True skeptics are 'conspiracy theorists'

[Gravy]

Sorry if I haven't been following this closely. DJJ, exactly when does the prophecy you believe say that the world will end, and how is that calculated?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Interesting events coming up.

Making threats now DJJ?

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Don't waste my time...

SEE the Religion Prophecy Board.... as 2009 is surely just the start of Daniel's Last 7 years.

But this thread is how false skeptics believe every lie told them.... but not all. As panda, an athiest at least knows there are conspiracies and knows the wars were for oil.

Do talk to him, false skeptics and try to get him on board with your intimidation tactics, of just BELIEVE and trust the governments of this world.

Poor panda, between a rock and a hard place. What will he do, tell the false skeptics and lose his position in thier congregation, or just keep quiet out of fear.

Interesting events coming up.

Yes, but can you give me the rundown on the World Series results between now and 2015?

And how do you know I "Believe and trust the governments of this world." That's quite a statement for you to make. You don't know me from Joe Stalin or Field Marshal Montgomery. I may be a government shill, an anarchist troll, a wisecracking libertarian, or a giant flying weasel.

Unless the God you worship so wierdly is giving you my personal information, in which case, He is betraying me and a lot of other people, and that doesn't go in keeping with Christian tradition.

And what do you think about Jews and Hitler? I've seen some anti-Semitic rumblings in your ramblings, and I'm curious to know what you think about the Holocaust and Jews in general.

 

[Paulhoff]

But that can only be posted on the Religion Board, not on the Math Board or here on the skeptics board as these boards are afriad of such truths...

BS, all your stuff is religion based................

Paul

 

[Z]

Davie, I'm afraid you're wrong again. MOST of the people on this board don't implicitely trust their government, world leaders, or anyone else. That's part of being a true skeptic: evaluating a person, government, or agency based on their ACTIONS, not their dictates.

They also don't implicitely trust ancient books of myth and legend - like you do. A true skeptic examines facts and evidence, which largely proves the Bible to be a book of myth and allegory. A true skeptic doesn't listen to every lunatic trivial claim made and try to cram it into a worldview centered around said ancient book of myths. A hollow Earth? Not even scientifically feasable, Davie.

Yes, a true skeptic does trust to his education and his own individual learning to guide him - that is, he trusts in his education insofar as he has, to the best of his abilities, verified what he has been taught. Understanding such issues as astrophysics and gravitation and plate techtonics might be hard, but not impossible; and accepting a few basic facts, on the grounds that those facts have been used for hundreds of years successfully, in order to understand that something (like a hollow world) is actually impossible (given observed conditions), is part of being a skeptic.

You're probably the furthest thing on Earth from a skeptic.

 

[jsfisher]

SEE the Religion Prophecy Board.... as 2009 is surely just the start of Daniel's Last 7 years.

Well, that's just great, but what about when you said this:

Therefore if we go back 7 years from 2009 it brings us to 2002....So according to these numbers and the end of this Generation, our Last 7 Years has to start this year in 2002.

here?

Which one is it? Does it all start in 2009, or did it all start in 2002? Where you lying then? Are you lying again now?

 

[pagan]

With the gaining of wisdom with age, we are suppose to learn there are lies being taught us and deceptions being made to try and control us. And yet with age and experience, we are suppose to learn to see thru the smoke screens to get at sufficient truths to carry on and be positive..... and even help others see the conspiracies and lies of life.

This is true skepticism in my opinion. Not believeing what the world, the rich, the powerful, tell us to believe.... nor what the education systems, the religious systems and the military juggernaut tells us to believe. For these lies are sent out to deceive us and indoctrinate into us as lambs to the slaughter.

True skeptics know and have studied that there are conspiracies. They do not judge a matter before discerning the truths from the lies. They decide and have a background of discernment so they don't just label all incoming information as lies, but systematically and painstaking DISCERN truth from lies and half lies.

They do not want to be spoon fed, but take the responsibility for what they believe and act on. For life for them, is not a word game but much more serious than that .... especially when it comes to serious topics like war and death.

True skeptics study and research and establish principles for further discernment. They have principles and morals rather than just negating and denying everything. They are usualyu condemned by the worldly systems as negative, when in fact they are looking for the positive by denying the lies and the negativity that those lies cause.

Don't you agree or do you think there are no truths and we should believe the lies of the government, military, education and church without question and just follow and be good worldly citizens and church goers and new military recruits ?

Could not have said it better myself.

The majority on this site seem to regard the Bush adm Conspiracy theory about the 19 Muslims as not being a conspiracy theory. Why that is I don't fully understand.

We true sceptics (that is 911 truthers don't have a theory, except that we suspect Bush adm inside involvement, this cannot be proved without further INDEPENDENT investigations).

The Bush adm are proved liars about everything about the Iraq war. And about a lot of things about 911.

Why do you guys keep giving the Bush adm version special treatment?

 

[Z]

pagan, I think you're vastly overestimating the majority opinion here.

I think a LOT of the folks here - myself included - agree that the war in Iraq is, itself, partially unfounded. I think quite a few of us agree that Bush used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to wage a war he intended to wage anyway. A few of us were in the military at the time, and remembered all the training that we did gearing up for that very war. Desert Shield/Storm was still fresh to most of us, and we expected to go back and 'Finish The Job' sooner or later.

But concerning the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I think most of us here have weighed and re-weighed the available evidence, and unfortunately for us Bush-Haters, the evidence points to the attacks of 9/11 being pretty much exactly what has been presented by the government. There are still doubts, and some of us accept those doubts as such: for example, bin Laden might very well have been a tool of the Bush regime. Security may have actually been relaxed prior to 9/11, hoping for an attack.

I'm pretty sure that the most skeptical among the true skeptics are unwilling to completely rule out LIHOP, at least in a few cases.

Bush, after all, reminds me of the guy in the bar who keeps claiming he never threw the first punch. No, but he DID call the other guy a few choice names, hit on the other guy's girlfriend, and kept himself in an obviously unprepared stance, so that when he DID get hit he could fight back, and claim an unprovoked attack.

Why do you 'troofers' keep making strawman claims against folks here?

 

[Gravy]

The majority on this site seem to regard the Bush adm Conspiracy theory about the 19 Muslims as not being a conspiracy theory. Why that is I don't fully understand.

Because we're not kooks, Pagan. We've read the reports by the scientists, law enforcement officials, and congressional investigators, and we find the mountains of evidence in them to be coherent and credible.

Since kooks are unable to present an alternative that is coherent, credible, or backed by ANY evidence, I'll be sticking with the sane folks.

 

[pagan]

pagan, I think you're vastly overestimating the majority opinion here.

I think a LOT of the folks here - myself included - agree that the war in Iraq is, itself, partially unfounded. I think quite a few of us agree that Bush used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to wage a war he intended to wage anyway. A few of us were in the military at the time, and remembered all the training that we did gearing up for that very war. Desert Shield/Storm was still fresh to most of us, and we expected to go back and 'Finish The Job' sooner or later.

But concerning the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I think most of us here have weighed and re-weighed the available evidence, and unfortunately for us Bush-Haters, the evidence points to the attacks of 9/11 being pretty much exactly what has been presented by the government. There are still doubts, and some of us accept those doubts as such: for example, bin Laden might very well have been a tool of the Bush regime. Security may have actually been relaxed prior to 9/11, hoping for an attack.

I'm pretty sure that the most skeptical among the true skeptics are unwilling to completely rule out LIHOP, at least in a few cases.

Bush, after all, reminds me of the guy in the bar who keeps claiming he never threw the first punch. No, but he DID call the other guy a few choice names, hit on the other guy's girlfriend, and kept himself in an obviously unprepared stance, so that when he DID get hit he could fight back, and claim an unprovoked attack.

Why do you 'troofers' keep making strawman claims against folks here?

OK let's take this step by step.

1. The Bush adm are proven liars concerning the Iraq war.
2. 911 was used as a pretext for the Iraq war ( exposed as lies)
3. The Bush adm are proved liars about a lot concerning 911.

Why do you guys keep giving the Bush adm version special treatment? That is not calling it a conspiracy theory? While you keep calling us 911 truthers conspiracy theorists when we don't even have A THEORY. Only strong suspicions.

You have a theory, the Bush version. We are sceptical. You believe. Is there not a point when you guys have to come to the conclusion that the Bush version have to be viewed in a critival menner? Have we don't reached that point bey now?

 

[pagan]

Because we're not kooks, Pagan. We've read the reports by the scientists, law enforcement officials, and congressional investigators, and we find the mountains of evidence in them to be coherent and credible.

Since kooks are unable to present an alternative that is coherent, credible, or backed by ANY evidence, I'll be sticking with the sane folks.

So that's your only answer? You are not a Kook?

Hey, these Kook guys must be some intelligent sceptical rational serious SOB's . I wanna belong to them.

 

[twinstead]

OK let's take this step by step.

You have a theory, the Bush version. We are sceptical. You believe. Is there not a point when you guys have to come to the conclusion that the Bush version have to be viewed in a critival menner? Have we don't reached that point bey now?

Why in God's name do you insult us and imply that we haven't viewed the 'Bush version' in a critical manner?

Why do you seem so flabbergasted that somebody can look at the evidence in an unbiased, rational way and come to an different view than you? Is your case THAT rock solid in your mind?

Are you saying that the only conclusion one can come to if he REALLY looks at the evidence in a critical way is the one you have?

 

[Z]

OK let's take this step by step.

1. The Bush adm are proven liars concerning the Iraq war.

I agree that some statements surrounding the Iraq war are lies. The most reasonable thing to do would be to go over the statements about the causes of war, step by step, and analyse which are true, and which are lies.

2. 911 was used as a pretext for the Iraq war ( exposed as lies)

...As one pretext, and the overarching pretext for the War on Terrorism, yes.

3. The Bush adm are proved liars about a lot concerning 911.

Which statements would those be? Remember, don't automatically assume a malicious lie when general stupidity and incompetence explains so much.

Why do you guys keep giving the Bush adm version special treatment?

It's not 'the Bush adm version'; it's the best available hypothesis based on evidence. That Bush is in office as this information is released is irrelevant.

That is not calling it a conspiracy theory? While you keep calling us 911 truthers conspiracy theorists when we don't even have A THEORY.

I keep calling you 'troofers' or similar, not conspiracy theorists. And many of the 'twoofers' ARE conspiracy theorists - MANY of you have theories, even if you don't advance them.

Only strong suspicions. You have a theory, the Bush version.

No, we have a hypothesis, the best available evidence-based hypothesis.

We are sceptical.

No, you are ignorant.

You believe.

No, we accept as reasonable.

Is there not a point when you guys have to come to the conclusion that the Bush version have to be viewed in a critival menner? Have we don't reached that point bey now?

We reached that point from day one. But once viewed in a critical manner, the hypothesis remains the best available hypothesis based on evidence.

 

[Z]

So that's your only answer? You are not a Kook?

Hey, these Kook guys must be some intelligent sceptical rational serious SOB's . I wanna belong to them.

Oh, believe me - you're a Kook, alright.

But your definition above appears backwards, fyi.

 

[pagan]

Why in God's name do you insult us and imply that we haven't viewed the 'Bush version' in a critical manner?

Why do you seem so flabbergasted that somebody can look at the evidence in an unbiased, rational way and come to an different view than you? Is your case THAT rock solid in your mind?

Are you saying that the only conclusion one can come to if he REALLY looks at the evidence in a critical way is the one you have?

So, you recognize that Bush adm have been lying a lot about both the Iraqi war and the 911? But, you still prefer to believe in the Bush adm version?

What is that called? True love? How many more lies do you need?

 

[CHF]

OK let's take this step by step.

1. The Bush adm are proven liars concerning the Iraq war.
2. 911 was used as a pretext for the Iraq war ( exposed as lies)
3. The Bush adm are proved liars about a lot concerning 911.

Why do you guys keep giving the Bush adm version special treatment? That is not calling it a conspiracy theory? While you keep calling us 911 truthers conspiracy theorists when we don't even have A THEORY. Only strong suspicions.

You have a theory, the Bush version. We are sceptical. You believe. Is there not a point when you guys have to come to the conclusion that the Bush version have to be viewed in a critival menner? Have we don't reached that point bey now?

Bush lied about "why the terrorists hate us." He misled the world on WMD.

This is a far cry from demolitions, remote control planes and thermite!

In fact, given that Bush failed to plant WMD in Iraq, why do you persist in believing that he pulled off something far more difficult?

 

[twinstead]

So, you recognize that Bush adm have been lying a lot about both the Iraqi war and the 911? But, you still prefer to believe in the Bush adm version?

What is that called? True love? How many more lies do you need?

Dude. I don't 'choose' to believe in anything. I have looked at both sides of the issue in a rational, unbiased way and find conspiracy theories that suggest 911 was an inside job to be lacking.

What part of that don't you understand? Why is it impossible to you to judge things case-by-case?

I was never for the Iraq war. I am not a Bush supporter. I don't however think he 'pulled off' 911. Could my mind change upon additional compelling evidence? Sure.

But as of now I don't agree with your conclusion, and no amount of " nya nya nya you're a Bush lover" will make me not be true to what I objectively believe.

 

[pagan]

Dude. I don't 'choose' to believe in anything. I have looked at both sides of the issue in a rational, unbiased way and find conspiracy theories that suggest 911 was an inside job to be lacking.

What part of that don't you understand? Why is it impossible to you to judge things case-by-case?

I was never for the Iraq war. I am not a Bush supporter. I don't however think he 'pulled off' 911. Could my mind change upon additional compelling evidence? Sure.

But as of now I don't agree with your conclusion, and no amount of " nya nya nya you're a Bush lover" will make me not be true to what I objectively believe.

Case-by-case? Oh so that's the remedy you need to avoid seeing the truth?
I prefer to see the context.

You are not a Bush supporter? I would say that you're not only a Bush lover but a Bush butt kisser. Proud?

 

[CHF]

You are not a Bush supporter? I would say that you're not only a Bush lover but a Bush butt kisser. Proud?

You're 17-18, tops.

Am I right?

 

[pagan]

You're 17-18, tops.

Am I right?

39