Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

[ViaCrucis]

Psalm 91[/URL]"]Psalm 91[/url]"]Psalm 91[/url];64272812]And so this is a lie, how?

There's no Arabic on the ring. It's not writing of any kind. All you have to do is have eyes and be able to recognize what Arabic script (scripts) look like.

Just take a gander at the ring:

That's not writing of any kind, let alone Arabic. There are lots of ways to artistically write Arabic, due to Islam's prohibition against image-making of any kind, Islamic art is restricted to calligraphy. But there's simply no way to take two sets of looping squiggles and call it Arabic.

I have to conclude that either those who work for WND are utter nitwits or lying in the hope that their faithful readers will be dumb and/or gullible enough to fall for what they're trying to sell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[God's Fighter]

Well, if you're so right and we're so "delusional", prove it.

This thread is proof enough.

 

[Armoured]

There's no Arabic on the ring. It's not writing of any kind. All you have to do is have eyes and be able to recognize what Arabic script (scripts) look like.

Just take a gander at the ring:

That's not writing of any kind, let alone Arabic. There are lots of ways to artistically write Arabic, due to Islam's prohibition against image-making of any kind, Islamic art is restricted to calligraphy. But there's simply no way to take two sets of looping squiggles and call it Arabic.

I have to conclude that either those who work for WND are utter nitwits or lying in the hope that their faithful readers will be dumb and/or gullible enough to fall for what they're trying to sell.

-CryptoLutheran

Not to mention that even if it WAS Arabic, use of Arabic text is not restricted to Muslims. Plenty of Christians write and speak Arabic as a first language, for example.

Indeed, if the origin of a language was somehow indicitive of its current users' religion, then there's a lotta Catholics who are actualy Graeco-Roman polytheists.

 

[Zanting]

That most trustworthy of sources, WND.

-CryptoLutheran

If you're not keen on WMD...this study has been picked up on many other sites as well...I don't know about the credibility of any of them, but there were 31,600 hits for that title...the one here does not have the studies reference list...it would be good to have that because this study is a review of other studies.

 

[Ludicrus]

That most trustworthy of sources, WND.

-CryptoLutheran

The New Testament Gospels were written by a bunch of Fisherman. How, since you designate that you are a Lutheran, do you accept that the New Testament is credible?

Or is your faith in the Catholic Church's saying they are credible? Since Lutherans are reformed Catholics, that would be a valid conclusion.

Not trying to start a war, but your snide remark, if that is indeed what it was, discounts WND as a credible source.

And in truth, what makes you credible?

 

[Ludicrus]

This is really interesting. Thanks for posting it.

From the Article:

I agree with Yarddog, though. This can apply to conspiracy theorists and anti-conspiracy theorists alike.
​

Yarddog is on my people to ignore list. So I have no idea what he says.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Ah, finally!


Someone sees that we are indeed geniuses! That our brains work better than those that believe all of the lies that the MSM tells us.

Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?
University study shows that they are more well-grounded than others

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?

Probably more times than not....Yup!

It takes guts to stand up for what u believe in, and it takes guts to believe in and comes to terms with what u see, and to not believe in the lies that tell u otherwise.

Like salmon swimming upstream...against the stong current of the politically correct!!! Let us not compromise our own insights and what we see with that of the politcally correct; in compromising, this would be damaging to both ourselves and to others.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not to mention that even if it WAS Arabic, use of Arabic text is not restricted to Muslims. Plenty of Christians write and speak Arabic as a first language, for example.

Indeed, if the origin of a language was somehow indicitive of its current users' religion, then there's a lotta Catholics who are actualy Graeco-Roman polytheists.

Well yes. But the WND article about the ring claimed the text on the ring was the Muslim Shahada.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The New Testament Gospels were written by a bunch of Fisherman. How, since you designate that you are a Lutheran, do you accept that the New Testament is credible?

Or is your faith in the Catholic Church's saying they are credible? Since Lutherans are reformed Catholics, that would be a valid conclusion.

So why would I, as a Christian, have faith in the credibility of what Christ's Apostles taught and said?

It may have something to do with the whole me being a Christian and having faith.

Not trying to start a war, but your snide remark, if that is indeed what it was, discounts WND as a credible source.

Because it's not.

And in truth, what makes you credible?

Well certainly my saying I'm credible doesn't make me credible. Which is why I would encourage you to use to do your own research and employ your critical thinking skills, and if I make affirmative claims you are more than welcome to ask me to provide my sources to demonstrate such.

I'm not a credible source on my say so.

But that hardly changes the fact that WND isn't credible for the simple reason that it apparently has no trouble giving false information and passing it off as bonafide journalistic truth.

Now perhaps WND wasn't lying about Obama's ring in the article I brought up before. If they weren't lying then that only demonstrates their incompetence, and incompetence doesn't exactly make a would-be journalistic source more credible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ludicrus]

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/are-conspiracy-theorists-really-the-sane-ones/#qWSkmAIuyGJ5CP14.99

Hi guys,

I copy and pasted the entire article so that we would all be able to check the 'facts'.

Here's the title that ludicrous started this thread with:

Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

Now, I read the entire article and didn't find that to be at all what this study shows.

Here's the articles opening premise:

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

What does this really say? Well, it says that conspiracy theorists are right sometimes. It doesn't give any value to how many times. In keeping with this position a theory that many might understand as a 'conspiracy theory' might be proven true two times out of 100 times or it could be 99 times out of 100 times. It allows that 'maybe' they are right more often than we might think. Friends, that is not in any way a definite claim. 'Maybe' doesn't prove anything. Never does the article make any such claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are 'more sane' than conventional thinkers.

It does make the point that conspiracy theorists, in one study, don't seem to be as 'married' to their theories as conventional thinkers. Now, I'm going to be honest here and tell you that I don't really know what that means. If it means that they aren't as adamant about their position as conventional thinkers, then I'd challenge them to read some of the posts on this site. LOL!

But it seems that this is often how the unwise think. They accept a set of 'possibilities' and 'maybes' as facts and then go on their merry way trying to tell others that these things are proven truths. Just as happened in titling this thread.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You didn't post the Title that came along with this article....DID YOU?

Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?
University study shows that they are more well-grounded than others

And yes, I do believe the article proves it.


"Well-grounded." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-grounded>.

1
: having a firm foundation <well–grounded in Latin and Greek>

2
: well-founded

Synonyms:
analytic (or analytical), coherent, consequent, good, rational, reasonable, sensible, sound, valid, well-founded, well-grounded


So, In my opinion, this is the same argument used for Christianity. One cannot become a Christian, I don't believe, unless they are willing to believe that there was a Conspiracy to kill the Son of God. Or, that Jesus is/was the Son of God, that Jesus was born of a Virgin, died on the cross to save us from our sins and rose again the 3rd day. And is now, seated at the right hand of the Father.

The entire Bible hinges upon what this study shows about the way people think and perceive the Truth, when it is outside of their comfort zones, and at the same time, the World/those that are worldly and unrepentant, will consider all Christians to be crazy because they can't see the proof for themselves. Their minds have been darkened.

Even the prophets were considered mad (crazy):
2Ki 9:11 When Jehu came out to the servants of his master, one said to him, Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you? And he said to them, You know that class of man and what he would say.

John 10:20 AMP
20 And many of them said, He has a demon and He is mad (insane--He raves, He rambles). Why do you listen to Him?

Acts 26:24 AMP
24 And as he thus proceeded with his defense, Festus called out loudly, Paul, you are mad! Your great learning is driving you insane!

2 Corinthians 5:13 AMP
13 For if we are beside ourselves [mad, as some say], it is for God and concerns Him; if we are in our right mind, it is for your benefit,


So, is it madness or sanity that causes us to believe in Jesus Christ and the entire Word of God?

Jonah was swallowed by a whale and then spit up.

Daniel was in the lions den.

Shadrack, Mesheck and Abednigo were in the fiery furnace.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves, walked on water and calmed a storm.

Yes, to the world, this seems mad.

 

[Ludicrus]

Read more at Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?

Hi guys,

I copy and pasted the entire article so that we would all be able to check the 'facts'.

Here's the title that ludicrous started this thread with:

Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

Now, I read the entire article and didn't find that to be at all what this study shows.

Here's the articles opening premise:

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

What does this really say? Well, it says that conspiracy theorists are right sometimes. It doesn't give any value to how many times. In keeping with this position a theory that many might understand as a 'conspiracy theory' might be proven true two times out of 100 times or it could be 99 times out of 100 times. It allows that 'maybe' they are right more often than we might think. Friends, that is not in any way a definite claim. 'Maybe' doesn't prove anything. Never does the article make any such claim that 'conspiracy theorists' are 'more sane' than conventional thinkers.

It does make the point that conspiracy theorists, in one study, don't seem to be as 'married' to their theories as conventional thinkers. Now, I'm going to be honest here and tell you that I don't really know what that means. If it means that they aren't as adamant about their position as conventional thinkers, then I'd challenge them to read some of the posts on this site. LOL!

But it seems that this is often how the unwise think. They accept a set of 'possibilities' and 'maybes' as facts and then go on their merry way trying to tell others that these things are proven truths. Just as happened in titling this thread.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You didn't post the Title that came along with this article....DID YOU?

Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?
University study shows that they are more well-grounded than others

And yes, I do believe the article proves it.


"Well-grounded." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/well-grounded>.

1
: having a firm foundation <well–grounded in Latin and Greek>

2
: well-founded

Synonyms:
analytic (or analytical), coherent, consequent, good, rational, reasonable, sensible, sound, valid, well-founded, well-grounded


So, In my opinion, this is the same argument used for Christianity. One cannot become a Christian, I don't believe, unless they are willing to believe that there was a Conspiracy to kill the Son of God. Or, that Jesus is/was the Son of God, that Jesus was born of a Virgin, died on the cross to save us from our sins and rose again the 3rd day. And is now, seated at the right hand of the Father.

The entire Bible hinges upon what this study shows about the way people think and perceive the Truth, when it is outside of their comfort zones, and at the same time, the World/those that are worldly and unrepentant, will consider all Christians to be crazy because they can't see the proof for themselves. Their minds have been darkened.

Even the prophets were considered mad (crazy):
2Ki 9:11 When Jehu came out to the servants of his master, one said to him, Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you? And he said to them, You know that class of man and what he would say.

John 10:20 AMP
20 And many of them said, He has a demon and He is mad (insane--He raves, He rambles). Why do you listen to Him?

Acts 26:24 AMP
24 And as he thus proceeded with his defense, Festus called out loudly, Paul, you are mad! Your great learning is driving you insane!

2 Corinthians 5:13 AMP
13 For if we are beside ourselves [mad, as some say], it is for God and concerns Him; if we are in our right mind, it is for your benefit,


So, is it madness or sanity that causes us to believe in Jesus Christ and the entire Word of God?

Jonah was swallowed by a whale and then spit up.

Daniel was in the lions den.

Shadrack, Mesheck and Abednigo were in the fiery furnace.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves, walked on water and calmed a storm.

Yes, to the world, this seems mad.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

Coming back into this thread after a brief absence I have to say there is one thing the OP article has assisted in providing as irrevocable proof of one thing.
The sad way certain Christians elect to comport themselves in demonstrating their example of Christ-like, toward others whom they disagree with. Sarcasm, innuendo, insults, etc...
Making for what could be called a conspiracy theory in itself.That of cleaving to the title for all its perks while failing to live a present example of the ideal.

If the OP is bunk, why be so insulting to one another in defense of your opinion of what constitutes bunk?
The article means nothing but the impression someone leaves others in how they respond to others with regard to the article content itself leaves an indelible impression.

 

[seeingeyes]

You didn't post the Title that came along with this article....DID YOU?

Are Conspiracy Theorists Really The Sane Ones?
University study shows that they are more well-grounded than others

And yes, I do believe the article proves it.

The article says:

"Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?"

Does that describe you?

​

 

[Ludicrus]

This is a sad and ironic thread. This article does nothing but tout how delusional people are and how easily manipulated CTs are. Your minds aren't "superior" they aren't "free" or "outside of the box". They are captivated and infatuated by mindless theories and doctrines, they are in the box and locked away from any sound thought or reasoning words. It is to the point that you're so blind that it is impossible to reach you. Because any logical thought or objection, CTs will either become hostile or "laugh about how stupid everyone else is" effectually becoming hypocrites. It is at times both disgusting and sad. It may very well be that CTs are the deluded people the bible speaks of, or perhaps it is something more medical in nature.

If it is medical, then there is at least some hope. If it is delusion, then by all my experience and observation my conclusion is always the same. You cannot be reached.

Just for clarification, so that I know for a surety whether you are as rude and disgusting as I think you are, your use of the abbreviation CT is used for Conspiracy Theorists or Conventional Thinkers?

 

[Ludicrus]

Probably more times than not....Yup!

It takes guts to stand up for what u believe in, and it takes guts to believe in and comes to terms with what u see, and to not believe in the lies that tell u otherwise.

Like salmon swimming upstream...against the stong current of the politically correct!!! Let us not compromise our own insights and what we see with that of the politcally correct; in compromising, this would be damaging to both ourselves and to others.

Amen!

 

[Ludicrus]

So why would I, as a Christian, have faith in the credibility of what Christ's Apostles taught and said?

It may have something to do with the whole me being a Christian and having faith.



-CryptoLutheran

You didn't answer my question. What makes the Gospel Accounts written by a bunch of fishermen make them credible?

In other words, how did you know that the Gospel accounts were credible prior to becoming a Christian?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You didn't answer my question. What makes the Gospel Accounts written by a bunch of fishermen make them credible?

In other words, how did you know that the Gospel accounts were credible prior to becoming a Christian?

I didn't. Then again I've been a Christian my entire life. So there was never a time "before becoming a Christian". I grew up in the faith.

I consider the Gospels to be credible, authoritative witnesses because, by faith, I accept what has been received down through the ages by the Christian Church. The Gospels bear witness to the Apostolic teaching and tradition received and believed by the whole Christian Church--that is a confession of faith.

If I weren't a Christian, I don't see any reason why I would embrace these as anything more than Christian works about their faith, their validity or lack thereof being entirely open for debate. As is the case for the non-believing world.

But I'm a Christian, my acceptance of the Gospel texts and their authority as apostolic witness and testimony is something I take on faith, from the received faith and confession of the ancient Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ludicrus]

The article says:

"Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?"

Does that describe you?

​

Yes. However, the people that know me personally and best also know that it is in my nature to research something to death to discover the truth. I don't like being wrong. Of course, I suppose no one does; however, since I'm analytical by nature doing the research comes naturally. That's actually how I became a Christian.

It doesn't mean; however, that I can retain all of the stuff in my noggin'. In my younger days I could recite to you verbatim what I had read or studied several decades prior, but as I've gotten older and had several concussions I no longer excel at that.

Also, I spent over two decades documenting a ton of stuff and sadly had to leave most of the paperwork and reference books behind when I moved. That included an entire garage and half a house full.

But God said to move. I asked Him how am I going to get all of this stuff packed up and moved and I was told to just go. So I did. In a truck that was so antiquated everyone told me it wouldn't make the trip and yet, I made it without mishap through a hurricane. LOL!

And I had just enough money in gas to get me here.

God has, over the years, performed many miracles in my life and some in the lives of those around me.

I hold certain beliefs that after much research, testing and proving, such as my faith in Jesus Christ, that I will never be moved on because the proof is stronger than anybody's arguments. Point in fact, is that I am still alive. Satan has tried to kill me since the day I was born. God's plan for my life trumps anything that Satan had planned or continues to try against me.

I was born in the middle of a tornado. The day I was born, a tornado literally tore down everything on all four sides of the hospital I was born in and the hospital was left standing in the middle of the devastation.

I have come through so many circumstances like that, and many more that were more personal, that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is able to deliver me from whatever happens.

 

[Ludicrus]

I didn't. Then again I've been a Christian my entire life. So there was never a time "before becoming a Christian". I grew up in the faith.

I consider the Gospels to be credible, authoritative witnesses because, by faith, I accept what has been received down through the ages by the Christian Church. The Gospels bear witness to the Apostolic teaching and tradition received and believed by the whole Christian Church--that is a confession of faith.

If I weren't a Christian, I don't see any reason why I would embrace these as anything more than Christian works about their faith, their validity or lack thereof being entirely open for debate. As is the case for the non-believing world.

But I'm a Christian, my acceptance of the Gospel texts and their authority as apostolic witness and testimony is something I take on faith, from the received faith and confession of the ancient Church.

-CryptoLutheran

So are you telling me that there was never a time in your life that you made a distinct choice or decision to believe in Jesus Christ and make Him Lord of your life?

We don't get salvation by osmosis. We also don't get salvation by inheritance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So are you telling me that there was never a time in your life that you made a distinct choice or decision to believe in Jesus Christ and make Him Lord of your life?

We don't get salvation by osmosis. We also don't get salvation by inheritance.

Salvation doesn't come by my choice or will, but by the grace of God alone, through the gift of faith alone which He alone gives.

I was raised in the Evangelical tradition, so I was raised on Decision Theology, and so if you want to know when I said the "Sinner's Prayer", well I prayed that once when I was almost four years old. Then I prayed it again when I was eight years old because i was afraid that I didn't understand or really mean it when I was four. And I continued to worry about whether I meant it or knew what it meant to mean it--and that realization that this theology of Decision was just another form of works righteousness which cannot offer assurance and hope ultimately led me down the road (quite unintentionally) to becoming a Lutheran, because in Lutheranism I heard the Gospel purely preached.

I believed before the whole "Sinner's Prayer", and I've believed throughout my whole life. I've believed because the Word has always been around me, saturating my life, it was always on my parents' lips from the moment I entered this world. And it is that Gospel which, as St. Paul says, is "the power of God to save all who believe".

I eventually received Holy Baptism when I was 17, since--again--I was raised in the modern Evangelical/Pentecostal tradition where Baptism is seen not as a Sacramental gift of God by which He adopts us by the grace and Word attached to Baptism, but as a personal choice one makes to confess their faith publicly (a non-biblical teaching by the way).

So I'm baptized, I've always believed. I can confess baptismus sum--I am baptized--and by this have confidence of my salvation in Jesus Christ. Not by my works, my will, my choices, but by the good will and grace of God accomplished by the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ who died and rose.

Now do you really want to get into a debate over Monergism and the Sacraments; or shall we go back to the topic of the thread?

-CryptoLutheran