-- A Look at the SIMPLE MIND of the Debunker --

Originally posted by JustMe74
Everything isn't a conspiracy; usually there is a mundane explanation for things, although I'll admit that I enjoy reading some of the wild theories that fly on ATS and other sites because its entertaining.

Being a Freemason, you pretty much have to have a brain hard-wired to reject any notion of "Conspiracy".

Originally posted by omnicron
A simple explanation is the most probable answer to all questions.
If a phenomena does not have enough concrete evidence then it simply doesn't exist. Simple as that.

Ok, so what you're saying is that conspirators only have to ensure that simpler explainations are ready to ensure that their plots will succeed. Case cloased, nothing to see here... yes, you're actually "free"... the world is bad but We your rulers are not... etc. Go back to bed AmericA.

Our modern civilization is built on science, not by gut feelings, angels and devils on your shoulders, santa claus the tooth fairy or the boogeyman.

I beg to differ: The "world", or in your words, this "civilization" is completely geared against the Osama BOOGEYMAN. A minion of low tech men hiding out in caves are all we need justify perpetual war that will last generations, and so on. You can't have it both ways.

Those who don't believe in concrete evidence is obviously living in a fantasy world.

I'm curious what you're reffering to about this "concrete evidence"?

reply to post by SimiusDei


Excellent Post, I agree with just about everything you said. It's easy to call someone crazy about a conspiracy theory and I think we are all really tiered of being portrayed on television, radio or magazines as conspiracy theorist whom are off their rocker.

If you just put a guy in a nice suit, put him on TV and call him an expert. They dominate the air time skimming the topic to give them selves time to debunk something with half truths and then the show is over.

There are going to be skeptics everywhere on every post. But instead of calling a Skeptic a Skeptic, just make it a theory.

For Example. Make the Skeptic work harder to prove his point and until he does, we can refer to a skeptics idea as a "Skeptic Theory" or Debunkers Theory" because we all know that Skeptics can never prove most of their theories, so we should treat them as just that. Skeptic Theories.

This should be the new rule.


Excellent post

reply to post by omnicron

A simple explanation is the most probable answer to all questions.

Quantum physics?
Explain string theory, or better yet, super string theory, simply, to someone who knows nothing about it. And be sure to prove it with that simplest explanation, while you're at it. Oh, and the person has to understand what you are saying. Start when ready. We'll decide if its simple enough or not.

Theory of Evolution?
If there was ever a more convulted and complicated scientific theory, this is it. Incorporating nearly every branch of science to support its suppositions.
Explain the entirety of it to a layman, including the supportive genetic work, post genome mapping project. Make it simple, please. And make sure the person understands it, and believes it, by the time you are done. (Did I mention that this layman will not hold your position on the topic, to begin with? Oh? Well, that's the pivot of the entire presentation. Convince a disbeliever without resorting to complicated manuevers. Begin when ready.

Combustion Engine?
I dare you to explain the workings and physics of a combustion engine to a layman. And not just any layman, someone who doesn't know the first thing about mechanics. Keep it simple, and oh, your reviewer will be female and .........blonde.

Proceed with the very simple and completely revealing explanations. I can't wait.

The problem herein lies with defining: What is a conspiracy and, by extension, what is a conspiracy theorist?
Conspiracy theorists are, of course, a very diverse and multi-minded group. The problem they suffer is that they are consistently lumped into one group.
The closest temporal analogy is, perhaps, Muslims. Are all Muslims peaceful and bening? Of course not. Do all Muslims want to blow up anyone who doesn't worship Allah? Of course not. The truth lies somewhere in between. The perception of Muslims as totally one or the other is as incorrect as is the fallacy of not accepting the fact of both components within the community.
The same problem of perception also applies to Conspiracy Theorists. There are some conspiracy buffs that have legitimate points to be made. There are others who think that every unexplained happening has to be a Conspiracy (of the Grandest Kind). The truth, again, is somewhere in the middle. Some stuff happens because someone meant it to happen. But, sometimes, stuff just happens.
Conspiracy theorists suffer from many the same problems as the Muslim community: a needed sense of solidarity but also a crippling inability to criticize abberant members of their community.
I'm all for a good conspiracy, but don't try to get me to think that everything that happens is a Conspiracy. Police yourselves better and then people will be more accepting.


[edit on 2-10-2007 by passenger]

[edit on 2-10-2007 by passenger]

Originally posted by JustMe74
I much prefer this article to the one the original poster presented:
www.publiceye.org...

Everything isn't a conspiracy; usually there is a mundane explanation for things, although I'll admit that I enjoy reading some of the wild theories that fly on ATS and other sites because its entertaining.

Explain in a couple paragraphs or less (et.al, mundanely and simply) the workings and rites of the Temple Masonic. Include ritual meaning, construction meaning, symbols, signs and handshakes. Also, if you'd be so kind, include the deeper mysteries such as Hiram Abiff, the history of Masonry, the factions within Masonry, the degrees and the meaning of the checkerboard floor, two pillars and the altar.

Proceed. I can't wait to hear how mundane this will be.

Police yourselves better and then people will be more accepting.

Not acceptable. Because, as is the tendency, the lemming-ness that is human social order will result in just another substructure of those who have the "Truth" (copyright, trademark) and those who don't. Of course, on many issues, no one really knows, it's all a craps shoot. But the best manipulator with the most buddies, ends up being the last man standing. Not necessarily the truth, although that can sometimes happen, on any given issue, but a popularity contest decides the outcome.

Bunk, says I.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by omnicron

 

A simple explanation is the most probable answer to all questions.

Quantum physics?

It worked.

Theory of Evolution?

A theory is just a theory.

Combustion Engine?

That one worked too.

Proceed with the very simple and completely revealing explanations. I can't wait.

Oh by the way. There are other simple answers to some questions. God doesn't exist. There are no stargates in Iraq. The bible
is a lie. NExt?

omnicron,

sorry, not enough proof. better luck next time.

too bad too, cause you had the chance to redeem the statement that the simplest answer is the most likely and none of those are answers. merely speculation since you didn't provide any other data.

Originally posted by undo
Explain in a couple paragraphs or less (et.al, mundanely and simply) the workings and rites of the Temple Masonic. Include ritual meaning, construction meaning, symbols, signs and handshakes. Also, if you'd be so kind, include the deeper mysteries such as Hiram Abiff, the history of Masonry, the factions within Masonry, the degrees and the meaning of the checkerboard floor, two pillars and the altar.

Proceed. I can't wait to hear how mundane this will be.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the article I linked too. If you want to discuss a different subject, please feel free to create a new topic.

Originally posted by JustMe74


That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or the article I linked too. If you want to discuss a different subject, please feel free to create a new topic.

it's in reference to your mundane statement. if you can explain anything of signficance mundanely, in this case freemasonry, then i'll conceed that the mundane answer is the most likely. but you can't because life is very complex.

the whole simplest, most mundane answer thing, is a cop out.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Yeah, I admit I didn't think of that angle. It is a wild-card in attempting to decide what a true conspiracy is. And, unfortunately, you're right: the big battalions/bank accounts will get their version across in the end. Makes it a more bitter pill to swallow when you know that the true conspiracies will be drowned out by the conspiracies that "they" want you to believe in. A riddle, within a mystery, within an enigma, within a bad joke....

Originally posted by undo
omnicron,

sorry, not enough proof. better luck next time.

too bad too, cause you had the chance to redeem the statement that the simplest answer is the most likely and none of those are answers. merely speculation since you didn't provide any other data.

I don't need to redeem myself because my simple answers are based on truth.

Proof is around you. You have to see it, touch it. My answers are real because these things are around you. You need to see proof of internal combustion engine. Just look for it. Quantum Physics? Read books based on real research.

In the other hand UFOs is not real because there is simplno proof of it. Stargates, God, Jeebus and Santa Claus are not real because it simply doesn't exist. It exist in the mind.

You want to look for proof for UFOs, stargates or the illuminati and go read science fiction books.

By the way, I'm still waiting for the proof that stargates exist. Oh I forgot. It's all in your mind.



[edit on 2-10-2007 by omnicron]

It appears as if I have run into another case of "debunkers" not reading what I write.

In case you few guys from the beginning didn't notice, I at no point said that there was ANYTHING wrong with a SKEPTIC. After all, all us "crazy conspiracy theorists" are skeptics by nature. I am talking about those of you that did the EXACT thing you did in this thread, attacking just for the sake of attacking with absolutely no depth to your attack.

Also, I was NOT attacking the article of Mr. Simple Mind over at debunker.com, I was breaking down the simple mindedness of his opening paragraph where he attempted to sum up ALL conspiracy theory and CT'ers with but a couple of sentences.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of debunkers here that always seem to be against ANY CT and coincidentally only have 100 ats points and 3 posts or so.

Please do us all a favor and actually read the posts in the thread before responding next time. The motto is, after all, DENY IGNORANCE.

This thread is in NO WAY a CT vs SKEPTIC thread, if you will actually READ you will see that I was directing my thread toward the IDIOT corner of the "debunker" side of the fence. Unfortunately, the idiot corner tends to stay quite full.

You will also see that I also said that the CT side of the fence has it's share of morons as well.

Anyhow, you first couple of ppl that attacked when you OBVIOUSLY didn't read or simply just didn't understand what was said proved my point quite nicely.

Thank you!



Jasn

Love the chart, somebody should make posters and sell them.

A debunker as shown is not intelligent, nor wise, nor seeking knowledge. They are a person that 'desires a win.' They are like the person at work that kisses up to the boss. They don't play fair and they have no intention of doing so.

Feigning allegiance to the 'system' they show everyday that the weak are cowards and never really grow up.

The power of the debunker is not the power of the system or of a process without flaws, but is the weakness of the known 'system.'

Ignorance and backwardness are the allies of the debunker, not only in his or her allies but in the sheep that follow them. Moreso the ignorance of science and capability which the debunker hides behind. Our science is not really, but the debunker hides behind this. Our proof is not really anything but the debunker uses it like the matrix hides reality from ones eyes. Our logic is flawed because narrow mindedness causes you to fail before you really begin.

reply to post by denythestatusquo



Well I can also say that fantasy and paranoia are allies of the conspiracy theorists. They believe what exist in their minds.



[edit on 2-10-2007 by omnicron]

Originally posted by omnicron
reply to post by denythestatusquo

 

Well I can also say that fantasy and paranoia are allies of the conspiracy theorists. They believe what exist in their minds.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by omnicron]

actually, many of us have provided as much if not more proof for our "fantasy" as the equivalent mainstream thought on the same subjects.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
reply to post by shearder

 

By the way Shearder, I just read your short story. It was quite good.

Also, at the beginning, when Mike says, "What do you mean MY KIND?" I swear I heard discrimination lawsuit and a racial tirade coming on. Then I remembered I wasn't watching an Eddie Griffin movie.....HAHAHAH

Jasn

LMAO yeah i can well imagine hehehe - thanks for reading it and glad you liked it

Originally posted by SimiusDei
reply to post by shearder

 

In most cases, the great "debunkers" of ATS fall more under the (deserving of respect) heading of "Conspiracy Theorist" as well. In most cases they simply subscribe to a different theory than we do and they do it with a bit of style and intelligence.
No, I definitely wouldn't insult the great ones of ATS by throwing them in the debunker category.

Ok i need to take a step back and adjust my wording no insult intended but yes, i agree, "theorist" is the word i should have used

Like i said there are those "debunkers" that think a 1 liner will suffice for any situation.

But out theorists, however, are intelligent researchers too

Now i hope that was better - i just had to open my mouth to change feet.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by shearder]

Originally posted by SimiusDei
This thread is in NO WAY a CT vs SKEPTIC thread, if you will actually READ you will see that I was directing my thread toward the IDIOT corner of the "debunker" side of the fence. Unfortunately, the idiot corner tends to stay quite full.

You will also see that I also said that the CT side of the fence has it's share of morons as well.

Ah, thank God. I thought you had flipped. I always thought you were rather balanced and flexible in your opinions, which are also usually quite calm and reasonable. Thanks for the clarification. If that's what you mean, than I agree with you 100%

reply to post by undo



When you say proof, do you mean real proof or proof that only exist in one's mind. Show me photographs, videos, material samples. Evidence that cannot be made by simply typing or writing.

Conspiracy theorists always make up proof when they can't accept normal or hunky-dorrey explanations because they want to attract attention to themselves or wish to sell books, DVD, movies etc by making up outrageous claims or simply wish to entertain themselves. "I made up this story! Wow I'm a genius!"

They arrive at conclusions influenced by their own whims and agendas. Tell me any contributions given by the conspiracy theorists to the world in the past 100 years ? Nothing. Just doomsday predictions, fleeting entertainment and more doomsday predictions.

Oh I forgot. The things that conspiracy theorists spew out are only that,
theories. MuaaaHahahahaah.







[edit on 2-10-2007 by omnicron]