Study Says Conspiracy Theorists more sane than Conventional Thinkers

[Ludicrus]

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

Every media organization, whether newspaper or television or radio have gotten it wrong a couple of times. They are humans running those things, and even computers make mistakes.

But you would rather believe mainstream media? Who are biased beyond a shadow of a doubt and anti-Christian for the most part? Than a small news outlet on the web that has been around for a long long time and has stood up for the rights of Christians and The Constitution continuously?

I find that, if you are a Lutheran/Christian as you profess to be in your icons, that you are presenting a bit of being double minded.

Even weather reports can be considered circumspect on MSM outlets. Would you side with them?

 

[seeingeyes]

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.

Why, specifically, do you believe that the effects of cognitive dissonance do not apply to you?

Here's the description from the article:

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.
​

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.

Amen to that.

 

[Ludicrus]

Why, specifically, do you believe that the effects of cognitive dissonance do not apply to you?

Because I was convinced at one point that God hated me. That He would never forgive me.

A Christian lady had me try an experiment. She believed that God loved all of us. That He would forgive me and keep me sober, and that if I really wanted to find out, that I should ask.

The sticking point was, that I had no belief whatsoever, that if I asked the God of my understanding at the time to help me or to forgive me, I knew He wouldn't.

All of the circumstances in my life pointed to the fact that He hated me. I had been abused, physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally and ritually. I had lost everything.

Even the doctors considered me a hopeless basket case.

She told me to ask the God she believed in. The God who loved me so much that He sent His Son to die on the cross for my sins so that He could forgive me.

Now, I'd heard all of this before. I went to church as a child. I was told I was too young for Jesus, when I most desperately needed Him, when most of the abuse first started.

And she told me, "Pray like this, God, the God that ____ believes in, if you really do love me and You are willing to keep me sober, and are willing to forgive me... in Jesus' name Amen."

And for the longest time, that's how I prayed. He wasn't my God. He was her God.

But over time, I came to believe that He was my God. That He did love me. He was willing to forgive me and had in fact, when I asked Him, done so. And that as long as I sought Him out to keep me sober, He would.


My husband wants me to run an errand, if this didn't answer your question, please don't hesitate to ask later.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Every media organization, whether newspaper or television or radio have gotten it wrong a couple of times. They are humans running those things, and even computers make mistakes.

Yes, and a credible journalistic source would--upon realizing their mistake--retract it. Has WND retracted its claim in this regard?

I'm not exactly defending major news networks and media networks, the lack of journalistic integrity is an epidemic anymore. But I am pointing out that WND lacks credibility since it very much seems to me to be entirely unconcerned with facts and journalistic integrity and rather is simply a right-wing rumor mill.

But you would rather believe mainstream media? Who are biased beyond a shadow of a doubt and anti-Christian for the most part?

See my above statement.

Than a small news outlet on the web that has been around for a long long time and has stood up for the rights of Christians and The Constitution continuously?

I don't see a "defense of Christianity" or "defense of the Constitution" here, just lies and propaganda to rile up the gullible. It has a rather right-wing agenda, and it doesn't seem entirely bothered by the fact that it needs to skew facts or just make things up to help bolster that agenda.

It'd be one thing if they gave their right-leaning spin on things and that was it; it's that it is entirely acceptable to promote outright falsehoods in order to further their agenda that is the problem.

I'm not saying I have faith in left-wing or left-leaning media; but I definitely am saying that I have no faith in the right-wing propaganda media machine that has been producing lies, falsehoods, and fabricating scandal out of whole cloth through advocacy of the ludicrous birther movement, the "Obama is a Muslim" bunk, the "Obama is a Socialist" bunk, etc.

They know what gets them viewers--fear and anger. And so they use it. Does that mean "mainstream" media is perfect or even all that better? Well no, no it doesn't. But the faults of "mainstream" media doesn't negate the blatant fear and anger-mongering that has been a staple of various right-wing media organizations for years now in this country.

If truth doesn't sell, then just make it up apparently.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ludicrus]

Yes, and a credible journalistic source would--upon realizing their mistake--retract it. Has WND retracted its claim in this regard?

I'm not exactly defending major news networks and media networks, the lack of journalistic integrity is an epidemic anymore. But I am pointing out that WND lacks credibility since it very much seems to me to be entirely unconcerned with facts and journalistic integrity and rather is simply a right-wing rumor mill.

See my above statement.

I don't see a "defense of Christianity" or "defense of the Constitution" here, just lies and propaganda to rile up the gullible. It has a rather right-wing agenda, and it doesn't seem entirely bothered by the fact that it needs to skew facts or just make things up to help bolster that agenda.

It'd be one thing if they gave their right-leaning spin on things and that was it; it's that it is entirely acceptable to promote outright falsehoods in order to further their agenda that is the problem.

I'm not saying I have faith in left-wing or left-leaning media; but I definitely am saying that I have no faith in the right-wing propaganda media machine that has been producing lies, falsehoods, and fabricating scandal out of whole cloth through advocacy of the ludicrous birther movement, the "Obama is a Muslim" bunk, the "Obama is a Socialist" bunk, etc.

They know what gets them viewers--fear and anger. And so they use it. Does that mean "mainstream" media is perfect or even all that better? Well no, no it doesn't. But the faults of "mainstream" media doesn't negate the blatant fear and anger-mongering that has been a staple of various right-wing media organizations for years now in this country.

If truth doesn't sell, then just make it up apparently.

-CryptoLutheran

I see the holes in your argument.

Obama is a Muslim because he has said so, not because WND wishes it to be so.

And because they are anti-Obama, you will hate them and spurn anything they publish.

Nuff said. You or your opinions on the matter are no longer credible.

 

[seeingeyes]

Every media organization, whether newspaper or television or radio have gotten it wrong a couple of times. They are humans running those things, and even computers make mistakes.

But you would rather believe mainstream media? Who are biased beyond a shadow of a doubt and anti-Christian for the most part? Than a small news outlet on the web that has been around for a long long time and has stood up for the rights of Christians and The Constitution continuously?

I find that, if you are a Lutheran/Christian as you profess to be in your icons, that you are presenting a bit of being double minded.

Even weather reports can be considered circumspect on MSM outlets. Would you side with them?

What if they are all wrong? The idea that Anderson Cooper couldn't find his way out of a paper bag has no bearing on whether Gina Louden can.

 

[Ludicrus]

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

Well as far as I am concerned we were discussing the topic of the thread. We were discussing whether or not Christians are the ultimate "Conspiracy Theorists" as the world would recognize us, or are we Conventional Thinkers.

As a Baptist, convinced that you need to make a choice for or against Christ, you would have been considered a Conspiracy Theorist by all Atheists and some others who refuse to believe in Christ Jesus.

As a Lutheran, I don't know what to make of what you said. I'll leave that in God's hands to sort out, but by your own admission, your peers believed that it was true and by tradition you believed it.

The bottom line is this, if we think like the World does, we cannot accept the Truth written in Scripture. Therefore, anyone who professes to believe God's Word and that Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary, rose again the third day and is seated at the right hand of the Father and will return again Triumphant has to be, and is considered a Conspiracy Theorist, even if they don't relish the term.

Because Herod conspired to kill Jesus by having all the boy babies under a certain age killed; thereby killing the Messiah.

That is a Conspiracy Theory, the biggest grandaddy of them all. Christians believe it as fact.

The Jews would have believed this Conspiracy of Jesus being the Messiah IF Jesus had acted the way they wanted Him to.

Some Jews, thank God, did believe it, but the majority didn't.

So Christianity in and of itself is a Conspiracy. Some come to it because it has become a tradition in their lives, that is widely accepted by the people they trust and respect. Like you did.

Others come by it, because they dare to believe something their peers refuse to believe, and they investigate it and find enough validation for them to come to a conclusion, that YES it must be true.

But, Christians that bash "Conspiracy Theorists" should look at themselves in the mirror and realize that they are calling themselves fruitcakes, wackos and nutjobs just by their own professions of faith.


It was a Conspiracy to cause Jesus to be arrested and then crucified, even though he was innocent, because they conspired against Him and Judas even took a bribe of 30 pieces of silver.

 

[seeingeyes]

But over time, I came to believe that He was my God. That He did love me. He was willing to forgive me and had in fact, when I asked Him, done so. And that as long as I sought Him out to keep me sober, He would.

That's absolutely beautiful. Praise the Lord.

But saying that you overcame 'cognitive dissonance' in that (very important) instance and changed one 'worldview' for another 'worldview' does not mean that you are immune to 'cognitive dissonance' now.

It may be that you now abandon information that disagrees with this new view that you hold.

Thoughts?

 

[Ludicrus]

What if they are all wrong? The idea that Anderson Cooper couldn't find his way out of a paper bag has no bearing on whether Gina Louden can.

Yes, a valid question. What if nothing is all right? Where are we then?

Here's the bottom line of the whole entire issue, in my opinion.

Some people base their reality upon what the majority of their peers believe is acceptable and normal. Even if there is no valid basis for that belief or very little data to back it up. Remember the most oft asked questions of mothers?

"If all of your friends jumped off a bridge would you?"

Peer pressure shapes and molds a lot of people. It must be so, since almost every mother of the past several generations has said something along those lines.

And what about, "You sail in that ship and you will drop off the edge!!"

Others base their reality upon what they believe they can prove regardless of what their peers believe or say is true and regardless of what any one else says is true.

There is a point, that all of us have to come to a conclusion about what we will accept as Truth and what we refuse to believe.

It helps us sleep at night.

Some people can't fathom being different from others in opinion or viewpoint because they want everyone to like them and approve of them. I truly pity these people. They will always be swayed as popular opinion changes with the times. One day eggs are deadly, a decade later they are healthy. Which is the lie? Some people will always stay confused on the issue or will hold to the first lie, that eggs are deadly.

Others, mostly (not all) Christians, have to make the decision to take the higher road and become willing to die for their beliefs, if necessary, even as the world repudiates, scorns, ridicules and hates them.

They will hear the lie that eggs are deadly and remember that Jesus taught that they were good in Luke chapter 11. So they won't have trouble with popular opinion and won't be swayed to begin with.

 

[seeingeyes]

Yes, a valid question. What if nothing is all right? Where are we then?

Here's the bottom line of the whole entire issue, in my opinion.

Some people base their reality upon what the majority of their peers believe is acceptable and normal. Even if there is no valid basis for that belief or very little data to back it up. Remember the most oft asked questions of mothers?

"If all of your friends jumped off a bridge would you?"

Peer pressure shapes and molds a lot of people. It must be so, since almost every mother of the past several generations has said something along those lines.

And what about, "You sail in that ship and you will drop off the edge!!"

Others base their reality upon what they believe they can prove regardless of what their peers believe or say is true and regardless of what any one else says is true.

There is a point, that all of us have to come to a conclusion about what we will accept as Truth and what we refuse to believe.

It helps us sleep at night.

Some people can't fathom being different from others in opinion or viewpoint because they want everyone to like them and approve of them. I truly pity these people. They will always be swayed as popular opinion changes with the times. One day eggs are deadly, a decade later they are healthy. Which is the lie? Some people will always stay confused on the issue or will hold to the first lie, that eggs are deadly.

Others, mostly (not all) Christians, have to make the decision to take the higher road and become willing to die for their beliefs, if necessary, even as the world repudiates, scorns, ridicules and hates them.

They will hear the lie that eggs are deadly and remember that Jesus taught that they were good in Luke chapter 11. So they won't have trouble with popular opinion and won't be swayed to begin with.

When I was in high school, I spent a year doing the opposite of everyone else. I stayed sober, I dressed differently, I flunked all my classes, I was the only one at prom in a short skirt, etc. I called my style 'anti-conformist conformist'.

And while I certainly 'stood out' from the rest, I wasn't displaying myself at all. I was simply a backwards reflection of everyone I knew.

I think we could agree that the 'way of the world' is to flaunt one's wealth (both real and imaginary). But if I were to do the opposite, hoard my money and never buy a thing, I would look more like Ebeneezer Scrooge than Jesus Christ.

The opposite of Jesus is 'the world', but the opposite of 'the world' is not necessarily Jesus.

Or in other words: Just because everyone thinks I'm wrong, doesn't mean I'm right.

 

[Ludicrus]

That's absolutely beautiful. Praise the Lord.

But saying that you overcame 'cognitive dissonance' in that (very important) instance and changed one 'worldview' for another 'worldview' does not mean that you are immune to 'cognitive dissonance' now.

It may be that you now abandon information that disagrees with this new view that you hold.

Thoughts?

I was ritually abused. Which means that I was abused with religious brainwashing while being physically tortured, molested, raped, beaten, starved, etc.

After I became a Christian, I told the Lord that I wasn't really sure if anything else of Christianity was really True or twisted. I asked Him to unbrainwash me and show me anything that was not true. In effect, correcting anything that was skewed.

God was kind enough to answer that prayer. I spent several years in prayer and Bible study almost constantly. Dividing the Word, researching it. Breaking it down. Like an attorney on a case or a scientist.

At one point, I was given a time of approx. 9 months where along with a prayer partner, we studied the Word and prayed before the sun came up and we didn't break until after the sun went down. The Lord would wake us both up independently and He would also tell us when to break our fast.

So prayer and fasting we did do.

And it was amazing!!! The prayers God answered! The marvelous way God provided, not only for us but those we prayed for.

And yes, there were a lot of things God had to show me the Truth on.

If I abandon information today, it is because I've prayed for discernment and God has shown me the Truth of it, or I immediately have the Word of God come up in my mind on something that tells me that it is a lie of satan.

For instance, the Arab Spring isn't about Democracy or Freedom, it is about breaking down barriers to bring every nation into the NWO. So, sometimes, regardless of what is stated on the surface of things, there will be times that God opens my understanding to see past what's on the surface of things.

And it will play out that way in God's time.

 

[seeingeyes]

I see the holes in your argument.

Obama is a Muslim because he has said so, not because WND wishes it to be so.

And because they are anti-Obama, you will hate them and spurn anything they publish.

Nuff said. You or your opinions on the matter are no longer credible.

This answer does not exemplify rigorous 'researching, testing, approving'.

For one thing, what evidence do you have that Obama 'said he is a Muslim'? Something better than this, I hope: snopes.com: My Muslim Faith

And what is your evidence that ViaCrusis 'hates and spurns" WND because it is 'anti-Obama'? Do you have any evidence that ViaCrusis is pro-Obama?

Or do you think that he must be pro-Obama because he hates WND which is anti-Obama? And that any source that claims that Obama is not a secret Muslim must also be pro-Obama, since they are not definitively anti-Obama?

If that is the case, then your 'worldview' is all zipped up. Your evidence comes from 'unquestionable' sources and and anyone who dares question those 'unquestionable' sources is instantly vilified. In that way, you can shield yourself from being exposed to anything that disagrees with your worldview.

Which is exactly what the article you posted describes as 'conventional thinking'.

 

[Ludicrus]

When I was in high school, I spent a year doing the opposite of everyone else. I stayed sober, I dressed differently, I flunked all my classes, I was the only one at prom in a short skirt, etc. I called my style 'anti-conformist conformist'.

And while I certainly 'stood out' from the rest, I wasn't displaying myself at all. I was simply a backwards reflection of everyone I knew.

I think we could agree that the 'way of the world' is to flaunt one's wealth (both real and imaginary). But if I were to do the opposite, hoard my money and never buy a thing, I would look more like Ebeneezer Scrooge than Jesus Christ.

The opposite of Jesus is 'the world', but the opposite of 'the world' is not necessarily Jesus.

Or in other words: Just because everyone thinks I'm wrong, doesn't mean I'm right.

True!

 

[Ludicrus]

This answer does not exemplify rigorous 'researching, testing, approving'.

For one thing, what evidence do you have that Obama 'said he is a Muslim'? Something better than this, I hope: snopes.com: My Muslim Faith

And what is your evidence that ViaCrusis 'hates and spurns" WND because it is 'anti-Obama'? Do you have any evidence that ViaCrusis is pro-Obama?

Or do you think that he must be pro-Obama because he hates WND which is anti-Obama? And that any source that claims that Obama is not a secret Muslim must also be pro-Obama, since they are not definitively anti-Obama?

If that is the case, then your 'worldview' is all zipped up. Your evidence comes from 'unquestionable' sources and and anyone who dares question those 'unquestionable' sources is instantly vilified. In that way, you can shield yourself from being exposed to anything that disagrees with your worldview.

Which is exactly what the article you posted describes as 'conventional thinking'.

snopes has been found to be in error a time or two.

Obama said he was a Muslim in an interview on TV.

As for my comment, I was trying to show how ridiculous he is in his comments.

To hate a media outlet because they stated that Obama is a muslim is ludicrous!

 

[seeingeyes]

snopes has been found to be in error a time or two.

I'm sure it has.

Obama said he was a Muslim in an interview on TV.

That snopes page provides the transcript for that interview. There's no way one would conclude from that that Obama is a secret Muslim...unless one already believes that he is a secret Muslim and is grasping desperately for any shred of an implication of proof.

As 'evidence' it simply isn't good enough.

As for my comment, I was trying to show how ridiculous he is in his comments.

To hate a media outlet because they stated that Obama is a muslim is ludicrous!

ViaCrucis said that he wouldn't trust any news source that made an error of that magnitude (claiming that Obama's ring had Arabic on it, when in fact it had no writing at all on it) and then refused to retract such an error when shown to be wrong.

That doesn't seem an unreasonable standard to hold a source to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see the holes in your argument.

Obama is a Muslim because he has said so, not because WND wishes it to be so.

You mean the snipped video clip of Obama making a verbal snaffu? That is thus far the only "proof" I've seen of Obama saying he was a Muslim.

And because they are anti-Obama, you will hate them and spurn anything they publish.

I couldn't care less what they think of the current president. All I'd ask is that they don't promote demonstrably and objectively false information--not just about Obama, but anyone or anything.

Nuff said. You or your opinions on the matter are no longer credible.

On what basis? That I don't think the president is lying when he's mentioned on numerous occasions that he's a Christian, has spoken about his own conversion to Christianity out from having been raised in an atheist household? That I don't accept that Obama is a Muslim simply because his name is Barack Hussein Obama and his father was Muslim? That I don't accept that Obama was born in Kenya because it has been consistently demonstrated that birther nonsense is just that--nonsense?

I don't think Obama is an ultra-liberal Islamocommufascist trying to actively destroy the United States and Christianity--and thus I am to be dismissed out of hand?

I just want to be clear here, that this is the reason why I should be dismissed and regarded as entirely uncredible.

-CryptoLutheran