quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Yes, we should. Coincidences are just that - coincidences - unless there is evidence to prove a causal connection. We need not concern ourselves with theories for which there is no supporting evidence - doing so would bring the progress of the entire scientific world to a screeching halt. And once again I'll direct you to the fact that most of the "coincidences" you're referring to aren't coincidences at all, they're just complete fabrications by wack jobs (or more likely, in my opinion, ordinary dudes trying to see just how gullible the conspiracy nuts are and laughing their asses off later on).

Thats just your opinion. And if you believe everyone should think your opinion is the only correct one, then you are nothing more then a dictator.

Also.. isnt the scientific community based on creating a theory/hypothesis.. then trying to prove or disprove that hypothesis?
Some of which may never be proven or disproven?

___________________
Martin - Trance Religion -

quote:

Originally posted by neuromancer no comments .. wack jobs .. so thats how we get called now.. LOL

As far as I know, that's what the conspiracy theorists have always been called.

Use whatever term you like... wackos, cuckoos, wack jobs, nutcases, wingnuts, mental cases, crackpots, psychos, madmen, loonie bins, ding-a-lings, kooks, cranks, yo-yos, neurotics...

If you guys thought I had very little patience for Lefties, I have NONE for conspiracy theorists. At least the political nuts focus on issues that can, at some level, be thought of as a matter of opinion. Conspiracy nuts just make shit up to try to convince people about the latest hare-brained government "plot". They're proven dead wrong every time and always find some horrible excuse (usually, questioning the validity of sources that any sane person would have no problem with).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Ohh dude ^^^ .. you are hilarious .. Cheers!

The conspiracy session can be closed now.

___________________
"Are you-are you sad?"
-No.
"But your-your songs are sad."
-My songs are of time and distance. The sadness is in you. Watch my arms. There is only the dance. These things you treasure are shells.
"I-I knew that. Once."

quote:

Originally posted by cyper Thats just your opinion. And if you believe everyone should think your opinion is the only correct one, then you are nothing more then a dictator.

No, actually, it's not my opinion, it's called the Scientific Method and it's been accepted almost universally for the past few millenia (not counting the brief period in the Dark Ages where religious nuts tried to destroy science as we know it).

quote:

Also.. isnt the scientific community based on creating a theory/hypothesis.. then trying to prove or disprove that hypothesis? Some of which may never be proven or disproven?

The scientific method is based on creating a POSITIVE, TESTABLE, and FALSIFIABLE hypothesis and then seeing if it can be disproven. It is absolutely imperative that a hypothesis meet those requirements, otherwise it is not scientific.

POSITIVE means that the theory implies something DOES occur... not that something does NOT occur. Attacking the validity of other theories without foundation is NOT scientific.

TESTABLE means that it is actually POSSIBLE to prove the theory based on observable evidence. If there is no possible way to prove a hypothesis, then it is unscientific, and can never be accepted as a theory.

FALSIFIABLE means that it is actually possible to DISPROVE the theory based on observable evidence. If there is no possible way to disprove a hypothesis, then once again it is an invalid hypothesis.

Hypotheses which do not meet these criteria are called "catch-all" arguments. They are fallacious, they are objectively impossible, and they are scientifically unacceptable.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut They're proven dead wrong every time and always find some horrible excuse (usually, questioning the validity of sources that any sane person would have no problem with).

That's exactly why I love all these conspiracy crackpots - everytime you state a valid source, they always come back with one response "pfft, he's been paid off by the govenment. I, with no technical background at all, know much more about the topic at hand than the person who's been doing this for the last 20 years."

___________________
I'm the trouble starter, fuckin' instigator.
I'm the fear-addicted, danger illustrated.

So in that case.. we should throw ALL religion out the window, since none of it has any scientific proof whatsoever.

hmm.. now im starting to like your thinking.

___________________
Martin - Trance Religion -

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur That's exactly why I love all these conspiracy crackpots - everytime you state a valid source, they always come back with one response "pfft, he's been paid off by the govenment. I, with no technical background at all, know much more about the topic at hand than the person who's been doing this for the last 20 years."

Yes - it's almost a narcissistic behaviour. I'm not saying that all conspiracies are impossible, but I have to believe that someone who not only believes but *insists upon* their conspiracy theories in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence is actually mentally ill (the paranoid narcissist explains it pretty well to me, although I'm not a psychologist so I can't say that for sure).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by cyper So in that case.. we should throw ALL religion out the window, since none of it has any scientific proof whatsoever.

Absolutely! No argument from me there.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Dude, seriously, do you not realize that the Illuminati and the Freemasons were inventions of the paranoid schizophrenics? They're delusions. They aren't real. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Christ, it's unbelievable how gullible some people can be. That's what happens when you start refusing to "trust" the media or any legitimate source of information though... you start believing any old crap. Trusting no one is, at a fundamental level, the same as believing everyone.

oh wow... Freemasons aren't real? Are you kidding? Or do you just mean not in the control-the-world-conspiracy sense? Or do you mean the link between Freemasons and so-called Illuminati? Hope I'm reading it wrong.

(you probably have an idea of how many masonic lodges there are here in Toronto alone so I must just be reading it wrong...)

diginut, other then writing all the big words in this thread you still have not proven anything yourself.

for years people have been told that JFK was shot in the back of the head when the video clearly shows the bullet hitting him in the front. interested to hear your thoughts on this one.

How about the Pearl Harbor deception?

Where the American Government knew about the attack which was to take place, yet they did nothing to stop it. Then they blamed the Jap & made the public believe it was a "surpise attack"

Also, 9/11 is has been called the "New Pearl Harbor" disaster.

But im sure its all nothing & there is no conspiracy....

___________________
Martin - Trance Religion -