That poster was me.Originally Posted by augur
I merely stated the idea stated in the Bush quote was noble.
It is just rhetoric and I don't think for a minute it will ever be realized though, and I am certainly not a "blind follower" or believe everything is for our benefit and above board.
I agree and or am familiar with a lot of what you have said, but you weave it into a whole greater than it's parts.
You have not supplied any evidence for a global conspiracy.
Please don't use me as an example of the deluded majority you believe in.
I guess you're of the view that the December 2001 tape found in Jalalabad was a fake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1708091.stm
It's plausible but in the face of the additional evidence that the attacks of September the 11th were carried out by Islamist terrorists rather irrelevent.
The difference that has occured to Al Quada is not so much one of size or effectiveness but one of structure. Prior to 9/11 they did attack the USS Cole for example. The change has been from a heirarchical organisation to a more widespread ideology.
This is certainly plausible. There have been alergic reactions to traces of egg used in the production process. However I note that you are rather less discriminating in your sources than I am. I'm made suspicious by your description of the vaccine doing the rounds of schools and colleges. Perhaps things have changed but I thought the MMR vaccine was given no later than 15 months old. That's some pretty precocious college students. I've tried to look this up and found no references. Do you have a link or more details to search on.
Note that even if true this demonstrates that vaccines are monitored for safety. There are bound to be side effects of any medical intervention. We routinely assess whether the side effects are worse than the untreated disease. Mumps was a common childhood disease before vaccination. 1 in 20,000 case result in hearing loss. 2 in 100,000 cases result in encephalitis (brain damage) and or those 1% are fatal.
Your 5 people falling "deathly ill" represent a far smaller percentage of the vaccinated population than those who would actually die if mumps were left unvaccinated.
Do you have a reference for that? I can only find information of a mumps strain that was withdrawn in 1992. Also as Matt says the MMR vaccine recommended dates are 13 months and 31/4 - 4 years old (see vaccine schedule here)
Cognitive Dissonance is often used by conspiracy theorists to explain why thier ideas are not widely held.
It was a phenomenon first written about in 1957 by Leon Festinger with reference to the failed prophesies of a UFO doomsday cult. The followers were so invested in the beliefs of the cult, in selling up property and making other devotions to the cult that when the prophesy failed to materialise there was conflict between their actions (investing their time and money into a creed) and the certainty that the world had not ended. To believe that they were wrong was not in line with their actions. The word cognitive dissonance refers tot he discomfort caused when one's actions are no in line with one's beliefs. Either the actions or the beliefs must change to remove this discomfort. In this case Festinger noted that the followers actions were largely irreversible and so they were willing to believe their leader when he told them that doomsday was averted for their sake.
One supposes that conspiracy theorists speculate that if we were to accept their beliefs we would no longer be able to act as we currently do. We have too much invested in our current lifestyles to change our actions and so our beliefs conform to a not conspirational world view.
Often a shorthand is used cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by changing your mind. In fact this is not true. Only when ones actions are inextricably tied to a belief does cognitive dissonance act to preserve that belief. Cognitive dissonance may in fact work to change belief. If you coerce an atheist to attend church, pray and pay a tithe you will find that they will suffer cognitive dissonance. Without the freedom to change their actions they are liable to change their beliefs.
What of the conspiracy theorist themselves. Are they immune to cognitive dissonance. Perhaps evidence A convinces a person to believe in a theory. They become somewhat evangelical in their belief. They forge a personality around it. If evidence A is then shown conclusively to be bunk then what discomfort would they suffer in modifying their belief?
Lets take this little nugget for example
People are drawn to Icke’s theories for all manner of reasons. Perhaps they belief that 911 was an inside job, perhaps they come at it from the federal reserve conspiracy viewpoint or are researching evidence for ancient alien contact ala von Daniken. They may the become invested in such theories and would be upset by the assertion that their proponent was mentally ill. As an aside I personally don’t care if he’s locked up for his own good and diagnosed by a dozen competent clinicians as chronically Dagenham Heathway. I’ll still judge the theories solely on the basis of the evidence put forward in their support and the falsifiable predictions they make.
What greater evidence of mental illness could there be than a messiah complex. The professed belief that they are chosen by god above all others?
Icke’s later claimed that he’d been misrepresented by the media, that all he claimed was that he was an aspect of the Infinite consciousness. Whilst I find such Akasha field waffle equally worthless and risible but some followers might find this more palatable. Is this truly consistent with his original press conference where he announced “I am a channel for the Christ spirit. The title was given to me very recently by the Godhead." And his later statement on the Wogan show “I am the Son of God” (note the pronoun “the” not “a”)
Do you wonder if someone not so invested in the defense of Icke might not be so accepting of his post hoc justifications. I watched that Wogan interview live. I’m not doctor but in my unprofessional opinion the man was not at all well.
I might be prepared to suspect that his later pronouncements on being the chosen one reflect a marginally more grounded view but that he never said what he said, that he was misrepresented? Not by me. I'm only going on the words he spoke live in my living room.
Credibility can be a very difficult issue, you are right. Have you considered the possibility of the influence of disinformation agents? Presenting credible evidence right alongside outright BS is a good way of getting people to disregard the real stuff, in fact many accuse David Icke of doing just this with his lizards (including Alex Jones, who has labelled David the 'turd in the punchbowl').
No, people unknowingly tow the party line by obstructing, condescending to and ridiculing those who merely wish to get to the truth of some genuinely quite serious matters. It's just another obstacle for the powers that be to hide behind; as I've previously stated, you have no justification for your assumption that such theories are ridiculous.
And to you, namaste :)
I apologise if I caused offence, I admit I came off a little severe there.That poster was me.
I merely stated the idea stated in the Bush quote was noble.
It is just rhetoric and I don't think for a minute it will ever be realized though, and I am certainly not a "blind follower" or believe everything is for our benefit and above board.
I agree and or am familiar with a lot of what you have said, but you weave it into a whole greater than it's parts.
You have not supplied any evidence for a global conspiracy.
Please don't use me as an example of the deluded majority you believe in.
What I was attempting to illustrate is that its very easy for them to portray this grand vision of a wondrous new world; however what people say and what people do are not always the same thing, especially politicians. Given that they do not generally elaborate on what the actual agenda is (with various politicians dropping the phrase into their usual rhetoric), I feel we as a population ought to be more skeptical of their intentions; we let these guys get away with far too much already!I'd also like to make it clear that I'm not attempting to attack anybody here, and would like this to remain on a friendly level
One could equally well accuse the media of this same thing, the thing is it is much more organised and powerful and has *always* been there telling us 'this is how it is' ... I agree that this is a problem on both sides, though.
I agree that symbolism is a sketchy field, and that symbols can be interpreted in many ways. I do, however, find some credibility to the idea that some street layouts in Washington DC (for example) appear to have Masonic or other occult symbolism built in (especially since we know that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and we can still see Masonic symbology on the dollar bill - e.g. drawing a hexagram atop the 'Eye of Providence' or 'All-Seeing Eye' connects the letters M-A-S-O-N); for example, the roads which form an inverted pentagram shape with the White House at the inverted apex (there's also a hexagram, and what appears to be an owl with the Capitol Building in its belly, sitting atop a pyramid, inside another pyramid). Interestingly, the inverted pentagram is used as a symbol of Satanism (it's generally known in this context as the Baphomet or 'goat of Mendes' - the scapegoat), and has another Crowley-type/Thelemic meaning of 'spirit descending into matter'. Also interesting to note along these lines is the shape of the Pentagon!
You might well say 'so what?', but remember we appear to have secret societies in government and world leaders performing ritualistic occult ceremonies! Is your curiosity not piqued just a little?
Last edited by augur; 21st February 2008 at 12:02 PM.
Sorry, browser issues resulted in a double post, please ignore this :)
Occam's razor anyone?
... can very easily become a double-edged blade, Mr WooFinder :)
I'm not really asking that everybody change their lifestyle and merely conform to a new belief; it's not as though I am free of the so-called system, I too have a bank account and real-world things to worry about. The thing is, I am prepared to accept the possibility that many of the things I and everybody else am/are involved with in everyday life might not be all they seem, and that we may have good reason to question the intent. For example:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0
This is another very complicated subject. How do you know that he is mentally ill, and did not have what we might call a genuine 'spiritual' experience? We might expect some outlandish remarks, in this case, at least initially! How do we know that this does not occur more often, and that our perceptions of what is happening do not lead us to a false conclusion? I am familiar with the inherent opposition of scientific skeptics to spiritual matters, by the way :)
See above; particularly here though, a 'unified field theory' has long been sought after by scientists and physicists (including Albert Einstein), as I'm sure you're aware. Taoist and Buddhist monks would probably just laugh and say 'of course it exists'. After all, there must be an absolute truth to the universe, no matter how ineffable or incomprehensible it might appear to us. How do you know that within all of these 'worthless, risible' wafflings about spirituality/Akasha/chi/life-force/Zen/infinity/whatever you want to call it, there is not a glimmer of truth? This is not to espouse it as absolutely valid, but I find the quick dismissal of these subjects by scientists in general to be quite arrogant, no offence intended.
Have you watched the Wogan show where Icke returned?
Last edited by augur; 21st February 2008 at 01:05 PM.
Which just tells me - you dont understand it, have not applied it, and are probably aware of what its implications are for all of the above.
Just confirms my suspicions really......but please....do carry on with the others......there is little for me to see here.....8)
define "small cell", they where able to organise a bombing of the WTC back in 1993 remember. Admittedly AQ do work on something of a franchise basis rather than a formal membership, but the overwhelming evidence is that OBL gave his approval for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to organise the 9/11 attacks.
Was December 2001 "late in the day"? Do you believe that the videos of him with the hijackers, and planners of 9/11 don't mean anything?I disagree with him where he says that bin Laden claimed the trade centre since, he did not do so until very late in the day when the bogey man of al quaeda had been very strongly promoted for a long time and it would be silly not to exploit it.
On a slightly related issue - the research on cognitive dissonance has gone through a great deal of controversy in recent years in mainstream psychology.
A quick search on Google scholar should help those of you interested in that debate.
You can assume a superior manner if you wish, and assume that you understand it better than I; it doesn't make you right. As you were
Skeptic means we don't believe things without evidence. I've seen no evidence for the conspiracy theory you describe and believe me you're not the only person I've repeatedly asked to no avail.
Remember my analogy of the bee and the flower. They have evolved a symbiotic relationship. The flower feed nectar to the bee. The bee distributes pollen for the flower.
Scientists recognise the process by which such processes evolve. Natural selection. This requires no secret communications, no planning, no design, just unavoidable mutual reaction to visible changes iterated over time. Yet our instinct when seeing such a system are to attribute its complex elegance to design. Were we not to know about the simpler explanation we might subscribe to the intelligent design theory.
CT and ID have much in common. Both fit the known facts. Both include layers of belief above a simpler explanation. Neither can present any actual evidence. Neither can make any falsifiable predictions and so both are worthless theories.
I have repeatedly asked for evidence. Or even to be pointed in a direction where such evidence may be found. I've assured you that I'm prepared to revise my opinions and demonstrated that I'm not ignorant of the subjects about which such theories are woven.
Where is the evidence, where are the falsifiable predictions?
As you sit there reading this, composing your response in your mind, picking which parts to address first, there is in the back you your mind a desire to present a killer argument. Your eyes take in my words on the screen, hoping not only to win the debate but to truly understand my position. You know that when you respond, your response will only be effective if you understand where I'm coming from. You know how I almost want to be wrong, to learn something new as you often feel the same yourself with regard to many subjects even this one. You know the delight of revelation and understand the sort of evidence I'm seeking. You're troubled that such evidence is so hard to find. If you could present a prediction that Icke's theories make, that my understanding of the world wouldn't accept and then show that such a prediction had come true, that would be sufficient. It's all you need. You'll soon be racking you mind for the best evidence you have, if you're not already struggling away at this task. Yet each potential piece of evidence you discard as you suspect that it won't be good enough to convince me. You've heard the responses before, the explanations. DON'T THINK ABOUT THOSE EXPLANTIONS. They'll shake your belief. DON'T CONSIDER IF THOSE EXPLANTIONS ARE BETTER EXPLANATIONS. Being better explanations doesn't make them true. Laugh them of with good humour. Pity the gullible fools for accepting simple alternatives. Try instead, as hard as you can instead to find some evidence that doesn't have alternative explanations.
Think back. Think back to before you considered the beliefs of a man who seemed to have a messiah complex. Think back to when you had doubts. Was there anything, anything at all that first really convinced you. Not something what made you wonder. No, wondering isn't enough to convince me. You now know that you're talking to someone who has also wondered still wonders. We need to try to take this a stage further if that can be done. Is there some possible thing that might have been really convincing back then when your doubts were fresh. Think back. Not all the things that just really-make-senseTM when first viewed from within this strange new perspective that you were exploring. You now know this is called confirmation bias and won't convince me. Think back. Did anything come along that finally blew away those last resilient doubts? Anything? Anything at all? Anything that stopped you wondering if you might be wrong. Anything that stopped you thinking about that probability?
Or are some doubts still there? Think back. Perhaps you have not killed off your former skeptical being. Perhaps a few doubts remain. Of course naive doubt that our governments could do evil has died in the face of unassailable evidence covert military atrocities. That childish doubt deserved to die. But what about other doubts. Think back to the doubts you might have had that all this corruption might not actually be designed by secret forces? Doubts that considered if the appearance of design might be coincidence. Ha! Coincidence! How naive, you think now. But think back. Consider that coincidences do happen all the time with no rhyme or reason. People who know this, who know that random happenings are expected to throw up curious patterns are not convinced by coincidence, only hard evidence. What about doubt in the appearance of design coming from the knowledge that in evolved systems like human society, the appearance of design should be expected just like in the natural world. Did you have those doubts? Do they survive. Some last lingering doubts about this one extra step that Icke takes and skeptics can't. Are these lingering doubts ill nourished through lack of attention. As you wonder about them, as they start to get the attention they need are they beginning to get stronger?
Will these doubts start to pop these questions back into your head even when you're away from your keyboard. As you enjoy the smell of the dinner you're cooking will you wonder "Where's the evidence that would convince a skeptic?" As you eat that warm tasty meal will you consider if the global conspiracy is all just a theory that seems to fit, rather than a theory that describes an undeniable truth. As you sit in your comfy chair watching the news and see that it's biased will you muse on why and wonder "Why isn't there any evidence that's good enough to suggest it's more than just an isolated artefact of an imperfect world? Is plausible deniability plausible enough" As you lie in bed settling into your mattress will these doubts emerge as you ask yourself "Do I only reject a simpler perspective because it's too uncomfortable to change my outspoken opinions?"
If you start to suffer from these doubts then that my friend, that suffering, is cognitive dissonance. It is a new emerging belief that the theories of this deluded puppet of neo nazis and holocaust deniers, might be elaborate nonsense, clashing uncomfortably with your erstwhile vocal support. It will continue to be uncomfortable until you either suppress the doubts or change your ways. If you've too much invested in your current course of action then you belief is unlikely to change whatever the rational skeptical response should be.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks