Theists and the Truth

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bravo. Exactly.
I gave numerous examples.

And your examples showed that when you talk about "truth", what you really mean are mere undemonstrable beliefs.

There are Americans who will tell you that OJ Simpson has never killed anybody.

And that is mere belief, what you call "truth".

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, a lot of things have also come out about the activities of the U.S. government, the ULTRA program, COINTELPRO, various other revelations such as what came out in the Pentagon Papers. Even the Church Committee recognized the possibility of a conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK assassination, but couldn't really prove anything, so it never really went anywhere. But other troubling things came out, such as the US role in the installation of the Shah of Iran, or the US role in the 1973 coup in Chile. These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are pretty much acknowledged as truth, though oftentimes mitigated by the argument that it was better for the government to do that, than it would have been to allow communist control. But then there are reasons to doubt whether even that was entirely true.

From a certain jingoistic standpoint, one might argue that the "deep state" is actually a good thing for America, if one believes that the Kennedys were a threat to America and the American way of life. J. Edgar Hoover - and others like McCarthy, Nixon, Goldwater and many other right-wing anti-communists might be seen as "heroes" in some people's eyes, as they have been viewed as protecting America from the Red Menace and the Godless Commies (sounds like a good name for a band). All of these things the "deep state" did were supposedly good for America, so even many Americans have been persuaded to tacitly accept it. A lot of people might be inclined to accept it and not ask too many questions about what the government is really doing, because "they can't handle the truth." It's viewed as better to simply accept that they're fortunate enough to enjoy the protection of the deep state and simply leave it at that.

That's exactly what displeases me. Greatly. Denialism.
That is, they need to deny history to save the appearances.
If they admit: yes, our Deep State did horrific things to save us from the Red Wave, the end justifies the means....
well... I would admire them for their honesty.

 

[Estro Felino]

And your examples showed that when you talk about "truth", what you really mean are mere undemonstrable beliefs.

I assure you that many people believe that the so called "Brussels élites" and all MEPs are saints. Immaculate, sinless, saints.
That's their Truth, despite events like this: Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

She explained what she meant and it was rather clear.
Without the capital "T", what she really refers to is mere belief / opinion.
With the capital "T", what she really means are demonstrable factual things.

Yes, although I've seen "Truth" capitalized in different contexts before, not just by the OP.

 

[Polymath257]

That's the point of this thread. The judicial truth is a truth. To appease the people.
It's not the Truth. The historical truth.

The powerful conceal the historical truth and call their own lies "The Truth".


I couldn't care less about OJ either.
But the two Kennedys' murders do matter to me, because it shows how murderous the Deep State can become.

It is surely no surprise that governments can do horrid things. Whether the Kennedy murders were the result of a 'Deep State' or not is one hypothesis with fairly little evidence to support it, other than the potential for states to be nasty.

So, other than the (obvious) fact that governments can be and often are nasty, what actual evidence do you have of a Deep State involved in those two murders?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, every society has elites. Yes, those elites, by definition, are in control of most of the resources. They also tell everyone else what they want to hear in order to stay in power. Often, they are brutal and cruel in their actions. I don't think anyone doubts that.

That said, the elites themselves are far from unified. They have conflicting interests and goals. That means that one set of elites is often quite happy to point out the shenanigans of any other set of elites. This is a part of a continual jockeying for position and influence. Even a casual reading of history shows many examples of this.

This makes it quite hard to keep secrets over the long term. There are just too many competing elites (or potential new elites) that would love to let the secrets out. Also, every new generation has its own perspective and goals. That means that it is often the case that there are shifts in the elites that can reveal actions of previous generations.

So, no, I do not think that those in control are a bunch of angels. I think that, in general, they will do what they can to keep power. But I also know there are those who *want* to be in power and would like to become the new set of elites. This is always the case. Seldom do the new elites have the same interests and goals as the old ones.

And this means that any conspiracy theory that suggests a unified group of elites conspiring over the course of generations is probably bunk.

 

[Estro Felino]

So, other than the (obvious) fact that governments can be and often are nasty, what actual evidence do you have of a Deep State involved in those two murders?

I am 100% convinced that the three murders, of JFK, MLK and RFK were all commissioned by the same criminal minds.
Through proxies, hitmen, and so on.

It dealt with élites who wanted the Vietnam War and were opposed to civil rights.
Whether they were parts of the Deep State, I consider it very probable.
I don't have actual pieces of evidence. Just clues which are severe, precise, concordant.

 

[Polymath257]

I am 100% convinced that the three murders, of JFK, MLK and RFK were all commissioned by the same criminal minds.
Through proxies, hitmen, and so on.

OK. What *evidence* do you have for this belief?

It dealt with élites who wanted the Vietnam War and were opposed to civil rights.
Whether they were parts of the Deep State, I consider it very probable.

There were plenty of people at the time who were quite vocal about being in support of the war and against civil rights. Why assume a deep state when plenty of people had those views?

I don't have actual pieces of evidence. Just clues which are severe, precise, concordant.

I don't think it takes a deep state for these things to happen. It's possible, of course. But there are many potential actors that have nothing to do with the government (or even other governments).

NO state has absolute control. There are *always* those who manage to act on their own.

 

[Colt]

I think that what brings all theists (or nearly) together is that they believe that the Truth will be unveiled someday.
Most of them believe that when we die, we find out every thing that was hidden from us in life.
For example, I believe that when I die, God will tell me all the things I want to know about the greatest mysteries of our time.
Whether JFK was really assassinated by the order of the US Deep State; whether the Deep Church killed John Paul I; whether the financial élites of Brussels maliciously boycott the prosperity of European peoples.
That's what my Catholic priest told me when I was little: don't worry, Jesus will answer all your questions, because in the Afterlife there is no deception or lying.


I wonder whether atheists are saddened by the fact that certain truths will never be revealed. In life, I mean.
What do you atheists think of the Truth? The historical Truth?
Do you strive for it?

In the Atheist religion eternal death is their reward for dedication to godless ideals. So if there is any recollection for the Atheist after death then they were terribly wrong!

 

[Estro Felino]

OK. What *evidence* do you have for this belief?

There were plenty of people at the time who were quite vocal about being in support of the war and against civil rights. Why assume a deep state when plenty of people had those views?

I don't think it takes a deep state for these things to happen. It's possible, of course. But there are many potential actors that have nothing to do with the government (or even other governments).

NO state has absolute control. There are *always* those who manage to act on their own.

MacNamara admitted that the Tonkin incident never happened. We are dealing with criminals and liars, here. Who invented a pretext to unleash an useless war.
So I consider it very probable that the CIA can murder anyone who dares contradict them

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Atheist religion

eternal death is their reward for dedication to godless ideals.

lol wut?

So if there is any recollection for the Atheist after death then they were terribly wrong!

And if death is actually death, then theists were wrong.
This is what I call a useless tautology.

 

[Colt]

lol wut?


And if death is actually death, then theists were wrong.
This is what I call a useless tautology.

Call it what you will, being dead you won't be able to enjoy the satisfaction of the validation of all of your efforts to debunk faith. The post script would be, you wasted what time you have in such a short, meaningless life.

 

[Polymath257]

MacNamara admitted that the Tonkin incident never happened. We are dealing with criminals and liars, here. Who invented a pretext to unleash an useless war.

Yes. And this is far from the only case where a made-up excuse is given for entering a war. Again, history has multiple examples of exactly this sort of thing.

It's hardly a secret (now, at least) that this was fabricated.

So I consider it very probable that the CIA can murder anyone who dares contradict them

Anyone? Not clear. They messed up several times with Castro, after all.

And, again, I am not saying that the CIA is a bunch of angels. From Chile to Iran to Cuba to Angola, it is very clear that the CIA is fully willing and able to commit atrocities. That does NOT mean it is behind every atrocity committed. There are other actors on the stage that can also murder anyone they want.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. And this is far from the only case where a made-up excuse is given for entering a war. Again, history has multiple examples of exactly this sort of thing.

It's hardly a secret (now, at least) that this was fabricated.

Anyone? Not clear. They messed up several times with Castro, after all.

And, again, I am not saying that the CIA is a bunch of angels. From Chile to Iran to Cuba to Angola, it is very clear that the CIA is fully willing and able to commit atrocities. That does NOT mean it is behind every atrocity committed. There are other actors on the stage that can also murder anyone they want.

The CIA is nothing but the personal army of what I call the cupola, the banking and financial club leading everything.

Kennedy did something involving the monetary field that irritated them.

I know because the Italian Deep State killed Prime Minister Aldo Moro for the same exact reason. Because he did what Kennedy had already done.
These people assassinate.

 

[Stevicus]

That's exactly what displeases me. Greatly. Denialism.
That is, they need to deny history to save the appearances.
If they admit: yes, our Deep State did horrific things to save us from the Red Wave, the end justifies the means....
well... I would admire them for their honesty.

The irony is that, in their incessant desire to keep up appearances, they actually compromised and weakened America's position. The failures at the Bay of Pigs and in Vietnam can be tied to the government's overriding obsession with wanting to keep up appearances, which was ostensibly even greater than their desire to actually to prevail over the enemy. In fact, the same could be said about the Cold War overall.

If communism was truly the dire threat that many people believed, then they should have listened to Patton and MacArthur. The fact that they were fired for being a bit too anti-communist for the government's taste makes me wonder just how committed to that cause our government truly was.

Sometimes, fictional stories can sometimes be used to convey a "truth" which can't be spoken openly in any "official" capacity, such as we see here:

• Higgins : It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
  Joe Turner : Ask them?
  Higgins : Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Or this scene:

• U.S. Ambassador : We're not involved, Mr Horman. Our position has been completely neutral.
  Ed Horman : That is a bald face lie, sir. How can you say a thing like that when you have army colonels, you have naval engineers, they're all over Viña Del Mar!
  U.S. Ambassador : Please sit down. Look, it's very obvious you're harbouring some misconception regarding our role here.
  Ed Horman : What is your role here? Besides inducing a regime that murders thousands of human beings?
  U.S. Ambassador : Let's level with each other, sir. If you hadn't been personally involved in this unfortunate incident, you'd be sitting at home complacent and more or less oblivious to all of this. This mission is pledged to protect American interests, our interests.
  Ed Horman : Well, they're not mine.
  U.S. Ambassador : There are over three thousand US firms doing business down here. And those are American interests. In other words, your interests. I am concerned with the preservation of a way of life.
  Capt. Ray Tower, USN : And a damned good one.
  Ed Horman : [Staring out the window] Maybe that's why there's nobody out there.
  U.S. Ambassador : You can't have it both ways.

This dialogue reflects a large part of the narrative I grew up with, as it often emphasized how much of "the good life" we are/were enjoying in America, the land of plenty. People would constantly make contrasts and comparisons about how good we had it and how horrible it was in other parts of the world, full of starvation and deprivation.

The underlying message was that we should be thankful and grateful to our government and consider ourselves lucky that we were born in the good old U.S. of A. Included in the message were the usual proclamations of freedom and democracy, with the insinuation that "freedom is what makes America great," as if our size, wealth, military power, industries, infrastructure, technology, and abundance of resources and material goods were caused solely by a vaguely-defined, abstract ideology (and not through actual physical processes).

Denialism seems a natural reaction, as many people would prefer to believe that our country has done nothing wrong to get to where we are. Or, if we did do something wrong, they prefer to think of it in disconnected, indirect, and abstract terms. People can look back at our past and express their outrage and disgust with some of the things done throughout our history, such as slavery and mass slaughter of Native Americans as we rolled over the entire continent. So, we can look back with some degree of sadness and contrition and say "Yes, we were horrible, but that was in the past. Now, we're just wonderful!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Call it what you will, being dead you won't be able to enjoy the satisfaction of the validation of all of your efforts to debunk faith.

This assumes that I crave for such "satisfaction". Such are your words, not mine.

The post script would be, you wasted what time you have in such a short, meaningless life.

I disagree. Both on the point that I waste my time as well as on the point that my life is meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The CIA is nothing but the personal army of what I call the cupola, the banking and financial club leading everything.

Kennedy did something involving the monetary field that irritated them.

I know because the Italian Deep State killed Prime Minister Aldo Moro for the same exact reason. Because he did what Kennedy had already done.
These people assassinate.

I'm chuckling and it's a bit sad that I can't really explain why.

There's this movie in Belgium from the 90s called "Alles moet weg" (= "Everything must go").
It features a low-life criminal who tries several times to get his life back on track by opening a flower shop, a bar,... and every time it fails and he blames "the banks" for everything that goes wrong in his life.

Reading your post, I'm reminded of a line from the movie where he goes on a rant and yells in a hilarious antwerp accent "de banke joenge, de banke!!!!!!" (the banks man, the banks!), but if you understand dutch and are at home in antwerp culture and dialect, you **** your pants from laughing with that line.

I read your posts and I hear that line, every time.

 

[Estro Felino]

Or this scene:

• U.S. Ambassador : We're not involved, Mr Horman. Our position has been completely neutral.
  Ed Horman : That is a bald face lie, sir. How can you say a thing like that when you have army colonels, you have naval engineers, they're all over Viña Del Mar!
  U.S. Ambassador : Please sit down. Look, it's very obvious you're harbouring some misconception regarding our role here.
  Ed Horman : What is your role here? Besides inducing a regime that murders thousands of human beings?
  U.S. Ambassador : Let's level with each other, sir. If you hadn't been personally involved in this unfortunate incident, you'd be sitting at home complacent and more or less oblivious to all of this. This mission is pledged to protect American interests, our interests.
  Ed Horman : Well, they're not mine.
  U.S. Ambassador : There are over three thousand US firms doing business down here. And those are American interests. In other words, your interests. I am concerned with the preservation of a way of life.
  Capt. Ray Tower, USN : And a damned good one.
  Ed Horman : [Staring out the window] Maybe that's why there's nobody out there.
  U.S. Ambassador : You can't have it both ways.

In the end the Ambassador confesses, he says the end (American interests) justifies the means.
Spain and Italy have been very active in the mission of doing justice after 40 years, for what happened in Latin America. We call it the Trial Condor, after the Operation Condor. Desaparecidos 'italiani', processo Condor a Roma: 8 ergastoli e 19 assoluzioni
Here nobody has ever doubted that the CIA was in on it. Nobody.

But we do a distinction. The CIA is not the American people.
The American people are victims too.


That's what I don't understand. The American commoners who are often victimized by the Deep State will defend their reputation, no matter the cost.
Here nobody has ever defended our secret services. They are servants of the State, so they must be held accountable for what they do, a priori.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm chuckling and it's a bit sad that I can't really explain why.

There's this movie in Belgium from the 90s called "Alles moet weg" (= "Everything must go").
It features a low-life criminal who tries several times to get his life back on track by opening a flower shop, a bar,... and every time it fails and he blames "the banks" for everything that goes wrong in his life.

Reading your post, I'm reminded of a line from the movie where he goes on a rant and yells in a hilarious antwerp accent "de banke joenge, de banke!!!!!!" (the banks man, the banks!), but if you understand dutch and are at home in antwerp culture and dialect, you **** your pants from laughing with that line.

I read your posts and I hear that line, every time.

Speaking of Truth: if you were son of some important banker, or if you belonged to the banking élites of Brussels, would you tell me?

I doubt it. That's why truth is always something relative. Difficult to obtain.

That said, I studied banking law and I know what I am talking about.

 

[Colt]

This assumes that I crave for such "satisfaction". Such are your words, not mine.




I disagree. Both on the point that I waste my time as well as on the point that my life is meaningless.

The fact that you are even conscious of the value of meaning should be proof to your thick head that you are not simply a machine! After the Sun eats the earth and all trace of this planet ever existing your contribution to anything wont exist! Your life ultimately meant nothing! For those of use who survive and awake in the next world, we carry with us the accumulated experience of spiritual , moral and ethical growth. For us meaning never dies.

195:7.13 (2079.8) If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.

195:7.14 (2079.9) The very claim of materialism implies a supermaterial consciousness of the mind which presumes to assert such dogmas. A mechanism might deteriorate, but it could never progress. Machines do not think, create, dream, aspire, idealize, hunger for truth, or thirst for righteousness. They do not motivate their lives with the passion to serve other machines and to choose as their goal of eternal progression the sublime task of finding God and striving to be like him. Machines are never intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, ethical, moral, or spiritual." UB 1955

The moral, ethical Atheist who sees meaning in his life is one in belligerent denial about his heavenly father who gave him the GIFT of such a life!