Conspiracy Theory = Religion

Gordon

It just occured to me how similar conspiracy theorists are to devout believers in many religions. The correlations include: Blind faith, with little or no or dubious evidence to support faith; one (or few) rulers/gods that completely control us; when asked to prove existance of 'god' or rulers one is given an ambiguous statement to search for onesself either within or without you into the 'book' or the 'youtube'; followers of conspiracy theories will try hard to convert you as opposed to prove/disprove it.

I'm sure there are more pertinent corrolations but these few just "woke me up" to the possibility of people's need to believe in a higher power. I googled it and found an interesting link (no, no youtube links..).

I just thought it interesting to see the similarities in religion and conspiracy, maybe the biggest conspiracy is religion, and the biggest religion is conspiracy?

Doctor DooM

I think you could very much be onto something, but I dont think its fair to tar all religious people in that light- or all conspiracy theorists. Just the more- er- extremerist ones.

Jocksereire

A conspiracy is where more than one person plans to do something wrong or bad.
Religion tells people to be peaceful and love one another
Yeah pretty similar there id say
whats the the point youre trying to make? people need conspiracies like they do religion? i dont think youre on to much here with that theory

humanji

Jocksereire wrote:

A conspiracy is where more than one person plans to do something wrong or bad.
Religion tells people to be peaceful and love one another
Yeah pretty similar there id say
whats the the point youre trying to make? people need conspiracies like they do religion? i dont think youre on to much here with that theory

Actually, very few religions promote peace and love. The point being made is that to some conspiracy theorists, their particular conspiracy is their religion. Take the lizardmen theorists. They have no proof other than dodgy youtube videos that most can easily dismiss. Yet they'll refuse to accept anything but their beliefs. In the same way a devout Catholic won't question the existence of God, even though all they have as "proof" is their faith.

Gordon

Jocksereire wrote:

Religion tells people to be peaceful and love one another

Which religion/religions? Or are you talking about all religions?

whats the the point youre trying to make?

Read the first post in this thread.

Jocksereire

Gordon wrote:

Which religion/religions? Or are you talking about all religions?

Read the first post in this thread.

Yes im talking about all religions are you saying there is a religion that doesnt give this message?
I read the post. Dont see any reason for a new thread for your point though. But sure im sure you did

Johnny Storm

IMHO conspiracy theories fill the same (or very similar) mental need as religions do. I.e. a need to explain and find some meaning in an apparently inexplicable world.
If this theory is true then people who are strongly religious should not be interested in conspiracy theories as that mental need is already filled in them by their religious beliefs.

Jocksereire

humanji wrote:

Actually, very few religions promote peace and love. The point being made is that to some conspiracy theorists, their particular conspiracy is their religion. Take the lizardmen theorists. They have no proof other than dodgy youtube videos that most can easily dismiss. Yet they'll refuse to accept anything but their beliefs. In the same way a devout Catholic won't question the existence of God, even though all they have as "proof" is their faith.

2 points here
1. Actually instead of making stuff up in your head can you back your statement up that "very few religions promote peace and love" or are we all supposed to just nod our head to such wise words and agree?
2. You say the lizard men (i dont believe in their theory btw) have no proof. Thats your opinion. They believe thay have posted enough evidence to show why they believe in what they do. Its all down to how one views the evidence. Also you cannot throw all people who disagree with the official stories such as JFK, Lizards, 911, Moon landings etc and treat them all them same. You must take each case individually and not just say they reject all official stories of all events because its their "religion"

humanji

Jocksereire wrote:

Yes im talking about all religions are you saying there is a religion that doesnt give this message?
I read the post. Dont see any reason for a new thread for your point though. But sure im sure you did

It all depends on interpretation. Parts of the bible call for you to stone to death anyone who works on a sunday. Some interpretations of Islam claim you must kill anyone who refuses to become muslim.

Jocksereire

Interpretation maybe but if you were to quote those lines to any religious islamist or catholic priest would he not totally disagree with you? I dont believe theyre are any religions that do not promote love and peace (bar some cults maybe)

humanji

Jocksereire wrote:

Interpretation maybe but if you were to quote those lines to any religious islamist or catholic priest would he not totally disagree with you? I dont believe theyre are any religions that do not promote love and peace (bar some cults maybe)

I would say the majority of religions preach their beliefs adn claim that all any who do not fall in line are doomed (hell, for example). The two example above, Christianity and Islam, ask their followers to "spread the word", refusing to acknowledge others beliefs because, apparently they're not as important as the ones they want you to follow.

Think how many people have died throughout the ages because of what their religion told them to do. It doesn't happen as much now a days, because the religions have been changed to fall in with modern thinking (you're no longer burnt at the stake for saying the earth goes around the sun).

And there's very little point inquoting these lines to any religious people because not many people choose to follow every word of their holy texts. These texts are ambiguous enough for anyone to find a loophole that will rearrange the meaning to what they would like it to mean.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

2 points here
1. Actually instead of making stuff up in your head can you back your statement up that "very few religions promote peace and love" or are we all supposed to just nod our head to such wise words and agree?

Maybe he should produce a youTube video with some nice bass music which makes the claim then mentions stuff like "well, they say otherwise, but lets just look at their actions through the annals of history.

Then we can bring in all sorts of holy wars etc....maybe a clip of a newspaper clipping when Papa Razzi announced that the Catholic Church was (once again) the one true faith....

Would that serve as proof? I mean, he wouldn't even have to misrepresent or make things up, unlike many videos already presented on this forum.

I notice, for example, that you didn't attack the lizard-believers about their dodgy levels of video-proof. This would suggest that the above-described video shoudl suffice, yes?

2. You say the lizard men (i dont believe in their theory btw) have no proof. Thats your opinion. They believe thay have posted enough evidence to show why they believe in what they do.

I rest my case.

Also you cannot throw all people who disagree with the official stories such as JFK, Lizards, 911, Moon landings etc and treat them all them same. You must take each case individually and not just say they reject all official stories of all events because its their "religion"

In the very first post that humanji made on this topic, he pointed out that his stance was that to some conspiracy theorists, their conspiracy is their religion. I'm not sure why you get the idea that "some" means "all".

humanji

Yeah, actually, I would like to go on the record and say that I definitely see a difference between the kind of people who believe that 9/11 and the like was a conspiracy, and those who believe inter-dimensional lizardmen rule the world!

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

Maybe he should produce a youTube video with some nice bass music which makes the claim then mentions stuff like "well, they say otherwise, but lets just look at their actions through the annals of history.

Then we can bring in all sorts of holy wars etc....maybe a clip of a newspaper clipping when Papa Razzi announced that the Catholic Church was (once again) the one true faith....

Maybe one day you could make some sense instead of just posting for arguement sake:rolleyes:

Would that serve as proof? I mean, he wouldn't even have to misrepresent or make things up, unlike many videos already presented on this forum.

wind your neck in.you see off you go again yaking on when you dont even know why youre doing it. I said religions preach love and peace. Now how some people have used that to their advantage to kill and slaughter "in the name of god" i do not doube and i agree with. Since i have not seen any post to show me a religion that does not promote love and peace ill take it there is not one.
Now of you go and scream "proof?", "source?" and "prove it!" on the other threads and then ignore the proof presented just you always have and will continue to do

I notice, for example, that you didn't attack the lizard-believers about their dodgy levels of video-proof. This would suggest that the above-described video shoudl suffice, yes?


I rest my case.

oh ffs :rolleyes: so i didnt go off "attacking" people like Bonkers does so i must believe it .......absolutely rediculous statement

In the very first post that humanji made on this topic, he pointed out that his stance was that to some conspiracy theorists, their conspiracy is their religion. I'm not sure why you get the idea that "some" means "all".

ok im off to the dictionary to find out what some means .
now off you go and learn what the phrase "i dont believe" which i posted above means, when mentioning the lizard theory
good grief must be the time of the month or something

Jocksereire

humanji wrote:

Yeah, actually, I would like to go on the record and say that I definitely see a difference between the kind of people who believe that 9/11 and the like was a conspiracy, and those who believe inter-dimensional lizardmen rule the world!

fair enough:)

Gordon

True, I am not talking about all CTers, as I'm sure there are conspiracies that exist and it is great that there are people in the world that are uncovering true conspiracies - with logic, proof, sanity and a thirst for ALL sides of the coin.

Since i have not seen any post to show me a religion that does not promote love and peace ill take it there is not one.

Proof. And it's not just one post, but a whole website..

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Maybe one day you could make some sense instead of just posting for arguement sake:rolleyes:

Humanji seemed to be able to see what I was saying.

I said religions preach love and peace. Now how some people have used that to their advantage to kill and slaughter "in the name of god" i do not doube and i agree with. Since i have not seen any post to show me a religion that does not promote love and peace ill take it there is not one.

The US government preaches one thing and practices another. You seem well capable of understanding the distinction between what an organisation claims and what its actions actually say in that case.

Now of you go and scream "proof?", "source?" and "prove it!" on the other threads and then ignore the proof presented just you always have and will continue to do

I've never ignored proof. I just don't mistake "claims of evidence" with "evidence", nor "evidence" with "proof".

oh ffs :rolleyes: so i didnt go off "attacking" people like Bonkers does so i must believe it .......absolutely rediculous statement

The rolling-eyes smilies, the swearing, the deliberate misinterpretation of my name....no...you don't attack people at all....espcially not me. You limit yourself purely and solely to a dispassionate and objective analysis of the claims of evidence, refusing to call anything proof until its firmly established to be so.

good grief must be the time of the month or something

No attacks here folks. Nothing to see. Move along.

Jocksereire

LOL ill get out the violin and play a sad song now for you how about that??? Now where are those lizard men til i give em a good attacking to apease you. oh and nice little side step to avoid my point of you whinging i didnt attack the lizard men...classice manouvers

Jocksereire

Gordon wrote:

True, I am not talking about all CTers, as I'm sure there are conspiracies that exist and it is great that there are people in the world that are uncovering true conspiracies - with logic, proof, sanity and a thirst for ALL sides of the coin.

Proof. And it's not just one post, but a whole website..

god that site is almost a bad as 911 myths. right so religion (even though thats site focuses on christianity only) promotes evil and not love and peace.....mad bad as theres the "proof"
its pathetic how people will just post nonsense for arguements sake.

Gordon

Jocksereire wrote:

its pathetic how people will just post nonsense for arguements sake.

LOL ill get out the violin and play a sad song now for you how about that??? Now where are those lizard men til i give em a good attacking to apease you. oh and nice little side step to avoid my point of you whinging i didnt attack the lizard men...classice manouvers

Why are you being so nasty?

Jocksereire

Gordon wrote:

Why are you being so nasty?

nasty for not "attacking" the lizard men??? sure im just following what my religions tells me to do right?

Gordon

Jocksereire wrote:

nasty for not "attacking" the lizard men??? sure im just following what my religions tells me to do right?

What are you talking about? Kindly stick to the topic please, I have no idea why you are trying to derail this.

Thanks.

Jocksereire

you asked a question i replied to with reference to the evil bible site you posted to prove religion is evil. I agree this is way off topic so ill stop going down this road

Gordon

Jocksereire wrote:

I agree this is way off topic so ill stop going down this road

Thanks.

Ashla

Gordon wrote:

It just occured to me how similar conspiracy theorists are to devout believers in many religions. The correlations include: Blind faith, with little or no or dubious evidence to support faith; one (or few) rulers/gods that completely control us; when asked to prove existance of 'god' or rulers one is given an ambiguous statement to search for onesself either within or without you into the 'book' or the 'youtube'; followers of conspiracy theories will try hard to convert you as opposed to prove/disprove it.

I'm sure there are more pertinent corrolations but these few just "woke me up" to the possibility of people's need to believe in a higher power. I googled it and found an interesting link (no, no youtube links..).

I just thought it interesting to see the similarities in religion and conspiracy, maybe the biggest conspiracy is religion, and the biggest religion is conspiracy?

No Comparison!:rolleyes:

humanji

So you see absolutely no similarities between someone who believes, without any proof other than their gut feelings, that there is an after life, and someone who believes, without any proof other than their gut feelings, that the government is out to get them, or aliens are knocking about etc etc ?

jessop1

humanji wrote:

So you see absolutely no similarities between someone who believes, without any proof other than their gut feelings, that there is an after life, and someone who believes, without any proof other than their gut feelings, that the government is out to get them, or aliens are knocking about etc etc ?

Dont confuse someone who believes that there is an afterlife with someone who believes in or follows a religion. The two are by no means inextricably linked.
Regarding "proof" - theres very little in this world that can be actually proven. There is however lots of evidence of various things, including the existence of an afterlife (or other dimensions- possibly they are the same thing) and government conspiracies and terror, aliens, reptilians etc.

humanji

Well I just used the afterlife as an example of religion (as most mainstream religions believe in one). There's no evidence of an afterlife, and I've yet to see any credible evidence for most conspiracies (although there's still a possibility of evidence for the conspiracies. I can't see an afterlife being proven).

The point is it's a belief in a possibility, without hard evidence.

y2k07

Conspiracy theories generally tend to be based on consequential evidence which backs up certain statements or beliefs where as religion tends to be blind belief to explain evidence.

You have to treat all theorys such as 9/11, Ufo's, Illuminati, Diana, JFK and the moon landing as different theorys with different levels of credibility.

I don't understand how some people can believe in any kind of conspiracy theory when there is no evidence to support it. Like the lizard theory. However there is more evidence to support the JFK, 9/11 and moon landing theorys than there is to support The existence of god.

Also i don't understand how some people accept the governments word as gospel when we know governments have to lie in order to get the job done. Being a politician means you effictivly a professional lier.

The reason they have to lie is because they are privy to certain information that is incredibly sensitive. Also numerous cover ups have been proved and admitted to years after they have been attempted.

So to roundup: Politicians are liers. Most conspiracys are rediculos.



Also anyone who believes in anything will believe in it to the same degree they believe in god. Like i believe that most days the sky is blue because i have reason to believe it.
People who believe in God or in anything usually have reason to believe its true regardless of weather or not they are correct in doing so.

Mahatma coat

I think that maybe the conspiracies Forum should be afforded the same protections as other religious Forums, ie not so much open agresion against other peoples beliefs, some people believe in all sorts of strange things, and we are obliged to respect their beliefs, we dont have to believe them we dont even have to listen to them, but we do have to respect the other persons right to hold them.

At the same time tho it shouldnt be a case of post any aul sh!te to see the reaction, but if you can honestly stand behind yer statements and beliefs then you should have the freedom to express and discuss them with others without Jibes an derision from Septics and Trolls.

I'd like to see how some of the more regular Trolls would go in the Islam forum askin for proof.

humanji

You seem to imply that it's only skeptics who attack posters. It goes both ways. I don't see any problem with people questioning peoples beliefs here, especially since some good debates can come from it, but the fact that almost ever post quickly degenerates down to a believer and a skeptic insulting each other, should be stamped out. Can't we all just get along?

Mahatma coat

no thats not what I meant, its more a case of, the same few posters are on the attack consistently without giving credence to the other point of view, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be particularlyevident insme of the 'skeptics'.

that said som of the proponents of a few of thse CT's can get nasty in defence of their positions and reduce a debate t chidishnes in seconds

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

no thats not what I meant, its more a case of, the same few posters are on the attack consistently without giving credence to the other point of view, this is true of both sides, but it seems to be particularlyevident insme of the 'skeptics'.

May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think that maybe the conspiracies Forum should be afforded the same protections as other religious Forums, ie not so much open agresion against other peoples beliefs, some people believe in all sorts of strange things, and we are obliged to respect their beliefs, we dont have to believe them we dont even have to listen to them, but we do have to respect the other persons right to hold them.

If conspiracy theorists as a group want to consider their beliefs religious in nature - that is, that they believe in something that's basically irrational and unscientific - then fair enough, I'll accord them the same respect I accord adherents to religions, and avoid discussing their beliefs.

As long as they continue to argue that the conspiracy theories they believe in are supported by logic, reason and fact, I'll continue to debate them.

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote:

May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?

to draw you out and illustrate my point


'

OscarBravo wrote:

As long as they continue to argue that the conspiracy theories they believe in are supported by logic, reason and fact, I'll continue to debate them.

so no real difference from religion then

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

to draw you out and illustrate my point

I asked a simple question, based on a detail in your post that I am unclear on.
I asked civilly, expressing no assumptions whatsoever about what it might mean.

What point of yours was that illustrating???

jessop1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

to draw you out and illustrate my point

and well illustrated too

oscarBravo

I'm utterly bewildered as to what point is supposedly being made here.

jessop1

the key point I believe is that some 'skeptics' (or "anti-conspiracy religionists", in the context of this thread) are always on the attack.

Other hallmarks of some 'Skeptics' is that they very rarely or never start threads to openly discuss conspiracies. Their main tact is to throw cold water on threads other people start. And when they do start a thread its usually to ridicule anyone who "believes in conspiracies" (like this one for example - which illustrates perfectly the "debunkery-by-association" tact).

Other hallmarks of some skeptics include pretending to be confused and being highly condescending towards others.

All of which goes towards cowing people into just not discussing conspiracies. For more on this, please fully read the above link.

oscarBravo

I remain completely and utterly bewildered.

Exactly how is the question "May I ask why you put the word skeptic in inverted commas there at the end?" an attack?

Was that question an attack?

Mahatma coat

The point being made is,

I posted my thoughts on the situation along with others, I lobbed in a throwaway remark ( if you were paying proper attention you would have seen it spelled 'Septics' earlier in the thread so when I spelled it properly it put it in inverted commas) at the end of a post, the second I looked at it I just knew Bonkey would jump on it because.

A) Offense could be taken where none was intended
it has no relevance to the rest of the thread
c) it provides a neat little vehicle to derail the thread
D) it dosent really mean anything, which means it can be interpreted anyway you like.


see and now the thread has been taken off Topic.

jessop1

Actually, its very much on the topic of this thread to discuss the behaviour and modus operandi of skeptics.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

( if you were paying proper attention you would have seen it spelled 'Septics' earlier in the thread so when I spelled it properly it put it in inverted commas)

So, the honest answer to the question you were asked would have been "to draw attention to a word that had been mis-spelled earlier". Instead, you gave a dishonest and coy answer, leading to further questions.

Exactly who was it that derailed the thread?

Jocksereire

LOL OB you took the bait and it was a little embarrassing....id just leave if i were you and no i wont be explaining to you "what bait?" if you cant see it and no i wont be explaining why what bait is in quotes either

oscarBravo

Leave? Leave what, this forum? I'm not sure what you think I should be embarassed about.

miju

mahatma first and last warning. next time you try to bait a poster here you will be banned permanently

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it has no relevance to the rest of the thread
c) it provides a neat little vehicle to derail the thread

Its interesting you should say that, because while I was catching up on this thread and all the kerfuffle that my simple question resulted in, it occurred to me that the whole "set Bonkey up" line of reasoning, as well as the subsequent "this is what Bonkey was doing" / "this is what so-called skeptics do" postings were a prime example of exactly what the OP was referring to.

You have your belief regarding me and my motives. Evidence won't change that, because you will only evaluate the evidence within the framework of your belief being true. Meanwhile, you will try and convince others to buy into your belief model - to convert to your way of seeing things.