Question: Does the nature of ATS attract religious members? Either way, is this good or bad?

The question is in the title people.

To believe in a conspiracy often requires a leap of faith. Yes there may be evidence, yes there may be reason to suspect. But often, we see entire threads and subjects being written in detail - on nothing but faith (not the religious type of faith) with NO evidence to support said theories.

This often extends to factually based subjects - subjects that are rooted in scientific consensus, or on historic / social truths. Theories or just blatant nonsensical outbursts are given creedance because 'faith' is expressed in them by proponents of any given cause or conviction.

Is this requirement to have a faith 'capacity' to arguably fully participate within ATS a good or a bad thing?

Does the propensity of religious folks to act on 'faith' mean that we are likely to see a greater number of religious people participating on ATS than otherwise?

And does this lower 'threshold' for sceptical, empirically based enquiry harm or improve the ATS community and content?

ATS, please discuss.

Parallex.

reply to post by Parallex


I can only speak for myself of course.

I was an athiest or at best believed we might all be God on a multiple experience of life when I joined this site almost three years ago and its been almost a year since I decided to come to God.

I have no religious background via past, family, friends and had no idea what was within the bible regarding salvation etc. I had heard of easter and Christmas but never knew anything about it in depth.

Things happened in my life and my choices of refusing badness in life led me to certain actions. Once I had did took these steps I came across a bible, things in the texts matched the things I had experienced and the actions I took to come to God before getting the bible itself (I did learn some additonal things of course!). Closest thing I had ever heard to the cross was Santa Claus

As far as my own experiences go, I would have to say that this site may or may not attract religious people. If anything it would put a religious person off because of certain topics that are discussed and the way religion is looked at by many on the site itself. If your wondering what I am referring to, the attitude of some people who think a religious person is a brain dead slave to something that will give them a reason to live and submit to authority or hide behind a book to justify actions etc.

Cheers

reply to post by XXXN3O


Great post N3o.

Thanks for providing your insights and experiences. How do you feel abut the 'threshold' issue I identified? Do you think this is a good or bad thing for the community?

Parallex.

reply to post by Parallex


As a whole I think its great to have a community of various beliefs, theories and experiences.

The only downside is that there might be small scenarios where members refuse to acknowledge a member who has something important to share because they have a belief that is a polar opposite of their own.

In other words I dont think that a theory about a terror attack being an inside job has anything to do with the persons belief system but some might decide to ignore a theory due to a previous belief clash etc. Just a small example to show what I mean and nothing more than that.

I think its a very small minority though to be honest.

People of faith should not be looked upon any differently than people of no faith.

Where the problems begin is when ignorance and faith meet and are found to be one and the same, inseparable and indistinguishable. When only one faith is supreme to all others, when non-believers are considered to be unworthy of life, when attempts are made to convert anyone to any faith, when there is no open minds on either side of any matter of faith.

Blind faith and ignorance are dangerous, a cancer that only an open mind and quest for knowledge and enlightenment can cure.

The attraction to ATS is mutual for both the ignorant and the faithful, whether good or bad is simply a matter of personal perspective, and/or faith.

I think that is great to have diversity in a forum such as this. Though there are many disagreements on some levels due to belief and non belief, its usually because one or the other refuses to open their minds or stance on the subject.

But I think that subconsciously they both take something from it, maybe a bit of learning, or learning to listen, and either way, I see that as a good thing.

Peace, NRE.

Is this requirement to have a faith 'capacity' to arguably fully participate within ATS a good or a bad thing?

If I'm discussing science and someone comes in the room spouting faith...

1. Maybe they have a moral objection and this is the only way they will, or can, express it. I can usually make a counter point, conclusion, or agreement with them in the same scientific language I started with.

2. Maybe they are doing the old consciousness heightening thing, and are trying to tell me that my focus is too narrow or there are other variables to consider. But I find that if I widen the scope of the discussion usually a great number of other categories can come up too, so that I don't have to answer them, or concede, in science or faith I can respond in any style from the various boards here on ATS.

3. Maybe they are just nit picking, and worse they are doing it in the language of faith. In those cases I try to shoot them down in their own language. This is where Atheists and I drink wine together. But because of that I take twice, or three times as long to reflect before responding. I have to make sure that I'm not just trampling over someone, and am more opening a set of curtains in their drawing room. Let them see how their own chess board is arranged.

4. Maybe it's a straight out hijack attempt or interception. They come in at a random angle, run off to an area they are more comfortable with, and leave everyone chasing them. This causes them to run even faster into their own end zone. In this case a simple don't feed the trolls will earn you 50% of the readers instantly, and the nut can run into their own end zone and watch themselves dance alone. Hmmmm, improve that? Don't feed the trolls, especially ones dressed in wings?

5. The friendly police officer. If I feel overwhelmed by sheep, I stop planning openly how to herd sheep and just start herding them. A friendly direction to another thread, a thank you for contributing, and the best one, tell me more. If they make me mad I'll consider pitting their comments against one of their own kinds'.

6. If I agree with them acknowledge it and move on.

7. If I even think they are being rude, disruptive, immature, or any number of other odious behaviors, even if they think they are just pretending, I will leave. It is to their disadvantage that I leave, the same I feel about almost all of the members here. That we would be lessened if anyone were completely driven off. I would not want to drive anyone off.


David Grouchy

Great question, and yes it probably does attract religious people to an extent. I think that ATS attracts people who are seeking truth that MSM doesn't always provide, and a forum for discussion about issues that you can't always talk to your neighbor or even family about. I think that problems arise when people, whether they are religious or not, decide that they're personal beliefs are the only right way of thinking. You can be an atheist and be just as close minded as the religious zealot. I am a bible believing christian, but I never could accept everything that the church stands for. I believe that as you seek truth, with an open mind you will find it, whether it be a conspiracy theory or a religious belief. Use your mind and don't believe everything you see or hear. The older I get the more I know I don't know, and maybe just maybe what we can't see is more real than what we can see. Just sayin..

Not speaking of the site but of the conspiracy theorist community, I think that religious convictions are one of several characteristics that seem to be prevalent, along with manufacturing backgrounds, military backgrounds, and political activism. The common thread that seems to unite conspiracy buffs is the feeling that they belong to something legitimate and mainstream which has been surreptitiously deposed or at least weakened; that things never would have gone this badly by accident.

It is what it is. The dissatisfied do more than any other group to improve the world, so if there are conspiracies, these might be the people to root them out. On the other hand... well, there's no point to be negative about this. The fact that the question has been asked says enough.

Originally posted by ThomasNHunter
Not speaking of the site but of the conspiracy theorist community, I think that religious convictions are one of several characteristics that seem to be prevalent, along with manufacturing backgrounds, military backgrounds, and political activism.

This is an excellent point.

Do religious convictions detract from the purpose of this site - to reveal conspiracy and factual truths about our world - or do they positively contribute to it?

Similarly - does this mean that ATS is frequented by people with 'an axe to grind'? I detail this question by referencing the decline of manufacturing in the western world (blue collar workers with a grudge), the obsession of military types with 'order from chaos' and the propensity of political activists to spread their ideologues on the net. All being similar to the act of proselytization...

Parallex.

reply to post by Parallex

To believe in a conspiracy often requires a leap of faith. Yes there may be evidence, yes there may be reason to suspect. But often, we see entire threads and subjects being written in detail - on nothing but faith (not the religious type of faith) with NO evidence to support said theories.

Most conspiracy theories do have at least some basis in fact. UFOs for example, are based on what people have reportedly seen. The JFK assassination carries a number of real oddities and contradictions. The 9.11 attacks display the same kind of inconsistencies as does JFK and of the type that beg doubt.

Speaking strictly for myself, those issues and events i most closely follow carry enough evidence, or deep suggestions of evidence, to make the leap no leap at all. When solving any mystery, you often begin with little or nothing and follow hunches as much as you do any trail of physical evidence, in order to finally arrive at a conclusion.

I have often noted that those who create for themselves a career in debunking and industrial skepticism, are the same types who make terrible police detectives, poor field researchers and absolutely terrible conversationalists. But... the boring and boorish do have a place in this world like anything else. They just spend their time in pursuit of the negative.