Best Conspiracy Thoeries

[beorhthelm]

This above message summarises the suppression UK citizens are under. It's now more shocking than I thought

i will concede i did not know about a minor border incursion, just as you apparently do not know that Obama didnt take office until 20th Jan 2009, 3 months after the event refered to. we've been kept in the dark too long about this incident, why are we not marching up whitehall about it?

What this summaries is the capacity for the conspiracist to absorb and recall a massive about of data relating to thier favored theory, which is genuinly something to be impressed by. I've long felt they grossly waste their talent on such matters, who know what they could achieve.

 

[perseus]

thats not quite true. an atheist will say they dont believe in god. thats it. some of us will engage in debate for sport and if needed can easily prove most tenets to be false (ie evil disproves the omniscient, benevolent ideal of what god is). you cannot proof something doesnt exist, be that god, the unicorns or the missing FA Cup money.

but with done religion to death (and resurection?) lately, lets stick to more nutty conspiracies.

That's absurd !

 

[Acker79]

you cannot proof something doesnt exist, be that god, the unicorns or the missing FA Cup money.

"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.

The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false
from Can Science Prove That God Does Not Exist?

 

[beorhthelm]

that much recursion hurts my head.

 

[Mellotron]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove the existence of God. Simple.

 

[Gwylan]

What this summaries is the capacity for the conspiracist to absorb and recall a massive about of data relating to thier favored theory, which is genuinly something to be impressed by. I've long felt they grossly waste their talent on such matters, who know what they could achieve.

But they don't have the critical expertise to reject facts that don't fit their theory. Take that example of the Syrian 'invasion'. As you rightly pointed out, this took place before Obama took office, therefore it should serve to reject an association between Obama's Peace Prize and Syria ... but we all know that it hasn't

 

[perseus]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove the existence of God. Simple.

That's nihilistic.

 

[readingstockport]

It is not up to those who dispute the existance of god to prove that position. It is up to those who assert the existance of god to prove theirs.

For example, if I asssert the moon is made of pink marshmallow, and fluffy marshmallow at that, with a green cheese and cucumber filling it is not sufficient for me to say prove it does not. I must prove that it does, otherwise the position falls by default.

For the conspiracy nutters it is not enough, or should not be for any sane rational person, to simply say 'I dont beleive and this is what happened' instead without offering some proof that their insane delusions have some basis in fact. No conspiracy theory about, for example, September 11th has stood up to the slightest intelligent scrutiny and not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been produced (that I have seen) that proves 9/11 did not happens exactly as generally accepted. It is up to the wingnuts to show 'we' are wrong, not up to us to show they are.

 

[perseus]

The Devil

It is not up to those who dispute the existance of god to prove that position. It is up to those who assert the existance of god to prove theirs.

For example, if I asssert the moon is made of pink marshmallow, and fluffy marshmallow at that, with a green cheese and cucumber filling it is not sufficient for me to say prove it does not. I must prove that it does, otherwise the position falls by default.

For the conspiracy nutters it is not enough, or should not be for any sane rational person, to simply say 'I dont beleive and this is what happened' instead without offering some proof that their insane delusions have some basis in fact. No conspiracy theory about, for example, September 11th has stood up to the slightest intelligent scrutiny and not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been produced (that I have seen) that proves 9/11 did not happens exactly as generally accepted. It is up to the wingnuts to show 'we' are wrong, not up to us to show they are.

Its an axiom that God exists

 

[readingstockport]

No it is not. There is no 'self-evident' in the proposition that god exists. It is only aximoatic to those who already start from the pre-supposition that god exists. There is no proof of this point. Any person approaching the deabte with no pre-conceptions at all would certainly rejet out of hand either position.

 

[perseus]

Exist Does God

No it is not. There is no 'self-evident' in the proposition that god exists. It is only aximoatic to those who already start from the pre-supposition that god exists. There is no proof of this point. Any person approaching the deabte with no pre-conceptions at all would certainly rejet out of hand either position.

The evidence is in my message. Just take a cursory look.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

It's an oldie but I still think the Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare theory is the barmiest of them all.

There's not a whisper of such a thing during Shakespeare's lifetime, nor for 200 years after his death. It's only when someone called Looney (seriously) comes up with some crackpot theory that the idea starts getting legs. But no-on can agree on a potential 'real' writer and two of the most often-named died before Shakespeare finished writing - but, hey, you can't keep a good conspiracy theory down.

So, a theory that's nearly 200 years old and is supported by no evidence whatsoever has done well to last the pace

But it has legs because what little evidence we have at all is sketchy?

I agree with you. But. Mark Rylance, Derek Jacobi, etc etc etc, all believe that the world knowledge in those plays points to someone else having a hand in them, rather than just being the work of a glover's son from Stratford (and they do know their onions). Not the same as entirely someone else writing them, granted, but enough of a belief to cause a ruction.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

I've been spending time in America and met a Vietnam vet the other night (educated, well-to-do, intelligent enough) who swore blind that Barak Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. Granted, this bloke is rather right-wing, but it made me wonder actually that Fox News and the like might have more of a foothold in the US than I could ever believe.

Quite scary, when you think about it.

 

[sten_super]

But it has legs because what little evidence we have at all is sketchy?

I agree with you. But. Mark Rylance, Derek Jacobi, etc etc etc, all believe that the world knowledge in those plays points to someone else having a hand in them, rather than just being the work of a glover's son from Stratford (and they do know their onions). Not the same as entirely someone else writing them, granted, but enough of a belief to cause a ruction.

Yes, the details of his life are sketchy. But nowhere near as sketchy as the details required for someone else to be the writer.

This 'world knowledge' argument is trotted out quite a lot, but it seems to me it's a complete red herring - Shakespeare would have seen a lot of plays, would have read a lot of books, and would know a lot of people that had been all over Europe, so would have had plenty of material to call upon to write for these settings. It's a bit like arguing that only someone who had been to China could have done the interior decorating of the Pavilion, when in fact it was a Londoner.

It's an argument (IMHO) that's essentially bourne out of jealousy - no-one claimed anything of the sort at the time, because he was just considered a jobbing playwright. It was only in the final years of his life that he got serious recognition (such as the publishing of a folio of his work, which was very rare at the time), and even then it took 200 years for this 'theory' to emerge.

 

[readingstockport]

The evidence is in my message. Just take a cursory look.

No, I saw that.

 

[BadFish]

Conspiracy theories do suggest a mistrust of government and information agencies to varying degrees (see my Poll). The phrase is also a handy way of dismissing ideas which are maybe based in truth other don't want to hear (also see my poll).

 

[Horsham Gull]

Vicente is a football player for brighton. Best one ive heard this year

 

[Gwylan]

Yes, the details of his life are sketchy. But nowhere near as sketchy as the details required for someone else to be the writer.

This 'world knowledge' argument is trotted out quite a lot, but it seems to me it's a complete red herring - Shakespeare would have seen a lot of plays, would have read a lot of books, and would know a lot of people that had been all over Europe, so would have had plenty of material to call upon to write for these settings. It's a bit like arguing that only someone who had been to China could have done the interior decorating of the Pavilion, when in fact it was a Londoner.

It's an argument (IMHO) that's essentially bourne out of jealousy - no-one claimed anything of the sort at the time, because he was just considered a jobbing playwright. It was only in the final years of his life that he got serious recognition (such as the publishing of a folio of his work, which was very rare at the time), and even then it took 200 years for this 'theory' to emerge.

Yes, the whole 'mystery' around Shakespeare is that his life is sketchy. He disappears for 10 years between leaving Stratford and pitching up in London - no-one knows what he's done in that time. And while we know he was an actor, there's very little we know about his life in London. But, just as in the 9/11 example, the conspiracy theorists have weaved an elaborate fantasy that explains some of the gaps but ignores the bits we do know.

As I mentioned before, the remarkable thing about the Shakespeare theories is that it took more than 200 years for an alternative theory to emerge - despite the fact that the theatrical profession is one of the most gossip-ridden environments around.

 

[beorhthelm]

He disappears for 10 years between leaving Stratford and pitching up in London - no-one knows what he's done in that time. And while we know he was an actor, there's very little we know about his life in London.

a jobbing actor in London goes unnoticed for 10 years is hardly the reason to seek any elaborate conspiracy.

 

[Acker79]

I think they were reading this thread earlier: A Conspiracy Theory Too Weird Even for the Internet | Cracked.com