What do you guys believe?

[Scott Sommers]

Why? And why do you think we'd treat you any better if unsupported claims is all you have?

To be fair, he started out with a sincere request for beliefs about how the world works. I took him at that because it is a reasonable request. The problem is he is increasingly appearing to be a sock puppet for someone we all probably know.

gsm1988, the answer is that I am not willing to entertain the idea that secret groups of Jew/Freemasons/the CIA/reptilian aliens/blah, blah, blah really run the world, and that the only people who do seem to be a small group of mostly young white American (or Europeans, in the case of Jews) males. If it makes you feel good, keeps you off the kiddie porn or stops you from shoplifting, it's probably a good thing. But trying to convince me that a bunch of young kids have some secret information that I've completely missed, is just silly.

That's the answer to your first question. If your real question has to do with my assessment of your evidence for a secret Jewist-Alien hybrid that really runs the Fed, then buzz off and stop pretending this is a dialog.

 

[Ausmerican]

Global warming conspiracy? That would have to be the...
Biggest. Conspiracy. Ever.
I mean, how many scientists would they have to have on board, apart from the government personnel of multiple countries.
That is possibly the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have heard of.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Global warming conspiracy? That would have to be the...
Biggest. Conspiracy. Ever.
I mean, how many scientists would they have to have on board, apart from the government personnel of multiple countries.
That is possibly the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have heard of.

That's what I mean. You have to be living a pretty isolated life to believe these things. But then, the USA is full of this demographic. and some of them even have college degrees, making them an intellectual leadership for this group.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hi. I am obviously new to the board. I introduced myself in the new members thread. A majority of you here are obviously opposed to so called "conspiracy theories." I can respect that. Are there any so called "conspiracy theories" that you do believe in?

There are no conspiracy theories I "believe in". There are accounts of historical events which are on balance supported by the evidence, accounts that are neither supported nor contradicted, and accounts that on balance flatly contradict the evidence. Provisionally, and subject to contrary evidence arising, I accept the first, suspend judgement on the second, and reject the third class. Belief is for the religious to argue about.

Dave

 

[Zep]

What do us guys believe in?


We believe we will have another beer!

 

[Rolfe]

What Dave said. Also, "you guys" isn't a monolithic group-think. Everybody is a person, and different people have different views on different issues.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Hi. I am obviously new to the board. I introduced myself in the new members thread. A majority of you here are obviously opposed to so called "conspiracy theories." I can respect that. Are there any so called "conspiracy theories" that you do believe in?

I think you are mistaking questioning claims of a conspiracy theory with being opposed to conspiracy theories. They are numerous examples of actual conspiracies that have come to light. Often the only explanation for a series of events is a conspiracy and since conspiracies are just part of human behaviour there is nothing extraordinary in suggesting that a conspiracy may be the explanation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Some examples might be useful.

(a) Did Nixon's re-election team conspire to sabotage the Democratic campaign based on information obtained from bugging devices? Yes, quite certainly; the historical record is quite clear.
(b) Was the attack on the USS Maddox on August 4th a fiction constructed by the Johnson administration to promote public support for entry into the Vietnam War? Hard to say. It seems highly likely that no attack occurred that night. The accepted explanation is human error, not unusual in such circumstances. It's not impossible that Captain Herrick was operating under secret orders, also not unknown for naval officers. There is no evidence to prove it either way.
(c) Were the 9/11 attacks orchestrated by the US Government in a complex plan that involved the use of demolition explosives to collapse the WTC Twin Towers? No, quite certainly; all the significant evidence contradicts any such explanation.

No belief is required, just evidence and sound judgement.

Dave

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hi. I am obviously new to the board. I introduced myself in the new members thread. A majority of you here are obviously opposed to so called "conspiracy theories." I can respect that. Are there any so called "conspiracy theories" that you do believe in?

Fuzzy question, I think. Conspiracy theorists like to toss in actual conspiracy to make their constructed conspiracies seem more likely. Actual conspiracies revealed by a flag-waving, carpet-chewing, truth-knowing conspiracy theorist to date: Zero.

 

[Horatius]

If I posted the evidence for why I think the way I do, you would end up discrediting me and ignoring me and all of the resources I use.

Actually, if you posted good evidence, we'd give it due consideration, and if it was compelling, most of us would alter our position.

The problem is, very few "conspiracy theorists" ever provide good evidence. All they ever provide is insinuation, speculation, misrepresentation and outright lies.

So, do you think you have good evidence? If so, start a thread, and show it to us. But if it's the same old crap we've seen countless times before, then, yes, expect to be discredited. Because you'd deserve to be discredited at that point.

 

[mysteronyx]

If I posted the evidence for why I think the way I do, you would end up discrediting me and ignoring me and all of the resources I use. I don't see the point. Here's a question for you: why do you guys consider the federal reserve and arguments about the real goals of climate change legislation to be conspiracy theories, yet refuse to question the official Holocaust story. I'm not attacking the Holocaust, just wondering what your reasons are.

Why are you so sure that we would discredit and ignore you and your resources?

To answer your question, I don't dare question the Holocaust because I know very little about the event and the evidence for it. What I do know is it would be very difficult to explain where millions of people went had it not occurred. Also, I tend to trust it since the world went to war over it. I don't know much about climate change or the Fed, but I do know that most people disbelieve in their being conspiracies. So, that is why I question you about them.

Are your sources from sites like Infowars?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, if you posted good evidence, we'd give it due consideration, and if it was compelling, most of us would alter our position.

The problem is, very few "conspiracy theorists" ever provide good evidence. All they ever provide is insinuation, speculation, misrepresentation and outright lies.

So, do you think you have good evidence? If so, start a thread, and show it to us. But if it's the same old crap we've seen countless times before, then, yes, expect to be discredited. Because you'd deserve to be discredited at that point.

Problem is the CTers don't discriminate between GOOD evidence and ANY OLD evidence. Without that filter they wind up touting BAD evidence and get upset when it is pointed out that their evidence is BAD. I have been debunking Pearl Harbor myths for decades now, and the inability to filter is the prime characteristic I've noted in CTers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Using your definitions, the push for world government is a conspiracy and not a conspiracy theory, because it is real.

What push for world government, by whom? Some people have openly advocated world government, but this is not even a conspiracy because it's not done in secret. Some supranational bodies, like the UN and the EU, openly exist; again, not a conspiracy.

The Federal Reserve scam is a conspiracy and not a conspiracy theory, because it is a real scam.

The Federal Reserve is an economic institution whose existence, scope of action and methods are well known. Again, not a conspiracy. The use of the word "scam" is a value judgement, not a statement of fact.

Governments using climate change as a way to redistribute wealth and increase control over peoples' lives is a conspiracy and not a conspiracy theory, because it is real.

Governments always redistribute wealth and take some measure of control over people's lives. That's what governments are for. Climate change is a reason why some types of control are needed. Yet again, this is public knowledge and not even a conspiracy.

Now, if you're arguing, for example, that there is no such thing as climate change and that governments have invented it as a fiction in order to increase control over peoples' lives, then, yes, that is a conspiracy theory. But I reject it, not because it's a conspiracy theory, but because it is contradicted by all the significant and relevant evidence.

Yet I have seen all of these conspiracies get lumped in with conspiracy theories. I think that this diminishes the skeptic movement in some peoples' eyes, the constant need by some skeptics to discredit events taking place in the world which people can watch happen right before their very eyes.

What the skeptic movement does, when it's working correctly, is to subject claims such as these to the same level of skepticism as the more mainstream understanding that they seek to replace. Many of them, including what I suspect are the conjectures underlying the examples you've quoted above, fare very, very much worse under such scrutiny. Skeptics are then criticised by the True Believers for not sharing their double standards. To which we say, not our problem; show us convincing evidence and then we'll believe you. Just saying "Dude, it's so obvious" isn't good enough.

Dave

 

[Darat]

Problem is the CTers don't discriminate between GOOD evidence and ANY OLD evidence. Without that filter they wind up touting BAD evidence and get upset when it is pointed out that their evidence is BAD. I have been debunking Pearl Harbor myths for decades now, and the inability to filter is the prime characteristic I've noted in CTers.

There also seems to be a naivety about how the world works; they see general incompetence, genuine mistakes and the sheer messiness of the real world as evidence that "something" is behind it all.

Papers go missing every single day, people write the wrong name down every single day, people forget something every single day - that doesn't mean that the NWO has its operators stealing your papers and altering them and using mind rays to make you forget things!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There also seems to be a naivety about how the world works; they see general incompetence, genuine mistakes and the sheer messiness of the real world as evidence that "something" is behind it all.

Papers go missing every single day, people write the wrong name down every single day, people forget something every single day - that doesn't mean that the NWO has its operators stealing your papers and altering them and using mind rays to make you forget things!

Evil master-minds who develop incredibly complex plots involving thousands and thousands of people, and then they forget to turn off the cameras when the deed is done. (Of course, the footage is "officially lost", but one valiant person has, at great risk, obtained a copy by imitating Hillary Clinton and has put it out where it will do the most good. That being Youtube, of course.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Thank you for your response Brainache. I guess that my problem with the skeptic community is that seemingly any explanation for happenings in the world that is outside of the "accepted" viewpoints is automatically dismissed as "conspiracy theories."

Untrue! Some are dismissed as being simply bat-crap crazy.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Problem is the CTers don't discriminate between GOOD evidence and ANY OLD evidence. Without that filter they wind up touting BAD evidence and get upset when it is pointed out that their evidence is BAD. I have been debunking Pearl Harbor myths for decades now, and the inability to filter is the prime characteristic I've noted in CTers.

They are actually quite good at filtering out evidence that disproves their beliefs.

 

[NutCracker]

Thank you for your response Brainache. I guess that my problem with the skeptic community is that seemingly any explanation for happenings in the world that is outside of the "accepted" viewpoints is automatically dismissed as "conspiracy theories.

Nope. These theories are not rejected on the grounds of being "out of the accepted viewpoints," but rather on the grounds that any supporting evidence is lacking.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, if you posted good evidence, we'd give it due consideration, and if it was compelling, most of us would alter our position.

I wouldn't even need any new evidence, just a theory that fits the existing evidence better than the prevailing theory.

Despite their name, "conspiracy theorists" never seem to have one...except for the really crazy ones, of course (google "repto-sapiens").

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They are actually quite good at filtering out evidence that disproves their beliefs.

isn't actually filtering.