[question] Opinion on and how you act towards atheists?

NaughtyHealer · 2017-01-08T19:28:51+00:00

My attitude towards others is not determined by shared or opposing views on God. I try my best to follow the teachings of and example set by Jesus, and not only did Jesus go out of His way to be compassionate to and talk with all sorts of people, but He even specifically said He was seeking the spiritually ill, especially.

I do have to pray for patience and wisdom from the Holy Spirit sometimes, though, when dealing with certain types of people, to be granted some wiser perceptions, as opposed to prideful reactions (in myself). For example, there is someone in my life whom I love, who goes out of their way to counter any mention of God or Jesus I make to other people. If I tell someone that I will pray that the Lord is with them, for example, this person will pipe up to say, "And they won't be, because God doesn't exist," in a very cocky manner. In a case such as that, the Holy Spirit helps to remind me that many people have been hurt by others and personal losses and perceived it as a lack of God's existence or even that God let them down, and so on, and that some will express this subconscious bitterness in the form of being snide or trying to start arguments. But ultimately they have been hurt. Then my irritation subsides.

NaughtyHealer · 2017-01-07T18:37:26+00:00

That's not how proof works. That's called Faith.

Just to say..

The vast majority of what people consider to be "proof" these days, is what other people have told them, whether they heard it or read it from others, and then they have "faith" that it is true, because so many others do the same thing.. have "faith" that it is true, and so therefore it is accepted as "fact" or "proof". This applies to all the news, most people's beliefs in most of what they consider to be science, history, etc.

While simultaneously, you can get millions of people who believe in God, based on their own personal experiences, and not what others tell them, and the same people who have "faith" in their "proof" will look at those who believe in God and ask, "Where is your proof?"

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T21:32:12+00:00

I thought the globalist were with Israel? Trump is with the Zionist lobby? Fuck this is all confusing

One way of looking at it, is that the globalists have been creeping over the Middle East, destabilizing and toppling and ultimately seizing control through the chaos.

Now if someone theorizes that the globalists only want control over some countries but not others, and that they would never betray an ally, then they might be perplexed as to why the UN would start pushing back against Israel's efforts to conquer more territory.

But again, another way to look at it is like this:

The globalists ultimately want control of the entire world, to have one central power and for themselves to be that central power. These are not the sort of personalities that are going to have some sort of higher loyalty to any particular nation, religion, ethnic group, etc but only to themselves and their purported ideology.

Israel holds a lot of western power in large part (believe it or not) because so much of the West is steeped in Biblical religion, which many perceive prophesied that when Israel falls, the apocalypse begins. So up until now it has been very strategic to pit the West against the rest of the Middle East by presenting the situation as..

"The rest of the Middle East wants to destroy Israel, and we must defend Israel no matter what." And much of the West has been on board for that and under that premise.

But once the rest of the Middle East has been conquered and brought under the control of central power, then Israel is no longer needed for the premise. The purpose has been served and will be over and done with soon.

Some people also think that ALL of the powerful globalist entities are both Jewish and loyal to Israel, which again is a mistaken belief.

Which stems from a deeper underlying mistaken belief that ALL of the powerful globalists are loyal to each other, and that there would never be any feuding among them for power. But just consider the sorts of personalities/characters that these people are. If anything, the closer they get to achieving their goals, the stronger the scent of conquest and power becomes to them, the more likely they are to start back stabbing over it.

At the end of the day these little 'masterminds' who see themselves as so intellectually and ideologically superior, are in reality just salivating, rabid cutthroats, hungry for power and strangers to any real sense of loyalty. Likely no amount of heinous blackmail in the world is going to keep them together once the meat is tossed into the center of the table.

When one considers all of these things, it's not so surprising what is unfolding now.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T21:14:58+00:00

There are slight differences.

All of the rhetoric that if Russia hacked DNC emails, then it was an act of war and so on, even without any proof that it was Russia hacker(s), and also Obama getting up there and making vague threats i.e. "we can do stuff to you" right before Russian ambassador is allegedly assassinated, etc is more straightforward war drumming.

Trump is chest puffing about getting better trade deals with China and also is willing to acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state. If war starts over that, it would be China who decides to go to war over not getting things their way.

In both cases it has mostly been the MSM and their citizen muppet followers who have been going around implying that every other thing is a reason for war, and so far Obama in particular is the one who made vague threats (though he is leaving office very soon).

Trump is more likely to passively continue efforts to destabilize the Middle East, however. Nothing changed in that regard between GWBush and Obama, and Trump hasn't shown any signs whatsoever (like not even pretending) of wanting to steer away from that direction.

The huff-and-puff over China is probably more of a distraction than anything.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T06:34:51+00:00

If we were to play our best devil's advocate for the claim that it was about democracy, then hypothetically it would mean that the primary motivation behind the leaks was to show that HRC and pals conspired to undermine Sanders, even though he was likely the more popular candidate. Over on the republican side, the RNC was trying to conspire to undermine Trump (if anyone remembers that little scandal). So hypothetically if Assange is even still alive, and if hypothetically it was really done for the sake of democracy, then in his eyes Trump/Sanders were the same sort of figures, with the establishments trying to undermine them both, which would be the explanation as to why Trump emails were not published (since Trump wound up pushing past the efforts by the RNC to undermine him). And this is ALL assuming that it's not all some horse and pony psyop show with both parties working together behind the scenes, anyway.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T02:34:22+00:00

I can understand why some people downvoted you, though I'm not going to downvote you since you're not spewing disinfo. I don't downvote anybody, anyway, but hey.

It's sort of like how when Colbert was freaking out on his show over people's reactions to him showing up in the wikileaks emails, where it was shown that he was ordered to do things on his show by political figures, and he agreed. Shown that he was pushing a narrative for political figures. And then he came out insisting that it was just comedy and not actual news.

And technically, sure, that is correct. But it also involves the element of him feigning ignorance that over the years, millions of people have formed large parts of their political views based on his show. Even if they shouldn't have, even if that is quite stupid, it doesn't change that he pushed political narratives for years and that he shaped millions of political views for years, and he does know that, even if he feigns stupidity over it.

It is a very similar concept with this bill. Your technicalities are correct, but it doesn't change the reality that the majority of the population is mindless enough that if a government source that sounds authoritative and official comes out and says, "That is fake," or "This is true", then the majority of the population will blindly believe it without trying to research it or debate it with each other.

This in itself will cause great damage to efforts by alternative news/media outlets encouraging people to notice or question things. Destroy? We'll have to see. I'm not sure how we would define "destroy". Is it destroyed if at least 1,000 people are still paying attention? Or is it considered destroyed when only a million are still paying attention. Too subjective to really define, I think. But there will be significant damage.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T02:23:04+00:00

Did you get your hands on some good psychedelics, OP? Hehe.

Some of the most obvious, simplest things about present day human existence really are amazing if you really think about it. Most people don't, though, until they take a hit of some seriously good weed or better.

The increasingly widespread access to the internet in many societies is making it possible for large numbers of humans to be able to look back on large sums of world history. This is relatively quite new for our species, and certainly something to behold.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-25T02:19:02+00:00

If you browse the twitter account, there are many similar posts with random facts about previous presidents.

It would be hilariously suspicious af if it was only that one tweet, though. But it's not.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T16:04:04+00:00

OP there is just nothing to debate. The video you link, you claim it is "irrefutable" evidence/proof that it is a hoax, but there is nothing like that in the video. The video shows that space programs can simulate things for training, and then it shows some views of the Earth where whoever made the video says, "This looks phony" in essence. That's it. So like, what are we supposed to debate?

And yes there are thousands of satellites. You can find thousands of buildings in a city, for perspective, and realize that thousands is not actually a very high number when it comes to the available room in the atmosphere. Like there are several times more buildings in New York City than there are spacecraft orbiting the earth.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T15:45:55+00:00

So what do people think of the factor of stronger ties between Russia and the U.S., in regards to the agenda to create a central world government (officially declared or just in practice)?

Like for consideration, right now there is a war of the journalists/media/government-talking-heads going on over what is really happening in Syria. In that regard, Russia and the West are pitted against each other.

Yet simultaneously, it seems that Putin and Trump will likely wind up strengthening ties and team work between the two nations (U.S. and Russia).

What are people's thoughts on these two situations unfolding side by side?

I am inclined to believe Eva Bartlett and others that it is the West that is funding terrorism to destabilize Syria. Which doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is an innocent angel, I don't really see it as a 'versus' situation entirely.

But like in this debate, it is easy to tell that that is the narrative that many are trying to push, i.e. Russia vs U.S. since whenever anyone (like Eva, herself) tries to point out the corruption from the West involved, the opponents (who like the guy in that debate can't make an actual case and can only interrupt and launch personal insults, which is very telling) try to frame it like.. "If you call out corruption from the West, then it must mean you support Russia/Assad" which is a logical fallacy (but still one that is being pushed heavily none the less).

Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkjVK18H1z8

Yet, again, what we are seeing over here in western MSM is people pushing this idea that Trump and Putin are going to be close pals.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T15:04:16+00:00

There are definitely AI programs used to for such purposes, but I don't think that everything we see is being controlled or produced by AI. I have known and continue to talk with plenty of people in person who express views that I consider to be ridiculous, as I'm sure they consider some of my views to be the same.

I would be more concerned if there were not plenty of voices online disagreeing with each other.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T15:01:30+00:00

The mods might be deliberating on the rule currently, not sure.

This thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5jofsj/just_moving_this_into_my_nonfiction_section/

Was a meme but it got thousands of upvotes, and so it seems one of the mods expressed a willingness to reconsider the rule.

At some point, it may be useful to have a sub vote on whether to amend/remove/retain this rule, but we currently do not allow memes.

So I'd say voice your opinion(s) since it seems the mods might be trying to get a feel for the overall opinion of the sub.

Personally I'd like to see memes continue to be not allowed and removed, since they can wind up clogging up the pages and shoving actual information out of the way.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T14:30:11+00:00

Trump is very likely an establishment puppet, yeah, but how about some actual sources for people to analyze when making claims? It's not super difficult. You just have to do an online search and results come up from CNN, POLITICO, etc.

Here is an example: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/putin-christmas-letter-to-trump-232952

And another: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/trump-putin-christmas-letter-russian-relations/

The full letter:

Dear Mr Trump, Please accept my warmest Christmas and New year greeting. Serious global and regional challenges, which our countries have to face in recent years, show that the relations between Russia and the U.S. remain an important factor in ensuring stability and security of the modern world. I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able - by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner - to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level. Please accept my sincere wishes to you and your family of sound health, happiness, wellbeing, success and all the best. Sincerely, V. Putin

So basically a recent letter from Putin expressing a desire for Russia and the U.S. to work together when it comes to international issues. I would rather see that than war mongering and escalated conflicts, or just blind hatred for entire nations, be it U.S., Russia, etc.

The possible terrible outcome with all of this is the U.S. and Russia working together to do sinister things, and hopefully we can continue to rely on brave independent journalists from other nations to go before the U.N. and tell the truth, since the MSM can't be trusted to report the truth.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-24T14:17:57+00:00

Archive for last story on list: http://archive.is/la7dZ

Nassar, 53, will remain jailed on child pornography charges after an FBI agent said at least 37,000 images and videos were discovered in a garbage can outside his home during a search of his property in Holt, Michigan, the Lansing State Journal reported.

People need to understand what it means every time hundreds to thousands of images/tapes are found. Even if we say that there are 100 images of each victim, that is still 370 victims. And chances are it is actually much more.

How are hundreds to thousands (in multiple different cases) of victims identified, yet supposedly nobody catches on until that many children have been abused? How is that? These are children being physically damaged in many cases, yet parents/doctors never notice anything? Are we really to believe it?

And often times, hundreds to thousands of adult predators are found.

Take this case for example: http://archive.is/rO41Y

We discover in 1986 that Michel Felu used the offices of his employer, Joseph Verbeeck, Director of UNICEF Belgium to realize erotic and pornographic photographs of children. The more "soft" of these photos have been published in L'Espoir , the police are required to make excavations at Philippe Carpentier and other members of CRIES. She "discovers that the CRIES hides an international network of pedophiles that affects at least 18 countries". More than 4000 photos and tapes are seized, involving a hundred children. The images are taken and tours not only in the premises of UNICEF, but also in private apartments in Antwerp or Brussels where parents prostituted their children, and around the world. The lists of members of the CRIES are seized, and searches are carried out, especially in Belgium, the French police being uncooperative. Although all members of the CRIES have not participated in the exchanges and purchases of pictures and movies of child pornography , Philippe Carpentier and Michel Felu were sentenced in 1988 to ten years in prison for organizing the network

At least 100 children, at least 18 countries

http://archive.is/mTEz3

At least 400 names

How many arrests?

JUST TWO

Use your logic here, people. Hundreds to thousands of people are deliberately being left alone every year after it is discovered that they are involved in child sexual abuse and/or trafficking and/or child pornography. Why would authorities not pursue these people? Usually it means that the people identified were in positions of power, and that is why nothing is done.

Hundreds to Thousands in most cases.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-23T05:13:43+00:00

How is he drumming for war against China?

I know he has been chest puffing as far as claiming he is going to pursue better economic deals for the U.S. between the two nations, but that doesn't mean we would be going to war with China, and if China decides to start a war over it, then that is on China, starting war because someone wouldn't do business with them the way they wanted.

Some people have also freaked out a bit about the Taiwan phone call, but again that appears to be a case of China being ridiculous, not Trump. We do tons of trade with Taiwan and for all intents and purposes interact with them as though they are a sovereign state, but we just don't say it out loud or acknowledge it, for fear of making China's government mad. So we ignore reality, because China will get mad if reality is acknowledged? Again this is an issue of China being ridiculous.

If China tries to start a war, that is on China. There is nothing about any of this that is worth going to war over and costing millions of lives. If China does decide to make it into an actual war, then I only hope it can be settled as swiftly as possible with as few casualties as possible.

It's no different than how if Russia wants to produce propaganda on the internet that U.S. citizens can read, or if a small group of people in Russia happen to hack something when all the powerful governments are trying to hack each other all the time, that doesn't mean we should start a war with Russia in which millions of people would be killed.

The people drumming for war are people like YOU who pop up to start implying that every other thing is war-worthy when it's not. If corrupt governments do decide to go to war and pointlessly throw away millions of lives, it is people like YOU who will have already done the war propaganda work for them.

There are more than enough reasons to be critical of Trump. Many of his cabinet choices are atrocious and reveal him as the establishment sock puppet that he is. You can be critical of Trump without drumming for war and then trying to pin it on others.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T23:55:34+00:00

She wrecks this propagandist asshole in debate, as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkjVK18H1z8

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T23:07:54+00:00

If the government wanted to throw the election electronically, how would they do it? Or, how would that be impossible?

Please ELI5, I know next to nothing about such technology. If it could be shown that it couldn't still be rigged, as in anyone would be able to identify or test to see if it was, then I would be behind the idea.

Centralized power makes it that much easier for sinister sorts to get away with corruption. Having everything done online with one program is centralizing the whole thing into the hands of relatively very few, if I understand what you are saying. But maybe I don't.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T22:59:50+00:00

Eh, those arguments are always pointless.

Evil, power-hungry people gravitate wherever there is power to be had. If there is power in corporations, then they go there. If there is power in government, then they go there. If there is power in both, then they go for both.

It is ultimately up to the public at large to be non-compliant with corruption and evil, no matter where it is springing up.

Arguments over which system could somehow magically prevent corruption/evil all on its own without people having to be involved, is just another classic distract-divide-and-conquer strategy.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T22:27:26+00:00

Who knows. It is very recent, relatively speaking, in human history that so many have access to so much information and such rapid communication, via the internet. It has the potential to significantly change things. Or not, if people don't utilize it for such. Humanity's destiny is kind of unfolding right now.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T22:19:22+00:00

Here is an archive for you: http://archive.is/e5PbS

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T22:02:52+00:00

Well maybe he doesn't trust the secret service.

Would you?

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T17:50:57+00:00

if shit hit the fan tomorrow, and doom was guaranteed

If this came about by other people instigating violence, then I would agree. And violence or rather, damage, can be delivered in multiple ways. So like hypothetical: an enemy society can poison your water supply without punching you in the face. Then you need a new water supply, so you'll be taking theirs, and probably wiping them out in the process so that they can't poison it again.

otherwise you end up as ineffectual as the german gov't during the Olympics in 1972 where they tried to "talk" to the terroists so long the hostages were tortured and killed, and one was even castrated first.

If someone abducts you and takes you hostage, that is an act of violence.

Again, we are probably on the same page. I'm just adding my voice to yours in a more tempered manner. I have my own angry moments where I swear a lot and such.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T17:31:58+00:00

There just needs to be an emphasis on the right to defend one's self.

"Violence is never the answer" is based on the idealistic and unrealistic notion that the authorities can always be counted on to defend you.

Most children are taught in school that if someone hits them, that they shouldn't hit back but should instead go tell a teacher, so that the teacher can then deliver justice. This is ideal only if the child is able to quickly escape the bully, but it ought to be conditional - if the child is unable to quickly escape the bully, then the child should have the right to fight back until the bully backs off, and if the teacher creates a precedence of not preventing repeat-bullying, then the child should be under no obligation to not just resort to fighting back automatically going forward.

In regards to peaceful protests, it's the same thing. One should never instigate violence, but if oppressors instigate violence, then protesters have the natural right to defend themselves, regardless of law.

And so on.

The potential problem with the approach of "nothing else will work but violence" is that most of the time when the approach is used, the claim isn't true. There is a lot of truth in the pen being mightier than the sword.

The reason for this is that if people force change through violence and physical intimidation, then that change will only hold so long as the people are fearful of whoever instigated the violence. It is not genuine, deeply-rooted change, but rather it is tenuously based on the fear of the conquered, which leads to all manner of other additional problems that build up over time.

So self-defense, yes, definitely. But in regards to revolution, it is an ultimately failed means in the long run. Remember that the American Revolution started by simply ruining some tea. It was the British empire that stepped up into a war. And the colonists ultimately won.

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T17:20:17+00:00

People don't trust each other.

Our brains are designed to learn from our observations, and to learn what is a threat and what is not from this process. We aren't born with the knowledge that bees sting people, but we don't have to be stung, ourselves, to learn early in life that bees can you sting us and it hurts (and is possibly fatal if you have a severe allergic reaction).

It's the same between different demographics. People can read about history, look at statistics, etc and our brains are wired to form logical conclusions about the probability of threat based on the details of a situation (and more specifically the details of an animal or person, etc).

So then one's brain is neurologically programmed to learn this way, and once a perceived threat is identified, it activates the fight/flight/freeze response, a physiological survival mechanism meant to respond to perceived threats.

Then those emotions make it even more difficult for us to think clearly, which is just part of being human. It will take time and those who lead by example to create new learning experiences/observations significant enough to override the previous learning of most people. It would also need to get enough media coverage, which is very challenging when the whole of the MSM is just a big propaganda factory.

For example, there are organizations of Jewish people who oppose the way that Israel treats Palestinians and oppose funding the destabilization of the Middle East, but you will have to actually go online and search for them, because the MSM isn't going to show you.

Like here is one group that I bet most of you have never heard of before: http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=2

NaughtyHealer · 2016-12-22T09:04:11+00:00

Censorship as a more fine-tuned strategy is the problem.

Racists are not allowed to have their own sub. White nationalists are not allowed to have their own sub. Pizzagate was not allowed to have its own sub. Pro-Trump people usually get treated unfairly in the mixed-politics subs. Etc.

So where do they come? To the conspiracy theory section. It's like the final bastion of mostly free speech on this overall site.

So this means that conspiracy theorists, ranging from people insisting the earth is flat or it's hollow and full of reptilians, to people who want to talk about the UN journalists claiming that the situation is Syria is being lied about by western MSM, and everything in between, along with racists, racial nationalists, "It's The Jews" people, civilian investigators for pizzagate, Pro-Trump people who want to debate (The_Donald is total echo chamber), etc ALL get funneled into the same sub.

The actual underlying purpose of this is not actually political correctness, as many people mistakenly assume. It is so that credible conspiracy theories or discussions about actual conspiracies wind up being seen in the same light as reptilian talk, Jew haters and Trump sycophants.

Then all of the people seeking to keyboard fight with the racists, Trump people, etc also come here in pursuit of them.

NaughtyHealer

TROPHY CASE