Religion, Atheism, and Science are Dead Wrong About Reality

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.