The Flat Earth & Conspiracy Theories

[Singalphile]

Nobody can prove that there is not a secret group of people behind it all (whatever "it" is), and any evidence about the underlying issue can just easily be dismissed as part of the con.

What I hope, is that those who might be into grand conspiracies* are involved in living. I think that when you get out there and involved, you find that good and honest people often disagree with each other, that even relatively small enterprises are much too complex and messy to be micro-managed/controlled, and that hard work and a good attitude are usually rewarded. These things, and others I'm sure, can counteract conspiratorial notions, maybe.

Otherwise, from what I've seen, obsession becomes a waste of time, at best, and, at worst, leads to stressful anxiety and/or antisocial, fatalistic, paranoid, criminal (because "the system" is rigged anyway), cynical, "watch-the-world-burn" attitudes and behaviors. (Perhaps that's what Satan is up to?)

I just think we have to be careful if we think we might tend to wander in that direction.

* By "conspiracy", I mean, "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons."

[morbo3000]

Science.... Money... Power... Each of these, and others, lend themselves to conspiracy theories because there are gaps in our knowledge that require us to make leaps of trust. I simply cannot know everything about cellular biology, macro and micro economics, manufacturing and distribution chains to say I know with certainty about medicine. I have to fill those gaps of knowledge with a reasonable trust in other sources who have a higher understanding of mine.

The big question then, is who 'ya gonna trust?

I go for a plurality of sources with different agendas. Regarding medicine. bill gates is spending all his money combatting AIDS. He has no interest in making money off the med. he's giving his money away. And because he's giving his money away, he doesn't want it wasted on something with a questionable outcome. The CDC and The Atlantic also have different interests and angles on the subject.

You might say "those are all *big money.*" But billionaires don't give their money away to fund a vast conspiracy to make pharmaceutical companies money.

Same methodology works on things like vaccines and climate change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thrombomodulin]

Same methodology works on things like vaccines and climate change.

Can you elaborate on the climate change topic? There are a multitude of issues within this topic, such as whether climate change necessarily is equivalent to global warming, whether human activity has any significant impact on it, whether the world may be better off with a slightly warmer or cooler temperature than we have now, how climate in the near future compares to the historical record, whether or not any given policy of the State would effect the goal of changing the climate as desired, whether the costs of implementing that policy actually exceed the benefits, who would and who should bear the incidence of the economic burden brought about to change the climate as desired?

You haven't yet specified what positions you hold on the various issues within this topic. What sources are you basing your opinion on - which agree with your view, and which disagree with it? Is your motivation for raising this topic merely a technical issue, or is it based on the desire to promote action to mitigate climate change?

Thanks,
Pete

[dwight92070]

To Singalphile, Great Post! I agree on all points. No one can prove "it" either way, but when so-called evidence is clearly false, then any future "evidence" given from the same source to prove the same point, must be thrown out as well. You are right on about how an obsession with conspiracies are a waste of time. As Christians, don't we have anything better to do? I cannot tell you how many people I have come across who say that the rich are controlling the world and specifically the United States. I really get tired of hearing it. As you said, how about getting a life and doing something worthwhile vs. wasting your time on speculations? Even these posts, I would quit posting anything if I felt that I had nothing to contribute and that God could not use something I said to edify and encourage someone else in the faith. Yes, that sometimes includes a rebuke, hopefully to snap someone out of their deception and yes, sometimes I need to be snapped out of my deception. Iron does sharpen iron and we all must get rubbed the wrong way sometimes, so that we can be sharpened. But, as Steve and many others constantly remind us, if it doesn't line up with the Word of God, then we have to throw it out. Psalm 31:20 - You hide them in the secret place of Your presence from the conspiracies of man; You keep them secretly in a shelter from the strife of tongues. Yes, there may be conspiracies of men, but we don't have to be hindered by them. We can continue to do God's work and bear fruit for Him. In Isaiah 8:11-13 we are warned about conspiracies:

For thus the Lord spoke to me with mighty power and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, "You are not to say, 'It is a conspiracy!' in regard to all that this people call a conspiracy, and you are not to fear what they fear or be in dread of it. It is the Lord of hosts whom you should regard as holy. And He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread.

[crgfstr1]

I agree with all those who have said not to waste time worry about the conspiracies unless the Holy Spirit is compelling you to speak out. There are likely far more immediate areas to focus on. God is in control. But don't be fooled by them either. Bill Gates is not a Godly man. When he was in charge of MS the company did very divisive, illegal, manipulative acts to take out competitors. I have seen no evidence of him repenting. It is right then to question his motives and not assume that the reasons he says he is doing what he is doing are actually the reasons he is doing what he is doing.

The people that I see speaking out against what Bill is doing seem to be far more Godly then he. Are they right? I don't know, but don't dismiss them of belittle them either. Similarly don't dismiss or belittle Bill. Speak to the facts that come from good sources (unfortunately most are tainted in either direction).

[morbo3000]

You haven't yet specified what positions you hold on the various issues within this topic. What sources are you basing your opinion on - which agree with your view, and which disagree with it? Is your motivation for raising this topic merely a technical issue, or is it based on the desire to promote action to mitigate climate change?

I believe that climate change is a partly man-made phenomenon with huge consequences that we should at least be trying to avert.

It's relationship to conspiracy, or junk science is best illustrated with this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

For the purposes of this discussion, I was simply including it on my list of science-deniers. I wasn't bringing it up to promote one view over the other. It's too far afield of the faith focus of the board.

[crgfstr1]

science-deniers.

I see that term as very belittling and insulting. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong please stop using this term and others like anti-vaxxers. They are bullying terms designed to scare others into not disagreeing with you. I am actually offended and insulted as that has been my point throughout this thread but you continue to use them. This is supposed to be an environment that fosters kind discussion and debate. Using derogatory language should be avoided.

In college I worked for man who had a PHD's in Physics and Meteorology. He worked along side several other scientist in the those fields. None of them that I talked to thought that globally warming was man made. He wasn't a science-denier. He made his living off of science but luckily his studies weren't funded by people with agenda to prove one way other the other. He studied the impact of particle shapes on radiation. So it is a very closely related field. The difference was his goal was to enable the military to "see through" clouds, fog and other obscurants as well as develop obscurants that couldn't see seen through. Heat would be one of the forms of radiation that was considered as would different types of particles like CO2.

Please stop using derogatory language.

Thanks

[dizerner]

You haven't yet specified what positions you hold on the various issues within this topic. What sources are you basing your opinion on - which agree with your view, and which disagree with it? Is your motivation for raising this topic merely a technical issue, or is it based on the desire to promote action to mitigate climate change?

I believe that climate change is a partly man-made phenomenon with huge consequences that we should at least be trying to avert.

It's relationship to conspiracy, or junk science is best illustrated with this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

For the purposes of this discussion, I was simply including it on my list of science-deniers. I wasn't bringing it up to promote one view over the other. It's too far afield of the faith focus of the board.

I don't like this kind of mindless bullying ad populum. If your case is so strong, present the best arguments from the opposing side and why you think they fail, not this derpy "look how many scientists buhleeve it!"

Most deniers don't deny change, but the extent of how much we influence it and what the best course of action is (whether it's worth it for how much we can affect, and what is best to do). How many illogical and mindless things people do thinking it will help the environment when it may actually be worse (like electric cars or taxing businesses or whatnot) or neglecting the real world financial considerations that could affect people's opinions. How about we stop oversimplifying the debate for the "stupid media audience" and let even outliers give their level headed opinion without a priori scoffing. I know I'd appreciate that and not the "you're just too stupid to know" with Al Gores ridiculously over simplistic and grossly overgeneralized "it's getting hotter" graphs.

[thrombomodulin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Thanks for the link. I haven't taken time to look into every point in this video, particularly as the sources are not cited, but I have encountered data that is relevant to two of the claims. (1) David Friedman on the alleged 97.1% consensus, and (2) Steve Goddard on the global mean temperatures. Robert P. Murphy has a lot of interesting things to say on the economic's side - for example even if one assumes AGW is true it is entirely rational for a person to conclude that many (perhaps all?) of the policies proposed to mitigate it are more harmful than the climate change itself (thus we should do nothing about it). His comments on the 7% discount rate in the economic analysis were pretty interesting too. Maybe I'm not yet sufficiently informed about the arguments out there, but as far as I presently know, I do not think it is appropriate to label those who reject the idea that humans are the main cause of global warming as "science denying" or as conspiracy theorists. Your opinion on this matter is quite strong in the opposite direction - I trust your opinion isn't solely based on this video. Do you have anything better?

[morbo3000]

As I said. Those are opinions of mine. I put them in my comments about conspiracies. It's not important enough to me to explain further. It's fairly low on my agenda food-chain. I hear all sorts of similar rhetoric from people on the board on theological topics. Or YEC. It's fine to be outraged with me. Let's get back to the trinity!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk