manly P. Hall, has written a book entitled, "The Secret Teachings of All Ages""
Another laughable performative contradiction.

"
I don't care about all this semantic criticism. You know what I mean."
When you are attempting a logical argument, you need to care what the meaning of your words are. The only reason not to care is if they mean nothing-- and if it is indeed true that I know what you mean, as you have just conceded, you mean nothing at all except "Hello, I believe whatever someone tells me as long as it sounds completely impossible!"

"
He said this in his interview with Ben Stein."
AAAAaaaaannnddd... you ignore the important part.

"
No reason to believe in ETs? Much of my knowledge comes from extraterrestrial wisdom.
"
You're contradicting yourself again. Either a, we HAVE searched the spectrums in which the ETs exist, and found them-- or b, you have never learned a darn thing from them.

"
The faster the vibration = the higher the frequency = the less dense."
I see we're talking about two different frequencies here.

""I have been convinced that we, as an Order, have come under the power of some very evil occult Order, profoundly versed in science both occult and otherwise, though not infallible, their methods being BLACK MAGIC, that is to say, ELECTRO-MAGNETIC POWER, hypnotism and powerful suggestion. We are convinced that the Order is being controlled by some Sun Order, after the nature of the Illuminati, if not by that Order itself." - The Duke of Brunswick (Grand Master of World Freemasonry)

Scalar weaponry is in the hands of HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program).
"
Ya think maybe ya can come up with a source who ISN'T clearly motivated to lie to make themselves look important?

"
Tell that to Dr. Michio Kaku, an authoratative by your standards."
By my standards, in an issue of metaphysics, there ARE NO AUTHORITIES. There is only logic and data to be tested with it. Authority should only be appealed to when a-- it does not contradict the law of identity and b-- it refers to a specific, EMPIRICAL specialization.

I think you've made the false assumption that I trust theoretical physicists. By and large, since their work is so frequently detached from any empirical testing, I do not consider their work to be science.

"
And not to mention the fact that the Pleiadians and the Andromedans also confirm that there are in fact multiple dimensions, a multiverse, and the fact that God is infinite energy (consciousness). These ET's are about 50,000 years more advanced than us. We are the new kids on the block in this universe. You want to claim superior intellect to the Pleiadians and Andromedans?"
I definitely claim superior intellect to anything which doesn't exist, which is the case for all the evidence you've shown us :).

"Your view of reality is the result of interdimensional control and manipulation from the Reptilians, some of which who reside 100 miles into hollow earth.
"
The earth isn't hollow, or we would have either an easier or a harder time mining it, depending on how much was hollow.

"
Superstring theorists have worked it out mathematically and it checks out.
"
That is not an answer.
An answer is a concise argument, where they work with empirical data, input it into empirically derived models, and derived results in meaningful language-- anything short of that is, frankly, bull**** until reason is given to believe otherwise.

"
In conclusion, don't dismiss anything without proper research. The lie is the norm, the truth is obscure.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
"
In conclusion, never accept anything without proper research. The lie is the norm, the truth often obscure.
"Acceptance without investigation is the height of ignorance."
Fix'd to conform with logic 101.

My opponent contradicts himself, of course-- his beliefs are clearly articles of faith, and systematic, and thus religion-- therefore, he is simultenously claiming the truth and falsehood of religion.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
When did I ever claim the Bible was right? Read the debate. I argued AGAINST the Bible.
Posted by warlord2080 6 years ago
warlord2080
Even if evolution was proven wrong it does not make the bible any more right.
Posted by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
Check this out, I = Iraq (Gulf war syndrome) please check out the facts on conspiracy theories.
LL = Twin Towers. = ll
U = Underground, London Underground, again please check out the facts.
M = Mexico ?
I know more but guess you get the idea. yes the next one is "i"
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
<twitch> so long... must finish... good thing the voting period is indefinate!
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I'm tired and I haven't read the debate all the way through yet, so I won't vote.

From what I have seen so far, the points should not be this heavily off balance. GeoLaureate seems to debate fairly well and I will take a closer look at what he has to write, even though I am skeptical about his position.

At the end of the day, we're voting based on argument, not personal beliefs.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Nope, just needs to occur when you say in effect "others also...". Percentages are irrelevant.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Also, not to mention the fact that I'm a minority. Ad populum occurs when someone says "80% of the population agrees with this, therefore it must be true."
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Saying it's so is not the same as veridicality.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"Ad populum much?"

No, I don't think so. I said my information is verifiable by others who've done the same research. Not "I, along with many others, believe in something so it must be true."
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Ad populum much?
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 8 months ago
Udel
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has BOP. Con explains that science isnt a belief system but a method, a method that describes reality and is not always correct but often is and Pro has to prove its always incorrect which he doesn't. The last round goes so off topic. Con concludes with noting Pro's beliefs are rooted in faith like religion, therefore he is simultaneously embracing and critiqing religion. Throughout this debate Pro also used various kinds of science and scientists themselves to discredit science. Pro says religion (belief in Gods) and atheism (lack of belief in Gods) is false and then says the process used to figure out the right answer is false. Con argued a process itself can't be false and wins.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO, need more tinfoil for your hat?
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: How did the topic deviate so much? Oh well, ragnar won.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by warlord2080 6 years ago
warlord2080
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mimo1991 7 years ago
Mimo1991
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
GeoLaureate8Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03