Which particular theory?

That they exist?

That they run the world?

That they are satanic babyeaters bent on plunging the world into the chaotic abyss of Tribulation?

These are but a few of many conspiracies surrounding the Illuminati, you're gonna have to specify...

I realize this now, I have added an edit, thank you for pointing this out

Well, I read your posting in r/atheism, and since you're looking more to refute his claims than understand them, I'll just go with this:

A couple of celebrities on YouTube aren't sufficient evidence to support the claim of a global corporate conspiracy, if your friend wants you to believe him (or just entertain his whim), he's gonna have to do a lot more digging than "Dave Chapelle on Oprah"

HOWEVER, you yourself could learn from a wise man named Aristotle, who said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You may not believe in god-myths, the supernatural, conspiracies, etc. but perhaps YOU should do some [real, in-depth, horribly-time-consuming] research on the subjects you so readily refute, and form a truly personal opinion on the matter, instead of asking for the answers you want.

I say this with utmost sincerity, and because I want you to educate yourself on the matter, not just give you my pre-fabricated opinion. Just because you don't want to believe something is true, doesn't necessarily mean it is not.

If you choose to do your own research, a word of warning: The rabit-hole goes deep... and it ain't pretty.

It is true that I'm looking to refute, I am rational, so if evidence is proposed to me that is sufficient to justify that position, I will accept it. I've already argued that they haven't made their point. This has proven ineffective. The sources I found on my side, though rational, seem very attacking of the types of people who believe in such things, so are proving insufficient in making my case.

I've already decided to ignore the fact that the burden of proof is on his side and find some nice neutral sources, but couldn't find much on my own, so I turned to reddit.

Everything is just broken quotes, circumstantial evidence, and otherwise different forms of blind speculation, I just need something legit on either side.

It is true that I'm looking to refute, I am rational...

If you're "looking to refute", then that's not being rational. That's being a naysayer. There's a difference.

Being rational is accepting an argument after sufficient evidence has been brought fourth to support it. No such thing exists for the Illuminati so far as I have seen, only circumstantial evidence and incomplete quotes, kind of like what you did JUST NOW. The only difference for my argument is I am debating with someone who is decidedly irrational, so I need to break convention, ignore that I do not carry the burden of proof, and find people who have found better holes than I. Unfortunately, you cannot refute evidence that does not exist, there remains no reason to acknowledge the Illuminati over any other group possibly conceivable by the mind.

Don't mistake having an open mind for an irrational one, there is plenty of ridiculous shit proposed by quantum physics which I have accepted because they actually have evidence.

Being rational is accepting an argument after sufficient evidence has been brought fourth to support it.

Being a naysayer is 1) starting off from a biased, imbalanced perspective right off the bat - which "looking to refute" an argument most definitely does, and 2) being unwilling to realize the significance of qualitative data and evidence as opposed to only hard, "nuts and bolts" type of quantitative data.

No such thing exists for the Illuminati so far as I have seen, only circumstantial evidence and incomplete quotes, kind of like what you did JUST NOW.

Again, your the type misses the forest for the trees because you blind yourself with the very limited type of "evidence" you say is "the only valid kind". I get it. It's a "James Randi" approach.

"The mind all logic is like the sword all blade. It cuts the hand that uses it."

The only difference for my argument is I am debating with someone who is decidedly irrational, so I need to break convention, ignore that I do not carry the burden of proof, and find people who have found better holes than I.

And you will find the "proof" you look for because you are, whether you are conscious of it or not, so emotionally committed to that truth you seek.

Unfortunately, you cannot refute evidence that does not exist, there remains no reason to acknowledge the Illuminati over any other group possibly conceivable by the mind.

Your universal parameters are almost by definition set up to fail. It's apparent that you don't see this.

Don't mistake having an open mind for an irrational one

Don't mistake having a critical one with being a skeptic.

there is plenty of ridiculous shit proposed by quantum physics which I have accepted because they actually have evidence

Like?

Regardless of initial bias, a rational mind supports a basis that has evidence, you have provided none

Okay. It's been fun.

I mean it is a fun thought experiment, but as far as trying to argue any kind of truth to the statements...there are just no grounds for such arguments. If I'm wrong then please present the grounds, I'm not the one making the claim, the burden of proof is not on my side.

I'm no "Illuminati expert", but, as others have already explained on here, "a rose by any other name is still a rose". There are societies that have been factually shown to exist on this planet that are 1) extremely secretive, 2) extremely powerful and influential, and 3) extremely long-lasting - i.e. they've existed for many generations.

Whatever their name might be or whatever they decide to call themselves (if even anything), it would seem that such a society is functionally equivalent to what "the Illuminati" are said to be.

Additionally, here you go.

In the letter to George Snider on October the 11th, 1798, first U.S. president George Washington warned that "The doctrines of the Illuminati had spread in the United States." Adding that the notion that members of secret societies were trying to separate the American people from their government "is too evident to be questioned."

If it's between siding with George Washington himself, or going with what someone who approaches the subject already admitting a bias against its validity and coming into it wanting to prove it wrong?

I'll go with George.

Well, you can start with the Wiki page, that's about as neutral as you're gonna get. It'll give you some keywords to follow, in fact here's some stuff you may or may not care to read up on... New World Order, Agenda 21, Bildeberg Group, The Origins of Central Banking, 9/11 truth, and the Georgia Guidestones.

There are too goddamn many plenty of endless documentaries on these subjects and many others on various websites, but in the end no one can really convince you that they do or do not exist, and that's the nature of conspiracy: it's kept secret until the secrets aren't necessary, as such, what half-truths are brought up lie somewhere between reality and fiction. In the end it falls to what you believe, what seems right in your head/heart/gut.

My only argument that is simply thought-inducing and bears no evidence is this: if they do not exist, why is their symbolism everywhere? If the Illuminati aren't putting it out there, someone is, and what do those people have to gain from making it look like the Illuminati are everywhere?

Tried wiki, they simply say that there is no evidence to support the fact that the Illuminati have persisted after the end of the 18th century. That is enough for a rational mind. The videos on the theory are not indeed enough for a rational mind, as they rely on well established tactics of deception such as broken, out of context quotes, and circumstantial evidence.

Every symbol related to the Illumanati is not specific to them, The big one, being the symbol on the dollar, comes from an Egyptian book far preadating the Illuminati, and the inscription mistranslated. So there are no symbols related specifically to the Illuminati to be found after its collapse, If i am wrong, please show me.

Furthermore, if the argument is that they wish to remain secret and they have built up enough power to do so, why are their symbols everywhere?

Symbols are a way of communicating an idea to a large audience, while simultaneously deafening the many [that cannot translate the symbol] to it's true meaning.

As far as maintaining secrecy, it wouldn't so much be the existence of such a grouping that would be most important to keep secret, but more so it's members and activities.

And as to the symbol on the dollar, the All-Seeing Eye (Eye of Horus) is the primary symbol of the Illuminati, but I am by far not well-versed enough in Illuminati conspiracy to go in to that debate.

Honestly my opinion is that if you want to worry about a coalition of rich, power-hungry, bent-on-world-domination, grade-a dicks, you don't need to go hunting in grey areas to find them. The Bildeberg Group is right in front of us, why hunt in the shadows?

And since I brought them up, Bilderberg Shareholdings Chart

Anyway, I feel that "the Illuminati" is just one of many names that belong/have belonged to a group or groups of people that have shaped, guided, and controlled the world (for better or worse) for many hundreds of years.

And, seeing as how my thoughts are getting broken and ramble-y, I think I will call it a night. Hope you and your friend work things out. Peace

Symbold only communicate an idea when the idea has been assigned, a cross does not intrinsically mean christianity, we had to assign that idea. The Eye of Horus is a distinct specific smybol, remove any detail from it and it is no longer an eye of horus, our eye on the dollar does not fit the criteria of an eye of horus. It does not add up that an organization trying to remain secret would intentionally leave clues everywhere. People like mysteries, they want to think that massive conspiracies are controlling everything, not just the ignorant idiots in the government and the large corporations that stand to gain a dollar one way or the other, but there's no evidence to suggest a highly intricate and organized group pulling the strings for world domination, so i'm afraid it is simply poor organization, and corporate benefiting convoluted tax codes.

It is indeed the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it, and if I did believe in the Illuminati, the last thing I would do is go spreading awareness that I'm one of the people that slipped through the nets. It seems that our greatest asset in this fight is the fact that, whoever it may be, needs to maintain an illusion of freedom, at least for now. And it is in those small freedoms we get that keep ou siciety from appearing totalitarian that we would actually make a move. If they were to know that people were on to them, they might throw in the towel on the secrecy thing and release the entire totalitarian influence. So it seems to me that nothing is to be gained from 'raising awareness.' So in both the paradigm where they do exist and in the ne that they don't it is entirely irrational to 'raise awareness'

Here's something worth seeing. it's youtube again, but this is JFK, not Dave Chapelle...

(Also, I replied to myself earlier, so I don't know if you saw the post above yours)

Edit: Secret Societies speech about 6 minutes in

Read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma and research into the hermetic and esoteric philosophies that societies like the Freemasons, Rosacrucians, Scottish Rite, etc. are founded upon. Don't be deceived by Wikipedia - these enlightenment brotherhoods (Bavarian "Illuminati", Spanish "Alumbrados", Masonic Orders, whatever you want to call them) are plentiful and all united by the occultic belief that there exists particular metaphysical knowledge that should be coveted by a few powerful men, lest it destroy society. "Illuminati" is simply an umbrella term that many conspiracy theorists have adopted for this broad school of light-coveting mystics.

You're on the right track by noting that these groups are all united by their adhesion to certain tenants of ancient philosophy, particularly Egyptian philosophy. Keep looking into this philosophy and you'll find out what a symbol really is, and why they put certain ones in plain sight (Hint: Mind control is more real than much empirical science has led you to believe).

George Washington was a Freemason, Andrew Jackson was a Freemason, the Roosevelts were Freemasons, Truman was a Freemason, and Freemasons are absolutely steeped in Ancient Egyptian and Hermetic philosophies - you will be hard-pressed to find any other reason to explain why the hell there's a pyramid and Eye of Horus on the American $1 bill.

Whatever you want to call them, they want to keep you in the dark.

You cannot justify a claim with another claim, why did they choose the particular font for the 1? The Eye of Providence (distinctly different from the eye of horus) over the 13 steps of the pyramid pretty readily symbolizes God watching over the 13 colonies. Having taken extensive Latin, I don't even need to look up the meanings of the inscriptions, Is say, 'Approval of the new order of the age', which is highly consistent with everything else we know about the US AND consistent with that particular view, as well as it readily explains the meaning of the symbol. So no, I was not indeed hard-pressed to fathom that meaning. The eye is widely used in many contexts to symbolize enlightenment or divine favor, this does not suggest that any given organization that used the eye for a symbol MUST be connected, you need to provide other evidence to make such a claim. Its also entirely possible that there are wizards among us who call us muggles and wipe the memory of everyone who has ever heard of them, even if they do exist, it would be irrational for me to blindly believe in them without evidence.

Again, let me remind you that I had an appeal for a rational discussion, substantiating a blind claim with other blind claims is the absolute opposite of a rational argument, show me support for your claims, don't just make them because they sound cool or frightening.

[deleted]

I admit that it is likely that policies of powerful wealthy men affect polocies of the government. But why the illumanatti? Why an old, historical, intricate organization at the head of it all and not just several large businesses that stand to gain a dollar one way rather than the other?

[deleted]

Still, why them and not any other organization that seeks to end the world? I really need something to nail some part of the Illuminati argument in the ground, not just more speculation. SOME piece of evidence that is specific to the Illuminati. On what grounds is the claim that its them specifically?

You're going to have to be more specific. What is his argument?

beat me by a minute... phooey

I didn't quite realize that this was so diverse of a field, I thought that supporters of the Illuminati Conspiracy Theory were so varied, I added all of the detail that I've gotten.

It's simple, really. The Illuminati love you, and want you to be a free and happy, enlightened self-actualized individual, living in perpetual harmony with everyone and the environment. In order to help you achieve this, they control the media and politics and start global wars.

Damn their overbearing and motherly love of us poor misguided sheep!

There's only 2 things you need to know.

1. The "illuminati" you hear about in history books is not the "illuminati" people reference today. The "illuminati" people reference today has no name. It is often called "TPTB", "the Cabal", the "Reptilians", "The 13 Luciferian blood lines", "NWO", "The All Seeing Eye", "The illuminati", etc. This group has existed since the dawn of civilization, not just since the 1800s.

2. For evidence of this group all you have to ask is who runs the banking system? Each country has a central bank. And each central bank reports to the bank of international settlements every 2 months. The BIS controls the world. Who runs the BIS?

And, perhaps I'm beating a dead horse but this article has some good sources. It will better convey the point that I think /u/danxmason and I were trying to make.

Here's something worth seeing. it's youtube again, but this is JFK, not Dave Chapelle...

(Also, I replied to myself earlier, so I don't know if you saw the post above yours)

Edit: Secret Societies speech about 6 minutes in