A Sin to Entertain Conspiracy Theories

[bearer]

I wouldn’t think belief in a conspiracy theory is sinful. Perhaps a sign of a Cluster A personality disorder, but not sin.

 

[JerBear_Meaux]

i think the possibility that it could result in problems that could make the atmosphere more dangerous for christians than the conditions already are is a good reason to avoid conspiracy theories. If there is a reason for it to come to light it will come to light unless its supposed to remain hidden untill the proper time.

 

[exnihilo]

Do you entertain them, or do they entertain you?

Seriously [and this might be a stretch], conspiracy theories are rooted in defiance to authority [tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B]](TCS Daily : Technology - Commerce - Society]). Since we are obligated to respect lawful authority, in some extreme cases, it probably could be a sin.

The article you linked to talks about September 11th. The US government claims that nineteen men were part of a secret terrorist organization which conspired to come to America, learn to fly at our institutions and then hijack and crash several planes because they hate our freedom. Even if you believe in the official story you believe in a conspiracy theory.

We are obligated to obey lawful authority. Does that mean we must accept whatever they say as true? Does the mere fact that a person is a government agent make them credible and trustworthy? This would seem problematic in states we recognize as bad, such as communist. But this would also be contrary to the founding principles of the United States. In my experience what the government says is the least likely to be true. I tend to believe the exact opposite.

 

[Bill_Martin]

How could it possibly be sinful?

If nobody ever questioned their government, we would have some pretty bad governments.

 

[tabycat]

It’s not a sin. Some people make a living out of it. Dan Brown comes to mind.

Jones, can’t think of his first name.

 

[sedonaman]

The article you linked to talks about September 11th. The US government claims that nineteen men were part of a secret terrorist organization which conspired to come to America, learn to fly at our institutions and then hijack and crash several planes because they hate our freedom. Even if you believe in the official story you believe in a conspiracy theory.

This statement itself assumes the official “story” is a lie. The article also states that, “What really needs explaining, though, is not 9/11, but the existence of such conspiracy theorists themselves…”

… Does that mean we must accept whatever they say as true? Does the mere fact that a person is a government agent make them credible and trustworthy?

Of course not, but you will note in the article that the “rational default position” is “hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense,” as demonstrated in your statement, “In my experience what the government says is the least likely to be true. I tend to believe the exact opposite.” What experience?

Conspiracy theorists latch onto the only thing they can to “prove” there must have been one, and that is the inability of science to explain every observed phenomena regarding a tragedy. But are these questions reasonable? One program taking questions from the audience had one say, “You will never prove to me there wasn’t a [9/11] conspiracy!” In view of the inability to prove a negative, is that position reasonable? Also, consider this:

The problems with such theories have been pretty thoroughly exposed by now. Here is just a sample: If the aim of the conspirators was to motivate the American people to go to war, why wouldn’t the crashing of airplanes into the World Trade Center suffice? What was the point of secretly placing explosives throughout the towers – no small task – and thereby risking exposure? If the government was really willing and able to orchestrate such a massive conspiracy here at home, why couldn’t or wouldn’t it also carry out the far easier task of planting evidence of WMD in faraway Iraq? If the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes were faked, how did the government find people capable of so perfectly mimicking the voices of the victims, and how did they acquire the detailed knowledge of their personal lives that would enable the hoaxers to deceive so many of the victims’ loved ones and friends? If it was really a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, why do so many eyewitnesses report having seen an airplane crashing into it? If it was also really a missile, and not an airplane, that crashed in Pennsylvania, then why did eyewitnesses report seeing an airplane in that case too? And what really happened to the airplanes in question and their passengers? If even a third rate burglary like the one committed at the Watergate hotel couldn’t be kept secret, why hasn’t someone, anyone involved in this massive plot, or with knowledge of those who were involved, come forward to reveal what he knows? And so on and on.

No one advocating a 9/11 conspiracy theory has been able to answer a single one of these questions, so we might even suspect there is a conspiracy theory to hatch conspiracy theories!

The article goes on,

A clue to the real attraction of conspiracy theories, I would suggest, lies in the rhetoric of theorists themselves, which is filled with self-congratulatory descriptions of those who accept such theories as “willing to think,” “educated,” “independent-minded,” and so forth, and with invective against the “uninformed” and “unthinking” “sheeple” who “blindly follow authority.” The world of the conspiracy theorist is Manichean: either you are intelligent, well-informed, and honest, and therefore question all authority and received opinion; or you accept what popular opinion or an authority says and therefore must be stupid, dishonest, and ignorant. There is no third option.

This is the mind of the conspiracy theorist … and that’s being charitable.

 

[Mr_Kooper_513]

Interesting for the article to call consipracy theorists “Manichean.” I have thought that there is a type of Gnostic motivation behind it. Like I am looking for something to set me apart from other people (as if Jesus isn’t enough) and I have a secret knowledge that makes me special.

 

[sedonaman]

Interesting for the article to call consipracy theorists “Manichean.” I have thought that there is a type of Gnostic motivation behind it. Like I am looking for something to set me apart from other people (as if Jesus isn’t enough) and I have a secret knowledge that makes me special.

Yeah [not that the Manichean and Gnostic aspects are mutually exclusive]. There’s probably more than just a pinch of it too.

 

[exnihilo]

This statement itself assumes the official “story” is a lie.

I don’t see how that is at all. They are competing theories.

Who decides what the ‘official’ story is? Is there a source for the official story? Is it a person, a book? Just what is it? I do not want to get hung up on that particular event but it is worth remembering there was no trial or presentation of evidence to the public. There was mere assertions from the state. To accept that story requires a degree of faith in government I’d never have. That does not mean that story is not true but there is no way I’d believe it without some evidence.

Of course not, but you will note in the article that the “rational default position” is “hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense,” as demonstrated in your statement, “In my experience what the government says is the least likely to be true. I tend to believe the exact opposite.” What experience?

I’m not hostile to tradition at all. I’m the most conservative person I know. I’m certainly not hostile to common sense. I’m certainly skeptical of authority and hostile to any that exceeds its proper role.

The experience I refer to is my direct interaction with government, stories from other people, and reading history. I’ve encountered countless lies and half truths. Surely the old joke, I’m from the government and I"m here to help, is still actually considered a joke and not a slur against the great institution of the state.

One program taking questions from the audience had one say, “You will never prove to me there wasn’t a [9/11] conspiracy!” In view of the inability to prove a negative, is that position reasonable?

This person is being unreasonable of course. His position is to reject any evidence and therefore his belief is foundational. But that persons unreasonableness is no more relevant to the existence of conspiracy theories than the unreasonableness of someone who believes everything the government tells them is true. There are far more of the later. To achieve that end is why the government set up schools. They wanted a docile, trusting population. BTW you could say that is a conspiracy theory because I am saying that men conspired to set up schools for a purpose other than merely educating students. But if you actually investigate early government schooling you’ll find the advocates say very plainly one purpose is to make obedient workers and citizens. Of course the government schools that teach most people never share this fact of history. But it is there to be discovered for anyone willing to make the effort.

No one advocating a 9/11 conspiracy theory has been able to answer a single one of these questions

I doubt that. The questions have surely been answered. You are of the opinion that the answers are not convincing. And they might well not be.

 

[sedonaman]

…
That does not mean that story is not true but there is no way I’d believe it without some evidence.

… The questions have surely been answered. You are of the opinion that the answers are not convincing. And they might well not be.

I don’t think they have even been addressed by the theorists at all. If you have some link, please post it. Sounds like you don’t trust the official account any more, and for the same reasons, than I trust conspiracy theorists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:

No one advocating a 9/11 conspiracy theory has been able to answer a single one of these questions, so we might even suspect there is a conspiracy theory to hatch conspiracy theories!

The article goes on,

This is the mind of the conspiracy theorist … and that’s being charitable.

The difficulty with your statement that “no one… has been able to answer a single one of these questions” is that the questions themselves arise from quite different proposed theories, many of which may have been constructed by the conspirators themselves to '“muddy the water” and discredit by association those with legitimate questions as crackpot conspiracy theorists. Individually, the legitimate questions of concern have been answered, but all may not need to be.

For example, there is a credible answer to the question you ask concerning Why go through the trouble of rigging the towers with explosives if the intent was merely to “stage” a terrorist attack? Answer: it saved the current leaseholder the billions of dollars it would have cost to demolish the buildings, and offset these costs to insurance companies. The terms of the lease, negotiated only 7 months before, gave Larry Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed. Silverstein sought $7.1 billion based on the two airplane strikes, but he settled on $4.1 billion from insurance companies. Given that he paid $3.2 billion for the lease, he made about a billion dollars and saved the cost of demolition. On the face of it this seems to be evidence of motive for demolishing the buildings.

From many of my readings, legitimate concerns with regard to the facts have not been answered to anywhere near what would be considered satisfactory with regard to the government’s version of the story.

There are literally thousands of loose end facts that have not been explained or have been intentionally blocked from view by those in positions to reveal the truth.

Your comment on the “minds” of conspiracy theorists is disingenuous because many are meticulous in documenting specific and verifiable facts. Facts which raise numerous legitimate questions that have not been answered.

Spend some time on these sites and consider possible answers for the facts in question.

911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

 

[teeboy]

It isn’t a sin. But, if it is too excessive, then it may be a disorder or you may have been conspired against or under investigation.

If any of the above is true, I advise you seek charity in Jesus.

 

[sedonaman]

The difficulty with your statement that “no one… has been able to answer a single one of these questions” is that the questions themselves arise from quite different proposed theories, many of which may have been constructed by the conspirators themselves to '“muddy the water” and discredit by association those with legitimate questions as crackpot conspiracy theorists. Individually, the legitimate questions of concern have been answered, but all may not need to be.

But they are logical questions that have to be answered before charges by the theorists can be taken seriously.

For example, there is a credible answer to the question you ask concerning Why go through the trouble of rigging the towers with explosives if the intent was merely to “stage” a terrorist attack? Answer: it saved the current leaseholder the billions of dollars it would have cost to demolish the buildings, and offset these costs to insurance companies. The terms of the lease, negotiated only 7 months before, gave Larry Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed. Silverstein sought $7.1 billion based on the two airplane strikes, but he settled on $4.1 billion from insurance companies. Given that he paid $3.2 billion for the lease, he made about a billion dollars and saved the cost of demolition. On the face of it this seems to be evidence of motive for demolishing the buildings.

Now I’ve heard everything.

From many of my readings, legitimate concerns with regard to the facts have not been answered to anywhere near what would be considered satisfactory with regard to the government’s version of the story.

There are literally thousands of loose end facts that have not been explained or have been intentionally blocked from view by those in positions to reveal the truth.

Your comment on the “minds” of conspiracy theorists is disingenuous because many are meticulous in documenting specific and verifiable facts. Facts which raise numerous legitimate questions that have not been answered.

Spend some time on these sites and consider possible answers for the facts in question.

911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

First of all, facts don’t speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. I spent a career interpreting facts. Second, "The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT” is the whole basis for conspiracy theories, no matter what they are. Just replace “the president” with “the authorities”. Where is the evidence that the president should be able to answer any question that can be cooked up? It is obvious that Gold is afflicted with what Feser calls “contempt for authority.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

But they are logical questions that have to be answered before charges by the theorists can be taken seriously.

Now I’ve heard everything.

Are you saying you don’t believe the facts surrounding Silverstein’s acquisition of the WT complex or that it isn’t a motive for why the buildings were demolished?

First of all, facts don’t speak for themselves; they have to be interpreted. I spent a career interpreting facts. Second, "The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT” is the whole basis for conspiracy theories, no matter what they are. Just replace “the president” with “the authorities”. Where is the evidence that the president should be able to answer any question that can be cooked up? It is obvious that Gold is afflicted with what Feser calls “contempt for authority.”

The facts directly contradict what the official story is, there is good question to wonder whether someone is not telling the truth. No contempt is required, just respect for the truth. The speed of collapse of the towers is physically impossible according to the
government’s explanation and the reason for the collapse of WT7 has never been adequately addressed. There are huge inconsistencies. There is no need to interpret anything, just try to make sense of the story. The explanations from the president do not fit the facts and raise more questions.

You are attempting to dismiss the entire issue in an apriori philosophical sweep that cconspiracy theories by their nature are false. This does not address the evidence.

 

[sedonaman]

Are you saying you don’t believe the facts surrounding Silverstein’s acquisition of the WT complex or that it isn’t a motive for why the buildings were demolished?

The facts directly contradict what the official story is, there is good question to wonder whether someone is not telling the truth. No contempt is required, just respect for the truth. The speed of collapse of the towers is physically impossible according to the
government’s explanation and the reason for the collapse of WT7 has never been adequately addressed. There are huge inconsistencies. There is no need to interpret anything, just try to make sense of the story. The explanations from the president do not fit the facts and raise more questions.

You are attempting to dismiss the entire issue in an apriori philosophical sweep that cconspiracy theories by their nature are false. This does not address the evidence.

I think conspiracy theories need more proof than just speculative questions. “Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead” said Ben Franklin. In all the people required to carry out a conspiracy the level of 9/11, there had to be at least one with a hatred for George Bush. Where is he?

Now, about that birth certificate …

 

[Peter_Plato]

But they are logical questions that have to be answered before charges by the theorists can be taken seriously.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You look at the idea of “conspiracy” and find it unfathomable, then move from there to dismissing any questions with regard to the government version as the result of conspiracy theorists’ wild conjectures.

A person does not need to subscribe to a conspiracy theory with regards to 911, but merely have questions without even claiming to “know” what transpired. You make it sound like someone needs to answer all your conspiracy based questions before they can even question the official story.

I have two concerns and do not even try to posit an alternative scenario. These merely lead to grave doubts about the government story.

1. The two main towers dropped at just over free fall speed. How is this possible? The official version is that the top section of each tower (above where the planes struck) was severed from the main tower and in dropping acted as a pile driver to pulverize all in its path as it dropped. The physics of this version are unbelievable. Basically, this scenario is like claiming that a hammer can pulverize an object that is nine times its mass by merely being dropped on it (pull of gravity), with no additional force required. Keep in mind that the tower below the severed portion was designed to hold up the top section, so it would be only the momentum of the top section added as force by gravity that would create enough crushing force to obliterate the entire tower below it at free fall speed. This defies the laws of gravity and has been shown to be untenable.

scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

This is not interpretation, the pile driver explanation is simply inconsistent with the laws of physics and gravity. You also do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to question this, just some knowledge of science. You can accept the pile driver explanation if you wish, but I submit doing so is simply non rational.

1. Building 7 of the complex dropped at basically free fall speed (47 story building in 6.6 seconds) in the late afternoon of the day of the attack. The building had only minor structural damage, yet collapsed in on itself. This could not have been a pile driver scenario as in the towers, the building basically lost all of its structural integrity in one instant and collapsed. No part of the building offered any resistance in the collapse, which is why there was free fall speed through most of the collapse after the initial weakening.

See the two WTC7 videos on this site for a clear explanation of the physics involved.
scientistsfor911truth.org/videos.html

A) The science behind these two pieces of evidence can merely be denied in support of the government story, or B) the government story can be severely questioned in light of the science.

If you choose A) then you need to explain why three structurally engineered buildings fell defying the laws of physics and gravity on the same day. If B) then you have to ask why the government is promoting scientifically untenable answers.

Notice none of this proposes any kind of conspiracy. It merely raises questions that logic and science bring to bear when witnessing such mind boggling events.

Also notice that I can ask these questions legitimately without being drawn into your “answer all my questions first” stranglehold. I don’t need to adhere to conspiracy theories in order to question the legitimacy of proposed explanations.

 

[sedonaman]

This is where we fundamentally disagree. You look at the idea of “conspiracy” and find it unfathomable, then move from there to dismissing any questions with regard to the government version as the result of conspiracy theorists’ wild conjectures. …

You are right that we disagree, but not because I “dismiss any questions with regard to the government version.” I did say that they have to be reasonable. Introducing a second conspiracy [e.g., save on the cost of demolition] on top of the main one is not what I’d call reasonable. It’s reasonable to believe in a 9/11 inside job conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of participants who remain silent to this day, but not reasonable to believe that Saddam spirited his WMDs off to Syria. And what are they talking about in the news of late? Syria possibly using poison gas against its own people.

Look. It’s OK to question the government, and even disagree with its leaders; but as I said, it has to be based on something reasonable, and to date, the conspiracy theorists have been decidedly unreasonable, if not lunatic. No accusation against Bush has been too uncharitable, and no conspiracy theory too preposterous, for those afflicted with BDS to bounce it around its echo chamber manically until it can hear nothing else.

So I have developed the “Generic Truth Table” below as an aid in determining the validity of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Nelka]

Ok.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t hanged, it was one of his many lookalikes.

Saddam Hussein now lives in East London where he has a bigger home than his palace in Iraq and claims more money off benefits than he got as Iraqi president.

Like it?

Or…

When America landed on the moon they noticed a flag was already there, a Nazi flag.

 

[sedonaman]

Ok.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t hanged, it was one of his many lookalikes.

Saddam Hussein now lives in East London where he has a bigger home than his palace in Iraq and claims more money off benefits than he got as Iraqi president.

Like it?

Or…

When America landed on the moon they noticed a flag was already there, a Nazi flag.

And Amelia Erhart really survived her flight, moved to NJ, and died in 1982.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are right that we disagree, but not because I “dismiss any questions with regard to the government version.”.

You can go on and on with your philosophical position, but you did not address the two points I brought up. Why did the buildings defy physical laws? You don’t know and it doesn’t matter to you. This is where your thinking stops, credulity kicks in and just for good measure in case those who disagree with you have any interest in pursuing the point, add a touch of sarcasm. Just say you won’t be bothered to think about it and be done, but don’t claim to be an expert on conspiracy as a ruse.

Your point is just irrelevent.

As is Nelka’s frivolous commentary.