Conspiracies and Neurotiscism

a reply to: TinfoilTophat

4. Gullible and lacking critical thinking? Not all, though, just some.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

In that case, may I point out some strings (philosophies and myths) that are still holding you captive to the one "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9)?

If you could, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Pay close attention to the bolded part and the remark I added there. ...

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing. [whereislogic: nonsense, utter contradictory nonsense, and trying to use that false admission (a lie) to promote himself as supposedly being humble, which he was not, false modesty, just trying to make himself look better for his audience, marketing himself. And he knows it, he also knows he's full of crap, so that's 2 more things he knows that he's lying about here.]

Guessing that's how you see me ?

How do you know what was in Socrates' mind and soul ?
How can you tell the difference between your own opinion, belief, and projection : as to his reality ?
What was he marketing ?
How could you know he's full of crap ?
How do you know it's not just another story ?

This assault on the idea that truth can be known

Look ! Right there !
They're telling you that it's an "idea."
A concept, a thought, a belief, an opinion.
Not truth.

I'm seeing strings, but not on myself yet.

has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

I do love those two ideas, so some string potential there.
My ears are tickling ... LOL !
Do your ears never get tickled ?
Do the JW conspire to convert non-believers ?

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” ...
I'm sorry, I have to cut it off because it's getting too much and I don't want to get in trouble. But a crucial 3 paragraphs are coming up. Just like the next page:

Why Search for Truth?

I read the text at that last link.
My ears were tickled by the part describing how we truly can not be 100% sure who wrote certain parts of the bible, and I imagine that fits for most of the stories we are told in this crazy world.

I don't really believe in Relativism, nor any other "isms".
Might be a conspiracy theory ...
I don't try to identify myself as any kind of "ist" neither.

As far as I can see, you pointed mostly to 4 potential strings, and they were mostly relative to ideas that I may have expressed here, over the years.
[ Keeping notes are we ? ]

" All I know : is that I know nothing ", sensory interpretations of the material world, the Cogito, and Relativism.
Is that about right ?

I could possibly be open to both agreeing, and disagreeing with those ideas, from different angles.
But I'm never 100% sure about anything.

There is a cavity, that can only be breached by a leap-of-faith.
I see this in Conspiracy-Theory believers, religious believers, scientism believers, and other believers in "isms."

The strings give them support for that leap.
No strings : no leaps, no beliefs.

Can you please take it from there, and help me see these strings tugging on myself, that I am reluctant to see or admit ?



William Bill Donahue 306 Revelation Synagogoue(sic) Of Satan

Again : I don't believe that Mr. Donahue spouts pure truth, but it tickles my ears to ponder.
Because to me : it's all ideas and concepts.
Some I find more interesting than others.
Entertainment : not belief.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: TinfoilTophat
... Are you gonna wait for the election interference theory to be ridiculed and believe it because they say so.

I believe CNN's choice of programming in the lead up to the 2016 election got Trump elected as president, and they did it on purpose (spending way more airtime on Trump than Clinton; and they're doing it again). To facilitate increased profits for these types (and on their behalf):

I actually meant to say that it contributed to getting him elected. That's how I meant it. It wasn't just one thing, or just one media network. They all did it, both left and right (spending more airtime on Trump than Clinton). In the case of the leftwing media doing it, it was a bit similar to reverse psychology. But I don't really feel like explaining it in more detail, since it's unlikely anyone would believe me anyway. It has to do with people already inclined to vote for the right not liking CNN or anything they put out there. So if they are attacking Trump, the rightwing voters are more inclined to see Trump as their hero against the so-called "fake news", playing right into his cards and campaign strategy (and it gets them more riled up, more eager to vote for the guy they see the left wing media is attacking: reverse psychology style).

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
...

How do you know what was in Socrates' mind and soul ?
How can you tell the difference between your own opinion, belief, and projection : as to his reality ?
What was he marketing ?
How could you know he's full of crap ?
How do you know it's not just another story ?

Common sense. (the whole statement is a contradiction to begin with, if he knows nothing as he claims, then he also doesn't know what he just said he knows, if he knows what he just said he did, he just admitted that the statement that he knows nothing is false, and that is why he's full of crap using empty speech and lying to make himself look more humble, false modesty to market himself as I said, I can think such statements through, don't need to look into his mind or soul for that; ignoring the straw man in the first question, since I never claimed to know what was in Socrates' mind and soul; but if we're going to paint words and claims in my mouth and then ask questions about that, well I ain't got time for that, I've seen that way too often on ATS already, it's dishonest and an attempt to discredit someone else's commentary, it also shows that you were lying about welcoming or appreciating what I had to point out to you, which is not a surprise, cause it doesn't tickle your ears; people even lie to themselves like that here, deluding themselves as being openminded and willing to self-analyze and be a bit more critical than usual about it, and not just doing it for show or long on talk but short on action)

I'm pretty sure he also knows that his name is Socrates, for starters, but there's all sorts of things that he knows, so yeah, he's lying and full of crap, false modesty and feigned openmindedness, and all to make himself more appealing to his potential audience (self-marketing). He's exactly the type of teacher that Paul warned about at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and the type spoken of in those texts warning about those deceiving people with philosophy, "empty speech" and "empty deception". It's demonstrated and wrapped up in that statement quite succinctly, and all you need to see it as well, is the ability and willingness to use logic in the proper manner and apply it to what he says there, i.e. common sense. (all those famous pagan Greek philosphers are overrated and overhyped, and they all had a hand in that effect, just like today's evolutionary philosophers marketing eachother and themselves, patting eachother on the back for being so smart and worth listening to, or philosophers posing as scientists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku, rockstar philosophers with nothing of value to offer but very cunning in marketing themselves and eachother, a true clique, yes, a lying "elite" who use their intelligence not for teaching important knowledge, but for deceiving and impressing people with nonsense and "empty deception". They are not lovers of wisdom, as per the original meaning of the Greek terms that the word "philosophy" is derived from, but "lovers of themselves" and "lovers of money", "boastful", "haughty" and "puffed up with pride", 2 Timothy 3:1-4. I'm not impressed with any of them. Cause they're fools, getting rich off it is detrimental to themselves. "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains." 1 Timothy 6:10)

An underrated quality on ATS. (common sense)

Correction, "philosophers", not true scientists. And it's not just evolutionary myths that is a big cashcow. The majority of what is being sold to the public by theoretical physicists is just as profitable, but it brings no progress to the sciences, no great advancement to our collective understanding of reality. From string theory to M-theory and the multiverse to that part in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that leads to a paradox/contradiction/nonsense/mistake/error (all listed on thesaurus.com as synonyms for "paradox") pointed out by Erwin Schrödinger with his cat-in-the-box example.

Worth repeating:

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21) (whether they swap out the word "knowledge" with the synonymous term "science" cause it sounds more fancy and again for marketing reasons, or not)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

By the way, it's your accountname that always reminds me of Socrates' contradictory and false statement there. That's not to say that your accountname says the same thing though. Although as you no doubt are aware, "know it all" and "know nothing" are opposite statements. Someone cannot "know it all" and "know nothing" at the same time. (not saying or implying that that's the reason you chose that name, to suggest that that's a possibility for a person, also because I'm aware that a 'know-it-all' is an expression to describe a particular type of person, often applied to people who never actually claim to know it all, and usually out of spite cause they don't like who they call a 'know-it-all', and often because they want others on board with that emotion/feeling if they point it out to others in an ad hominem; sometimes envy is involved as well. I've personally had to play dumb the majority of my life to avoid the false accusation. Especially once people started pointing to me as 'the smartest kid in class' and teachers advised my parents to make me skip years to advance to the next year or go to a more specialized school for those more 'gifted with intelligence' as they put it. Something my parents thought wouldn't be a good idea given current friendships that were built up, and so never followed that advice, and I'm glad for it. Even though it made me a bit more lazy when it came to studying for exams or doing homework or trying to go for high grades. Just a little tidbit about myself here, even though I'm not the subject or important here. And it's certainly not meant to brag. It's part of my honesty campaign, and my comment wasn't long enough yet to filter out those with a short attention span. And to give some ammo to those who are hell-bent on using something I said against me, more material for those who love that modus operandi. Won't change the truth/reality anyway, as described in my previous Bible quotations. Plus I'm bored and got nothing better to do at the moment.)

"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men." (Ella Wheeler Wilcox)

When making the comment above I was watching the movie JFK in the background (something I felt like doing after it came up before in my commentary here). That's the quotation that movie starts with. Seems like an appropiate quotation given my motivation for protesting (or view it as a rant if you must). I don't like seeing humanity being played for fools by these philosophers like Socrates and the other names I mentioned in my previous comment (those, unlike Socrates, posing as scientists worth listening to).

I think I quoted the below before, but just to spell it out, changing your marketing-title doesn't change what you are... (especially if your main occupation in your career has been selling unverified philosophies to the public while trying to sound as smart and educated as possible while doing so to faciliate that business and advance one's career and reputation; regardless how smart and educated they may be, it remains a dishonest use of one's intelligence just to impress people and get them to believe your unverified and often unverifiable philosophies/ideas have any merit and are worth listening to, let alone that you're worth your salary, research grants, position or reputation in the sciences; and in the case of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, we're also talking blatant contradictions or contradictory philosophies/ideas rather than just unverified ones, making a career out of selling nonsense)

From wiki (on the page for "scientist"):

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

And as mentioned before, they're not even 'lovers of wisdom', but that's besides the point here now.

If you carefully read the study this post is based on it says conspiracy theorists are NOT mentally ill or stupid:

Quotes from the article:

"What they didn't find is any evidence that would suggest lower intellect or poorer mental health made an impact on whether one would be a conspiracy theorist.

“Conspiracy theorists are not all likely to be simple-minded, mentally unwell folks—a portrait which is routinely painted in popular culture,” lead author Shauna Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University told Neuroscience News."

Interesting? So they didn't find they were stupid or mentally ill - things that generally can be objectively measured. Instead, they focused on assuming motivation - which is much harder to objectively measure.

The motivation of the last two can easily be rephrased. A desire to be "superior" could simply be a belief that you are not inferior to the PTB in your ability to analyze info. And the last one "paranoid" beliefs only is valid if you assume what they believe is not true.

a reply to: whereislogic

There's a lot to unpack there in those two replies WIL.

I've read them 3 or 4 times, and I get vibes going from disrespect, to downright disdain, to chummy repartee, to fraternal kinship.

So then : how to respond ?

It would be easy to reply in a confrontational manner, going point-by-point, always disagreeing.
That seems easy, and also the most common type of replies we get here in this format.

One could write an extensive post, yet somebody will take a hard run at them, for one single point they disagreed with.
Do you ever wonder if that implies that they mostly agreed with everything else ?

You are right : I'm a liar and deceiver.
If I lie to myself, and deceive myself : how could I be relied upon in a forum to write anything remotely true ?

So please never trust anything written by me.
Now I may be lying about this, and trying to market myself, to aggrandize myself somehow : but I have made the choice not to be argumentative with you.

I don't want to have those types of interactions here.
I don't enjoy them at all.

Conflict is easy : it's everywhere !
Acceptance and Love is the toughest way, and not a cop-out.

If you remember my thread about freewill : it's about moments like this, where I choose how to react to the world.

Put a smile on your face, and have a great day WIL !

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
a reply to: whereislogic

So then : how to respond ?

Proverbs 17:28

Even a fool who keeps silent will be considered wise,

And the one who seals his lips, discerning.

You are right : I'm a liar and deceiver.
If I lie to myself, and deceive myself : how could I be relied upon in a forum to write anything remotely true ?

So please never trust anything written by me.
Now I may be lying about this, and trying to market myself, to aggrandize myself somehow : but I have made the choice not to be argumentative with you.

I was of course, mostly talking about Socrates and his fellow Greek philosophers that are overhyped overrated liars, deceivers and self-marketeers (such as Plato and his protegé Aristotle, 2 of the worst ones, both in terms of hype and being overrated, as well as in terms of promoting nonsense and myths/false stories to boost their reputation and sucker in the people admiring these philosophers as if they are worth talking about, especially in a classical philosophy class, and as if they made great contributions to human culture and education or understanding; pff, useless characters). Not you (I may have mentioned one thing you may not be completely honest about with yourself, but that wasn't a big deal to me and just a sidenote, happens to all of us, that does not result in disrespect or disdain for you akin to how I feel about those ancient Greek philosophers and Mother Nature/Gaia worshippers, or to name some others from the article, Descartes, Pilate (politician), Parmenides and Democritus; now there's definitely some disdain on my side regarding these con-artists and charlatan philosophers posing as people worth listening to and even having made a career out of it if we're talking about the 3 philosophers in that list + Socrates).

I also didn't call you a liar or deceiver (as if it's habitual; inadvertently lying to yourself about just one thing or inadvertently deluding yourself isn't quite the same thing as being a habitual liar or intentional deceiver for personal profit or benefit, whether economically or socially).

2 Peter 2:3

Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.

“For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain;

From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud.” (Jeremiah 6:13)

Nothing has changed. I already named some of the priests of scientism, philosophical naturalism, atheism and agnosticism (or relativism) by name before, and referred to them as "Rockstar philosophers". They're not the only ones and scientism isn't the only false religion out there. Biden, Trump, Harris and other politicians are priests of nationalism and patriotism (worship of the State).

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that “the egg from which wars are hatched” is patriotism, which he called “a kind of religion.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.” By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany​—birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of “the best Catholics in the world”—​should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

In our age, “nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag,” wrote historian Carlton Hayes. “Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.” Nationalism, he added, also has its “holy days,” such as the Fourth of July in the United States, as well as its “saints and heroes” and its “temples,” or shrines. In a public ceremony in Brazil, the minister general of the army acknowledged: “The flag is venerated and worshiped . . . just as the Fatherland is worshiped.” Yes, “the flag, like the cross, is sacred,” The Encyclopedia Americana once observed.

The aforementioned encyclopedia more recently noted that national anthems “are expressions of patriotic feeling and often include an invocation for divine guidance and protection of the people or their rulers.”

Talking about "dishonest gain":

In a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Coming back to Plato and Aristotle (2 named I added later in my comment with an edit), they were also involved in the promotion of the ancient evolutionary myths (instrumental in popularizing them actually; key figures):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

They come up more in part 2:

The next video makes some remarks how these (especially Plato) were also involved in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, another Satanic conspiracy (deception and lie/falsehood), much like the myth of the immortal immaterial soul, where Plato again was instrumental because of his popularity and reputation in the ancient world as an intelligent person worth listening to:


Charlatans and fools, every last one of 'm. There's no true wisdom there.

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

originally posted by: KnowItAllKnowNothin
...

As far as I can see, you pointed mostly to 4 potential strings, and they were mostly relative to ideas that I may have expressed here, over the years.
[ Keeping notes are we ? ]

" All I know : is that I know nothing ", sensory interpretations of the material world, the Cogito, and Relativism.
Is that about right ?

No, not keeping notes. But it shows how popular these ways of thinking are and how much they are popularized by "the god of this system of things", "the ruler of this world", "the father of the lie", cause these ways of thinking make his modus operandi of deceiving the whole world with his lies so much easier, to promote lies/falsehoods and get people to believe or at least take an interest in (feeding their minds on) these rather than "the truth" and "beneficial teaching" spoken of at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (remember that a synonym for a truth is a certainty, something that is absolute/certain/factual/true/conclusive/correct, without error; i.e. 100% certain, such as that 1+1=2, a very simple truth/certainty/fact/reality that people definitely are aware of, i.e. know for certain, including you, whether you are in denial of it or not).

I could possibly be open to both agreeing, and disagreeing with those ideas, from different angles.
But I'm never 100% sure about anything.

Well, that's the idea or notion being promoted by these philosophers working for Satan (knowingly or inadvertently) isn't it? That you can never be certain about anything, not even that 1+1=2. A simple fact. That's how you keep people in the dark and guessing, the hidden agenda of "the ruler of this world". Adhering to South Park's Agnostic Code:

By the way, agnosticism is an "ism". Please don't delude yourself that it is the more openminded or intellectual position. It's about as closedminded to "truth/certainty" as it gets.

“Make sure of the more important things.”—PHIL. 1:10.

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:20,21)

A moot piece of advice if these agnostic philosophers are to be believed. As the article about relativism (the idea that truth is not absolute but relative) from before puts it:

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Next page:

Why Search for Truth?

MANY religious organizations claim to have the truth, and they offer it eagerly to others. However, between them they offer a dizzying profusion of “truths.” Is this just another evidence that all truths are relative, that there are no absolute truths? No.

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V. R. Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another’s. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

In fact, no one really believes that there is no truth. When it comes to physical realities, such as medicine, mathematics, or the laws of physics, even the staunchest relativist will believe that some things are true. Who of us would dare to ride in an airplane if we did not think that the laws of aerodynamics were absolute truths? Verifiable truths do exist; they surround us, and we stake our lives on them.

You see, believing that there is no way to be 100% sure/certain about anything, plays right into the cards of "the father of the lie" who wants people to give up on searching for the truth (even sometimes while seeing themselves as "truth seekers" anyway, they aren't 'truth seekers' or conspiracy theorists, they are fools/"inexperienced ones" feeding their minds on mental poison; see my signature and text under my profile name). Especially those truths that are about him, his methods and modus operandi (still talking about "the god of this system of things" "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth", including self-professed truth seekers; 2 Cor 4:4; Rev.12:9). Or about God, our Creator, our "Grand Instructor" 'teaching us to benefit ourselves' and advising us to make sure/certain of things.

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

So Satan's agenda is to get people to believe that the bolded part isn't even possible. But he's lying because he's a liar and the father of the lie. He speaks "according to his own disposition". And he's got his human pawns and victims to help him promote that way of thinking and giving up on their search for truth/certainty. The facts/realities of the matter. Especially those that matter most ("the more important things" as Philippians 1:10 puts it), which are the truths taught in the Bible by "our Grand Instructor" to benefit us (and even among those there are differences in terms of importance, "the weightier matters of the Law" as Jesus says at Matthew 23:23 when having some harsh but true words about the Jewish religious leaders of that time who had disregarded these).

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Revelation 12:9

So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.

Biblical prophecies, such as the one at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, are important too. They can wake you up for realz... Wake you up to the game he is playing on all of mankind, the buttons he's pushing. Here's another one with a whole lot of buttons mentioned (and behaviour he is encouraging and conditioning people with):

2 Timothy 3:1-8

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith.