The thing most similar to the Anti-christ in the modern world

Originally posted by Digi
Btw, your theory is dependent on randomly pulling the number 42M out of random sociological and historical data.

No it's not, my theory is dependent on modern society supporting .6% of the populace - and that portion's ability to create an organization that can manage the globe by more effectively utilizing nearly half of its resources.

They might not all be the Onion, but each is dubious for its own reason. What's the endgame here? Satan returning because 42 is popping up a few places?

Not 42, 42M is the number of people in that .6% pool. I'm using numerology. Paper money was first conceived in 1110 BC, first used in the Ming Dynasty at around 1128 BC. Multiply 1110 times .6 and you get the number of the beast.

Paper money is now the premier currency used supporting this ruling class, and they have the ability through business to keep themselves on the upper tiers of society at the expense of the majority do they not?

But as for 42 million people affected, 42 million people are on food stamps, natural disaster displaced 42 million people.

And how do we know it was 42 million? Was anyone counting? What were the census numbers from the era?

It may have been, the estimate is "over 40 million" in his lifetime, over 1 million in a day during the Afghan massacre.

More baseless drivel. Or was it just to compare it to what you thought was the legitimate Onion figure?

The Onion hoax was probably inspired by the number of Americans currently on food stamps.

If so, it changes none of my points.

Which don't address my main point, only the ominous figures I give to hint at a biblical meaning. I know you're an atheist and despise such thinking or use of signs, I'm not asking anyone to believe me because of ominous signs, I'm just putting them out there.

What ominous signs? You strung a few numbers together, and found a few ways to apply it to history.

Repeating the Khan statistics doesn't make it valid to this discussion. Why bring it up?

You're guessing now with supposing the origins of the Onion thing.

Again, google ANY denomination of million. Then craft a theory out of random, unconnected stories. That's all you're doing.

Because, let me read the OP again to be sure, you're taking a year from the Ming Dynasty, multiplying it by the percentage of people that hold roughly 39% of the world's resources in 2013, and saying it's possible evidence for "The Beast"

...does none of that strike you as a stretch?

Originally posted by Digi
...does none of that strike you as a stretch?

That's not evidence.

It's numerology, it's signs, it's using religious methods to bode at divine warnings.

That's all.

I have no argument with your disapproval of using signs, and I'm not trying to argue at the moment. I do not see a point.

I'm just asserting the possibility, hoping to spark an argument that I might come back to and participate in later. But not with that dogma, but with legitimate sources indicating illegitimate practices - or of this secretly centralized intelligence organization purportedly exploiting nearly half of earth's resources.

I entertain the possibility of divine warnings, but do not claim them as fact or tie them into the facts known.

Originally posted by Oneness
That's not evidence.

It's numerology, it's signs, it's using religious methods to bode at divine warnings.

That's all.

I have no argument with your disapproval of using signs, and I'm not trying to argue for or against the possibility of an organized upper class. I'm just asserting the possibility.

Numerology isn't stringing things together randomly. Or if it is, it's pathetic.

Because what you're doing is spouting nonsense and calling it numerology. Find some actual evidence of your overarching point and we'll talk. Something that, ideally, doesn't involve an arbitrary number of wealthy people multiplied by the f---ing Ming Dynasty.

....

Ghengis Khan killed 40 million people.

Gabe Newell has the same number of syllables in his name as Ghengis Khan.

Steam just had a sale where you got 37% off of 3 games.

40 - 37 = 3

Half-Life 3 confirmed!

...

I'm sorry, but I see no better response than humor to an OP theory that is so patently ridiculous it can't be taken seriously.

Think critically...what other explanations exist for the data you're using? What reasons might your theory be wrong? Does your theory actually have explanatory power, or does it work backward from a premise and find facts and figures to fit the assumption? What type of additional evidence would help confirm your theory? Is any of that available to us? These are the questions you should be asking. Not "Does Ghengis Khan and some wealthy people mean the return of the Beast?"

Because, here's the thing, some conspiracy theories might be onto something. Not most, but some. But very, very few are onto something for the right reasons. And if you have any truth to your theory, it's certainly not anything to do with the invention of money in the year 1110 or the number of people Ghengis Khan killed.

Originally posted by Digi
Ghengis Khan killed 40 million people.

Gabe Newell has the same number of syllables in his name as Ghengis Khan.

Steam just had a sale where you got 37% off of 3 games.

40 - 37 = 3

Half-Life 3 confirmed!

FINALLY.

Originally posted by Digi
doesn't involve an arbitrary number of wealthy people multiplied by the f---ing Ming Dynasty.

No, multiplying the percentage by a date in which currency was first postulated, not the Ming Dynasty. Again, that portion wasn't argumentative to the idea of a secret society. To be clear, my thesis is that a secret society is very possible, not that the monetary system or the ruling class is the anti-Christ of Christianity.

In the religion forum, this thread is entertaining (not arguing for or against) the possibility of the anti-Christ of Christianity, in the conspiracy forum, this thread is arguing the case of the plausibility of the "Illuminati" archetype.

Originally posted by Oneness
No, multiplying the percentage by a date in which currency was first postulated, not the Ming Dynasty. Again, that portion wasn't argumentative to the idea of a secret society. To be clear, my thesis is that a secret society is very possible, not that the monetary system or the ruling class is the anti-Christ of Christianity.

In the religion forum, this thread is entertaining (not arguing for or against) the possibility of the anti-Christ of Christianity, in the conspiracy forum, this thread is arguing the case of the plausibility of the "Illuminati" archetype.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're unable to grasp the larger meaning of my posts, and equally unable to think critically about your ideas. Either way, I'm done.

But it's Christmas time. Let's entertain the possibility of something more plausible...like a physics-defying immortal toy god that screams through the heavens flowering gifts to first-world countries.

Originally posted by Digi
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're unable to grasp the larger meaning of my posts,

Originally posted by Digi
Because, here's the thing, some conspiracy theories might be onto something. Not most, but some. But very, very few are onto something for the right reasons.

Go on...

Originally posted by Oneness
Go on...

No. Show me you understand my criticisms of your idea, and address those criticisms. Until you do, there's no incentive for me to interact with you.

Originally posted by Digi
Think critically...what other explanations exist for the data you're using? What reasons might your theory be wrong? Does your theory actually have explanatory power, or does it work backward from a premise and find facts and figures to fit the assumption? What type of additional evidence would help confirm your theory? Is any of that available to us? These are the questions you should be asking. Not "Does Ghengis Khan and some wealthy people mean the return of the Beast?"

Nothing else, there's one explanation - supported by the increasing amount of wealth the top 1% possesses: that the upper class has been gaining ground since the mid 70s.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Rich-Get-Richer-the-P-by-Dave-Lefcourt-101013-220.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/americas-sinking-middle-class.html?_r=0

But how in the hell is this possible when the entire global economy has been sinking - because the majority of people have less wealth to put back into the economy - for nearly half a century now.

Think, the rest of the world has been allowed funding for R&D programs. Skipping the fact that America has given NASA to another country (the coop de grass of this whole debacle), lets take something that happened back in the 60s for example. When physicists wanted federal funding for the super collider, they were laughed at. But the same America has been paying for and benefiting from the Large Hadron built overseas.

This makes everything less nationalized, more capitalized.

The Federal Reserve System, every single other major nation has sunken their teeth into something originally American.

Think about it. Why? Why in the world hasn't any government anywhere done anything to liberate the lower classes?? I mean, how hasn't this started a world war? The collective of 99% of human beings on earth certainly have the capability to start one, don't we. It's not a stretch that the system is becoming increasingly corrupted by money, and the wealth of the top 1%. That's not possible without organization. We can't even organize a thing because there's no communication between so many people, and there's potentially absolute communication between the upper echelon of society. You know, suppression of thoughts, of awareness, a global apathy.

Now, I welcome you to pick that apart, but I'm curious where your stance on this conspiracy is. You claimed that very very few people are on to something for the right reasons, who? What were they on to?

Originally posted by Oneness
Now, I welcome you to pick that apart, but I'm curious where your stance on this conspiracy is. You claimed that very very few people are on to something for the right reasons, who? What were they on to?

I said they might be. It was a deliberately vague statement, because I can't dismiss all conspiracy theories simply because I haven't researched every single one.

And in any case, you haven't met my earlier criteria for debate. Until you can really internalize the rebuttals to your argument, your words are depressingly lopsided. As it is, "Nothing else, there's one explanation" is not the kind of critical imagination one needs to thoroughly address one's critics.

Originally posted by Digi
your words are depressingly lopsided.

Why do you care if I'm not debating properly? That should help you argue against my theory. But you don't even seem to want to.

We are selling out America's wealth to other countries by outsourcing our technology and suppressing American R&D programs. That only benefits the upper class, whose wealth are not bound by the economic success of one nation. Why hasn't the overall global economy, which is providing for fewer and fewer people at the top of the pyramid, been opposed by politicians who see a system that is not progressing like it should be, creating international disparity for the majority to fuel capitalism?

Your argument with the way I'm doing this is that I'm not providing counterarguments to my one explanation, the the upper is organized enough to cheat the system, yet you're not picking the lopsided argument apart with said "other possibilities".

Of course they'd be more wealthy in a better economy, but the difference between the 1% and the 99% would not be as steep. That means less control, that means less power. Do you really think overall wealth, resources and technological/societal improvement means as much to them as does control? We were headed towards a global, techno-progressive, nation. In such a nation, the scarcity that powers those at the top goes away. The upper-class-supporting way of business is now creating scarcity in order to thrive.

I understand you want me do a proper English 101 Paper with an anti-thesis, I don't really find it necessary on a message board, but right now I've botched that, I'll admit.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why do you care if I'm not debating properly? That should help you argue against my theory. But you don't even seem to want to.

The alternative is far worse.

Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea. It's not impossible for people to be wrong; but for some people it's impossible to admit they're potentially wrong.

Spoiler:
This is where you assume that I am attacking you/your argument and attack me in turn, even though I haven't closely followed your argument and I only interjected because the comment I quoted struck me as incredibly naive.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea.

Why is that?

You do recall in the versus forum that I've conceded several times and that has increased my knowledge of tiers.

It's not impossible for people to be wrong; but for some people it's impossible to admit they're potentially wrong.

I admit I'm potentially wrong right now.

This is where you assume that I am attacking you/your argument and attack me in turn, even though I haven't closely followed your argument and I only interjected because the comment I quoted struck me as incredibly naive.

You're claiming my method of argument is erroneous and pointless. I'm not solely trying reaffirm my belief by disproving other's anti-theses as they come - that's illogical - I'm either trying to gain a corrected perspective or reaffirm my current perspective on the situation of global control.

In a way, I conceded on the reproduction of digits like 666 and 42 million posing no real meaning or argument (though I never believed they did). I put them them there to draw attention to my inner argument. Though the Onion thing was an oops.

Originally posted by Oneness
Why is that?

You do recall in the versus forum that I've conceded several times and that has increased my knowledge of tiers.

Erm, how is it not obvious? Reread what I wrote:

Using an opponent's argument to deepen your conviction and take it further and further into the personal realm instead of debating fairly using the same method and standards is always a bad idea.

It's one thing to have a stance and advocate it; it's another to let that stance become personal, and the debate devolves into a pissing contest. This was in direct reply to what you said here:

Why do you care if I'm not debating properly?

If you're in a forum where the norm is to debate, and intelligent conversation is something well above what is norm for Youtube comments or Facebook rants, it is expected that participants know how to debate. Otherwise, why would anyone want to believe in them?

You seem to be asserting that debating using fallacies or haphazardly is somehow a virtue. It's not.

I admit I'm potentially wrong right now.

Fair enough.

You're claiming my method of argument is erroneous and pointless. I'm not solely trying reaffirm my belief by disproving other's anti-theses as they come - that's illogical - I'm either trying to gain a corrected perspective or reaffirm my current perspective on the situation of global control.

Again, no. Here you are, applying a personal stake in whatever it is you're saying. Let's re-examine it:

You're claiming my method of argument is erroneous and pointless.

I color coded this for convenience. Red is the accused subject, whereas orange is the personal ownership of a publicly espoused idea, and blue is a strawman conclusion that I never said above.

HRM. WONDER WHY THIS RESPONSE FROM YOU COULD BE BOTH PREDICTED AND AMUSING.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

This is where you assume that I am attacking you/your argument and attack me in turn, even though I haven't closely followed your argument and I only interjected because the comment I quoted struck me as incredibly naive.

OH RIGHT. I ALREADY PREDICTED IT AND TOLD YOU AS SUCH. YOU HOWEVER BEAT EXPECTATIONS BY MERELY ASSUMING THAT I ATTACKED YOU AND NOT ATTACKING IN TURN. WELL DONE.

Again, my post is in direct response to you flippantly responding to Digi's earnest request for you to debate properly, as he asked multiple times. He is within his rights to call you out if you are missing the point, debating unfairly, or debating poorly. If you take this criticism as personal insult instead of constructive, then expect to have a bad time in life. The world isn't going to censor itself to spare your feelings.

In a way, I conceded on the reproduction of digits like 666 and 42 million posing no real meaning or argument (though I never believed they did). I put them them there to draw attention to my inner argument. Though the Onion thing was an oops.

What is your inner argument? I've read through your posts, and it seems you're using numerology to prove some kind of class-oriented conspiracy theory. Pass the pipe.

@Stealth Moose, nice post. You did that without personally attacking Oneness, not even once.

@Oneness, your ideas are being challenged, not you personally. You need to examine your ideas to make them better, and a challenge is the best way to improve. Do not just dismiss, but think it through...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@Stealth Moose, nice post. You did that without personally attacking Oneness, not even once.

@Oneness, your ideas are being challenged, not you personally. You need to examine your ideas to make them better, and a challenge is the best way to improve. Do not just dismiss, but think it through...

It might help if I had a big hammy avatar so people interpreted my words as coming from it. Like this:

I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper? "Beneath forum standards", you compared it to facebook and youtube comments IIRC. I'm correctly asserting that you're attacking my method of my underlying argument, not the argument itself - which you claim to not understand, and which I restated repeatedly.

The argument is that there is some underlying cohesion within the upper class that has control of the governments and their information through bribery, to answer your inquiry on the matter.

As per Digi's disapproval, what I got was that my method is fine until I leave out pedantic elements like an anti-thesis. As for the OP of the Atheist thread, he made the same mistake. I think I'm being treated unfairly here.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper? "Beneath forum standards", you compared it to facebook and youtube comments IIRC. I'm correctly asserting that you're attacking my method of argument, not the argument itself - which you have not read and which I restated repeatedly.

The argument is that there is some underlying cohesion within the upper class that has control of the governments and their information through bribery, to answer you question.

As per Digi's disapproval, my method is fine until I leave out pedantic elements like an anti-thesis. As for the OP of the Atheist thread, he made the same mistake. I think I'm being treated unfairly here.

No, your idea is being challenged, not your method. The quality of your method is linked to your idea, and by pointing out your faulty method, your idea is placed in question.

To be honest, I like your method. It makes it easier to demolish your ideas.