4 ms·
But really does that preclude the Illuminati existing and ruling the world. Denying their existence and reach is a bias don’t you think
by zaphirplane 2y ago
But really does that preclude the Illuminati existing and ruling the world.
Denying their existence and reach is a bias don’t you think
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ggm 2y agoI tend to think it doesn't but it makes people feel better. I see a lot of this when AskHistorians on reddit goes into the Jesus problem. People construct amazing tiers of belief around the veracity of the written word, and make comparisons to "did Caesar exist" questions. I don't think they actually advance the story beyond belief anchored views, but they certainly seem to feel better. (AskHistorians now routinely has to fall back on "the historical Jesus" to clarify statements to personhood, not godhood, but the fundamentals around existence proof from textual analysis remain. It's the same with Buddha. Mohammed has less of a problem in the Hadith, although I may be applying a subjective bias there. Archeology of the middle east is littered with strong assertions about finds which are probably NOT "the original well cover, off the well of Jacob") About my own beliefs, I try to be clear that I think my axioms are centered in belief, and its flawed. But the problem is I wind up being far to easy to convince that flawed conclusions have been drawn. After all, I continue to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding.