Conspiracies and Neurotiscism

The near total opposite is true

“But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him. Matthew 12:14 ESV

Why do the nations (or kings of the earth) conspire and the people plot in vain? Psalm 2:1 NIV

A ton more all the way to current events

a reply to: TinfoilTophat

Interesting post.

As a long time conspiracy theorist I can attest that it started for me as a way to not become an extremist. Some things happened in my life that engaged me so much, and I felt so betrayed by the American system that I began thinking disturbing dark things.

I began searching for other peoples' similar experiences. One thing lead to another, and then here came the world of conspiracy theory.

Before long my thoughts became more of a point of intrigue. I enjoyed researching conspiracy theories. Finding credible sources and legitimate information became a point of pride, and I found it surprising how much information comes from the horse's mouth.

Then I realized many conspiracy theories have precedent. It's an old world, and people aren't terribly different than they've ever been.

Anyway, as time went on things began to balance out. I accepted Jesus as my savior, and my entire perspective on life changed. I'm full of joy and optimism. I'm wholly content in life.

Somewhere along the way I began losing time for such deep investigative research. Those were the good ol' days, but I am still very much a conspiracy theorist.

I am a conspiracy theorist, but I am neither neurotic nor paranoid.

theorist:

1. A committed belief in something for which there is no substantial evidence.
2. A compulsion to 'prove' this belief and apply it to every aspect of life.
3. A hostile response to any attempt by others to disprove the belief.

I don’t see a definition of conspiracy there so I left it out of the quote 🤷🏽‍♂️

Here. I’ll help you refine with a definition.

conspiracy
/kən-spîr′ə-sē/

noun
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

a reply to: Dalamax

Conspiracy theories are not conspiracies.

You want to play dictionary definitions? Aren't they part of what you guys call the Official Story? How come you accept them, then, and present them as evidence? How do you know the suits at Big Dictionary ain't lyin' to ya?

Never mind. No skin off my nose. Let's play Dictionary Definitions!

A few definitions of 'conspiracy theory'

• (i) A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators; (ii) a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public. Webster's
  
  
• A belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon. Oxford
  
  
• An attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy. Encyclopedia Britannica
  
  
• An explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Wikipedia

You'll notice that none of these definitions states that conspiracy theories are true. In fact, they suggest the opposite.

Yet, as VictorVonDoom reminded us on the previous page, conspiracies abound in the real world. Some very famous ones are listed on this page. But tell me -- and the question is open to anyone reading this thread -- were any of these conspiracies uncovered through the spread of conspiracy theories about them? I would love to see someone prove that.

Conspiracies are real. Conspiracy theories are made-up stories. Above Top Secret has been in existence for over twenty years, and literally hundreds of conspiracy theories have been discussed on it. Not a single one has ever proven true. And no amount of 'denying ignorance' is ever going to change that. Sorry, folks.

theory
/thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē/

noun
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.
"a fine musician who had never studied theory."

I would have thought it was self explanatory, nothing about fantasy in the definitions 🤷🏽‍♂️

You guys? Why do you post like your talking to a paranoid person?

You should probably get a grip before you ‘grapple’ with shadows 😂

You’ll notice that all your definitions attempt to portray a powerful or elite in the background and don’t mention criminality at all.

Check out the definition of conspiracy again 👍
a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy
You'll notice that none of these definitions states that conspiracy theories are true. In fact, they suggest the opposite. That statement is quite erroneous. The first two are just informative statements and neither suggests fact or fiction. But the other two seriously allude to conspiracy theories as fanciful. As with all theories, they are theories till they are proven false. OR TRUE.
Just a couple for you, the Gulf of Tonkin episode. Whoops, a theory till it came out as fact. The Contra affair, same thing. Seek and ye shall find.

a reply to: crayzeed

Just a couple for you, the Gulf of Tonkin episode. Whoops, a theory till it came out as fact. The Contra affair, same thing. Seek and ye shall find.

Thank you for responding to my request, crazyeed. Neither of the conspiracies you speak of was on the page I linked to, but never mind. Let's have a look at them.

In neither the Gulf of Tonkin nor the Iran-Contra incidents did a popular conspiracy theory exist and lead to disclosure and prosecution. The truth about the Tonkin incident, which took place in 1964, was made public by a naval officer, John White, in a mainstream newspaper article published that same year, and was confirmed by Presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, who was VP at the time of the incident, in 1968. In 1970 Congress rescinded the resolution it took, on the basis of its understanding of the incident, to support military action against North Vietnam.

Similarly, the sale of US weapons to Iran using Marxist guerrillas as intermediaries was first reported by As-Shiraa, a well established and highly reputable Lebanese magazine. There was no 'conspiracy theory'. There was a journalistic exposé.

You might have done better with some of the conspiracies on the page I quoted -- for instance, the Tuskegee story was rubbished as a conspiracy theory by officials trying to cover it up. They were able to do that because the whistleblowers were mainly ordinary citizens, not politicians, journalists or military officers, and were, to boot, poor and Black. As usual, it took a White whistleblower to make America listen.

The fundamental difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is that one is true and the other is not. Most of you, like Dalamax above, may resist that understanding even to the point of trying to distort the meaning of simple English words in order to justify it. No surprise here; as I said before, conspiracy theories are psychological syndromes that mimic religious belief and are most probably adopted for the very same reasons. Someone who has embraced a conspiracy theory will no more give it up than a committed Christian will accept that Jesus was just a man.

Unlike a conspiracy theorist, I am ready to be persuaded that my 'theory' is untrue.To persuade me, you simply have to prove that one popular conspiracy theory (one will do) was well founded and led to the exposure of criminality or political skulduggery of some other kind. But you haven't done that, and I doubt that you will be able to.

Nice try 😂🤣 so a theory is an unreality now?

Got a source for that.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy

a reply to: Dalamax

Thank you for pointing out my error. I have edited my post to correct it.

a reply to: TinfoilTophat

I listened to a caller on local talk radio who spoke about climate change. He seemed obsessed about it and listed the usual talking points which I personally questioned. Conspiracy theorists don't seem to be so fixated on an issue and appear to openly question whatever they hear and seek to learn more whats going on. The ones that decry that point of view and ridicule the conspiracy theorists seem to be content to repeat whatever they hear as long as it bolsters their views and comes from who they perceive as authority figures.
If people haven't become less trusting in authority by now, they deserve being taken advantage of.

Conspiracies and Neurotiscism

I listen to C2C, Clive L, Alex J and others, and I've' come to the conclusion that most CTs and the theorist that spew them are charlatans just using their www sites and AM radio to sell you survival materials, books, drugs, vitamins, crypto, dog medicine, Gold & Silver coins, anything that will appeal to people living in fear of the future. It's a well established market and the fear stratagems work very well; the understanding and implementation of manipulative group dynamics is well known and understood by everyone with just a smattering of awareness. Sadly though...

Why let a good conspiracy go to waste?



No that's not neurotic at all!

Who wants to buy 10ft of paracord. It might someday be your life line...only $36usd. Hurry.. Supply's are limited!! Free Shipping!!! Sound familiar?

a reply to: lilzazz

I've' come to the conclusion that most CTs and the theorist that spew them are charlatans

And hucksters, just as you say. But I think you are alluding to professional conspiracy theorists.

There are also amateur conspiracy theorists. They comprise most of the ATS membership, though we do have a few professional conspiracy-mongers as well. Unlike the pros, who have no belief in the narratives they trade on so shamelessly, the amateurs are true believers who become uncontrollably triggered if you dare to question their beliefs.

There are vastly many more amateur conspiracy theorists than professional ones in the world and the professionals only exist to exploit the amateurs.

The amateurs aren't hucksters or charlatans. They are simply ignorant, credulous and easily duped, the more so because each is convinced that he or she is a brave 'independent thinker' who spurns the 'official story' 'fed' to 'the sheep'.

Their plight deserves our compassion, but we should also be aware that many of them are xenophobes, bigots or fascists who have embraced conspiracy theories to justify their hatred of others. A sorry lot they may be, but they are also very dangerous.

a reply to: Kallipygywiggy
Your semantics are completely wrong and quite disingenuous.
Conspiracy: When 2 or more people collude together (conspire) to change/alter or hide certain events or actions for someone else's benefit. ie, like lying about the Tonkin /Contra incidents. Just because you haven't heard about anyone forming a theory about these does not make them wrong and neither does it alter the fact because some whistle blower exposed the conspiracy.
ALL these "hidden" conspiracies when they are suspected are "theories" till proven correct or wrong. If you would care to look there are numerous conspiracies (especially in war time) that have been proven facts after the event.

a reply to: crayzeed

Your definition of ‘conspiracy’ is completely wrong, old chum. I leave to you the brain-building exercise of working out what your error is; any intelligent child could spot it with ease.

After you've done that, you may find it easier to parse the difference between 'conspiracy' and 'conspiracy theory'.

Just because you haven't heard about anyone forming a theory about these does not make them wrong

No, of course not. But you cannot truthfully claim that a conspiracy theory about these (very real) conspiracies ever existed until you can show us evidence of one. Obviously you can't, or you wouldn't be waffling about semantics.

Not really a very good try, but here's a 🍪 for taking part. Next!

originally posted by: TinfoilTophat

What are the defining traits of a conspiracy theorist?

The same as for the other 99.9% of humanity, and summarized at 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.”

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

The only conspiracy that actually matters, and people refuse to wake up to it, cause it doesn't tickle their ears. That's why they listen to people like Alex Jones or Alan Moore instead, and are none the wiser for it. There is a "teacher" for every sort, for every preference or desire for what they want to hear. Something for everyone to waste their time on and get distracted by. For most on ATS, it involves right wing political propaganda. For a few, it's left wing propaganda. For others it's scientism they get taken in by, and for others it's other religious propaganda (scientism itself also being a false religion). For some it's nationalism and patriotism, for others it's evolutionary mythology and philosophical naturalism. And for yet others it's counterfeit spirituality, or counterfeit Christianity. And another group, a particular large group on ATS, it's false stories about UFO's and aliens that they're in to. Then there are those who are into false stories about the so-called "New World Order", illuminati and "The Jewish Banking Conspiracy" as you put it, with no actual understanding of what is truly going on. Who is really pulling all the strings here, "the god of this system of things" "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (2 Cor 4:4; Rev. 12:9).

The "teachers" such as Alex Jones, Esmaeilpour and Alan Moore (the names you mentioned), just cater to their market. Trying to give their audience the impression that they will become smarter for listening to them, that they are worth listening to, that people will gain understanding of how this world works or human behaviour if they do so, so that they are no longer easily fooled like those other people. Yet in reality, they are equally taken in, just by a different teacher and stream of thought, a different set of "false stories"/myths that tickle their ears and plays on their emotions. A different propaganda set of philosophies/ideas.

...

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. ...

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

...

So that bolded trick there at the end is pushing 2 buttons (emotions) at once, fear and pride. It's arguably the most common one that is pushed by the likes of Alex Jones, Esmaeilpour and Alan Moore. None of these "teachers" are actually worth listening to. They will not make you any wiser, wake you up to anything important or allow you to get a better understanding of yourselves or others. They have nothing of value to offer, no brilliant insight, no hidden truths that are important to realize. Just playing your ego, your vanity, your pride, and your fear of being seen as stupid or ignorant (like those other people, you know, those "narcissists", 'you don't wanna be like those do you? So listen to me and become better than them.' That's the idea here, pointing out what's supposedly going wrong with others so one can play people's vanity and pride and get them to listen to you so they supposedly don't have to end up like those others; and in the process feel better about themselves as if they're not like those others; which is a lie, a delusion, cause in reality, their behaviour still matches the pattern of behaviour described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and Ephesians 4:14, just like those others they feel they are different from, unwilling to "put up with" actual "beneficial teaching" and facing up to "the truth" of the matter).

... Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. ...

Sources: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Proverbs 13:20

The one walking with the wise will become wise,

But the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly.

The first piece of advice cannot be done on ATS. It's the 2nd warning that is taking place on ATS.

Proverbs 14:6,7

The scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge comes easily to the person with understanding.

7 Stay away from the foolish man,

For you will not find knowledge on his lips.

Stay away from ATS, you will not find any knowledge here, you wil not gain insight or understanding about anything that truly matters. Cause you don't wanna hear it in the first place (pardon if that sounds a bit cynical, but it's the honest truth of the matter, you do not want to put up with actual "beneficial teaching" from our “Grand Instructor”, “the One teaching you to benefit yourself,* [Or “for your own good.”] the One guiding you in the way you should walk.” Isaiah 30:20; 48:17).

Proverbs 1:20-33

20 True wisdom cries aloud in the street.

It keeps raising its voice in the public squares.

21 At the corner* [Lit., “head.”] of the busy streets it calls out.

At the entrances of the city gates it says:

22 “How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience?

How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule?

And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?

23 Respond to my reproof.* [Or “Turn back when I reprove.”]

Then I will pour out my spirit for you;

I will make my words known to you.

24 Because I called out, but you kept refusing,

I stretched out my hand, but no one was paying attention,

25 You kept neglecting all my advice

And rejecting my reproof,

26 I also will laugh when disaster strikes you;

I will mock when what you dread comes,

27 When what you dread comes like a storm,

And your disaster arrives like a storm wind,

When distress and trouble come upon you.

28 At that time they will keep calling me, but I will not answer;

They will eagerly look for me, but they will not find me,

29 Because they hated knowledge,

And they did not choose to fear Jehovah.

30 They refused my advice;

They disrespected all my reproof.

31 So they will bear the consequences* [Lit., “eat from the fruit.”] of their way,

And they will be glutted with their own counsel.* [Or “schemes; plans.”]

32 For the waywardness of the inexperienced will kill them,

And the complacency of fools will destroy them.

33 But the one listening to me will dwell in security

And be undisturbed by the dread of calamity.”

originally posted by: Loadandgo
a reply to: TinfoilTophat

...

Before long my thoughts became more of a point of intrigue. I enjoyed researching conspiracy theories. Finding credible sources and legitimate information became a point of pride, and I found it surprising how much information comes from the horse's mouth.

Proverbs 16:18

Pride is before a crash,

And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

But thanks for underscoring some of the points made in my previous comment about vanity and pride. Even some of the things mentioned about having your ears tickled (being intrigued) according to your desires (what you want to take an interest in, what intrigues you, what pleases you to read up about, what you enjoy, where your preferences lie*).

*: Jesus said: “This is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.”​—John 3:19, 20.

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

In that case, may I point out some strings (philosophies and myths) that are still holding you captive to the one "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" (Rev. 12:9)?

Pay close attention to the bolded part and the remark I added there.

“What Is Truth?”

THE two men facing each other could scarcely have been more dissimilar. One was a politician who was cynical, ambitious, wealthy, ready to do anything to advance his own career. The other was a teacher who spurned wealth and prestige and was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. Needless to say, these two men did not see eye to eye! On one matter in particular, they disagreed absolutely​—the matter of truth.

The men were Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal. Why? Jesus explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!”* [According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.” Is this how you view the matter of truth? If so, is it possible that you have adopted this view without thoroughly questioning it? Even if you have not, do you know how much this philosophy affects your life?

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing. [whereislogic: nonsense, utter contradictory nonsense, and trying to use that false admission (a lie) to promote himself as supposedly being humble, which he was not, false modesty, just trying to make himself look better for his audience, marketing himself. And he knows it, he also knows he's full of crap, so that's 2 more things he knows that he's lying about here.]

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” ...

I'm sorry, I have to cut it off because it's getting too much and I don't want to get in trouble. But a crucial 3 paragraphs are coming up. Just like the next page:

Why Search for Truth?

originally posted by: whereislogic

...

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

...

Here's an example of Richard Dawkins, a famous promoter of evolutionary myths/false stories, lies and unverified philosophies, posing as a scientist for self-marketing reasons and lying about not being a philosopher, using the reverse appeal to pride that plays on our fear of seeming stupid (or less "sophisticated" to use his term), to get his audience to either believe, or at least see some merit in a contradictory philosophy/idea about the word "nothing", utter nonsense (actually a misuse of the word "nothing", treating it as if it can also be used to refer to "something", the exact opposite). It's all wrapped up into one little remark he puts in there (I want to use the Dutch expression "tussen neus en lippen door", but there's nothing that comes close in English, it says "in passing" on the website I'm looking at, but that's not it). He just sneaks it in there to push some buttons to get people on board. The phrase in question is sneaked in there at 0:50, it concerns the expressions "naive person" and "sophisticated physicist", the seed is laid there, that if you go along with his nonsensical and contradictory misuse of the word "nothing" and what they're selling (as promoted by physicists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking), then you are like these supposedly sophisticated physicists (charlatan philosophers in reality), i.e. smart, whereas if you don't want to go along with it you are a "naive person", i.e. stupid, ignorant. It's actually both a regular appeal to pride as well as a reverse appeal to pride, all wrapped up in one little remark 'on the side' (a better translation of "tussen neus en lippen door"). Very cunning, easy to overlook (and the people who made the original video* don't say a thing about it either, nor do they point out that Dawkins is lying when he says he's not a philosopher; *: the orginal video was uploaded by one of the Discovery Institute's channels, I made a few adjustments, or additions actually).

Full title and context (plalylist):

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

One of the preceding videos in the playlist shows how Stephen Hawking is trying to sell the same nonsense under the marketingbanner "Science" and through his Rockstar reputation and hype as a supposed "scientist" (while acting as a philosopher, trying to market or sell his philosophies to his gullible fans, Lucius Lavin style, see subsequent videos in the playlist for that character from the show Stargate Atlantis, who also has a way to get people to hang on his every word or lips, what's the expression? To think he has something of value to say, some important wisdom one needs to listen to, even though it's just "empty speech" as the Bible puts it):

The full title of that video is: "Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions (Prologue: Stephen Hawking's nonsense)"

John Lennox explains it well. But even he on other occasions is full of crap. Especially once he starts promoting the philosophy of the Trinity and how he interprets Genesis 1 (in particular the expression "And God said: ...") and the expression "the Word" as used at John 1:1, akin to how Justin did it. In the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” John Lennox does something similar (he just swaps out "reason" with another word again, I think it was "mind" if I remember correctly, that is not how it is meant at John 1:1, and it has nothing to do with the expression "And God said" in Genesis chapter 1. Which is interpreted by some, not just John Lennox, as speaking things into existence, and then they start talking some vague nonsense about vibrations, although I don't think I've heard John Lennox doing that, but I usually tune out long before he has a chance to poison my mind with that crap if he wants to go there). All the names I've mentioned, including John Lennox, are exactly again the type of "teachers" who do their best to 'tickle people's ears' mentioned at 2 Timothy 4:3,4; try to pass themselves off as people worth listening to. They're not. And they are quite full of themselves (a result of being so capable of captivating an audience).

That's not to say that John Lennox can't point out the obvious when addressing Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design though, as he does in the video above. And he does explain that well enough. But he could have done it in under 10 minutes, the talk I took the video from above, goes on for another hour. With nothing particularly valuable in it. Those 7 minutes were the best bit. And it saves you some time listening to the rest.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

Yep. I could be hanging out on a site where most people agree with how I see things, right or wrong, but here this is not the case. It's holding up my thoughts on things to an adversarial crowd that helps keep me , at least, trying to be honest with myself.

Honestly, OPs original mention of self refection sent me back to my youth, searching for whatever it might have been that I slipped into that set me on this tangent. All the books back then by Orwell, Huxley, Wells, etc were important sure, but this morning I found, way back in my memories store, that Frost poem '' The Road Not Taken''

The sensations surfaced of what choice to make, looking down those paths where there was no end in sight only the trodden leaves to tell the difference. So similar and both, though of course there were so many others not mentioned, holding the promise of a future.

Taking that road less traveled was for me like Frost, the choice to make and i think that at least to some degree, essential to this question of what is some of the core of being into conspiracy. This then leads me into the notion that this road less traveled has become a thoroughfare, a boulevard nay, an eight lane autobahn.

Here's the road least travelled, and it has never been travelled by you, Orwell, Huxley, Wells nor Frost (or any of the other names that have come up in this thread, Alex Jones, Alan Moore, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, John Lennox):

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.” (Jesus at Matthew 7:13,14)

Ecclesiastes 12:8-14

8 “The greatest futility!”* [Or “vanity.”] says the congregator. “Everything is futile.”

9 Not only had the congregator become wise but he continually taught the people what he knew, and he pondered and made a thorough search in order to compile* [Or “arrange in order.”] many proverbs. 10 The congregator sought to find delightful words and to record accurate words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are like oxgoads, and their collected sayings are like firmly embedded nails; they have been given from one shepherd. 12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.

Psalm 23:1 (concerning the "one shepherd" mentioned above, the only teacher actually worth listening to, well unless another teacher such as his Son Jesus, is relaying the same teachings to you, the teachings Jesus himself says his Father taught him; John 8:26-28, 38)

Jehovah is my Shepherd.

I will lack nothing.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: TinfoilTophat
... Are you gonna wait for the election interference theory to be ridiculed and believe it because they say so.

I believe CNN's choice of programming in the lead up to the 2016 election got Trump elected as president, and they did it on purpose (spending way more airtime on Trump than Clinton; and they're doing it again). To facilitate increased profits for these types (and on their behalf):

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.”

In the end though, neither Trump nor Biden, nor any other US president in the past 50 years have decreased military expenditures or argued against military aid programs to countries such as Ukraine and Israel. Not since JFK got assassinated for doing something against their interests*, one of those few conspiracy theories that is actually true. (*: and they got the message across: 'play ball, or be assassinated')