Debating Conspiracy Theories

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1113315' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:01 PM']
I have to disagree. For one, I know a number of Novus Ordo Catholics that believe this very claim about the Jesuits. They are strong believers and are firm in their faith in the Church, but they believe things about the current agenda of the Jesuit leadership that are questionable. Now, whether or not the claim is true or not is another thing. I would agree that by and large the majority of conspiracy theorists as they are called, are pretty much paranoid about a lot of things. But you guys make too much of a generalization.

Two, how can you prove it's not a smokescreen? Same way you explain Catholic doctrine to Protestants etc. Give them the facts. Give them the accurate interpretation of data and events. What these people do with that information is their own business. As Scripture tells us if someone does not accept us wipe off the dirt from your sandals and move on to another place. But Scripture certainly never tells us to presuppose that someone is too stupid or too closeminded to deal with. Never does Scripture tells us not to try. I know there are many people who have strong faith in the Church but who are questioning some things, not because they are troublemakers and certainly not because they are stupid. But because they are concerned for the well-being of their Church. Now, these people know that in the end their Church will ultimately succeed. But they are concerned for the possible damage done in the intermediate periods. I know this because I am one of them. I love nothing more than I love Christ and the Church. I have all the confidence in the world in the office of the Papacy that it will never fail. But I have concerns about the intermediate period. Am I simply stupid, ignorant of simple common sense? Maybe, but I don't think so. Am I unwilling to look at data that contradicts my questions? Of course not. Now, whether I immediately have a eureka moment and renounce my "errors" all at once is highly unlikely. But I never simply shrug off things I'm not comfortable with. Heck, that's how I got into the position I'm in now. Now, I don't mean to make this about me, because it's not. I use myself as an example of the many so-called stupid and stubborn people that are known to you guys as "conspiracy theorists." Are there nuts out there? No doubt. But they exist in all beliefs. I know this from working in apologetics with protestants and non-christians for so long. What do you do with such nuts? Make your initial effort, then when you see them ignore your evidence you wipe the dirt off your sandals and move on. All one can do for such as these is pray and fast as you say. But you don't isolate a whole group simply because a number of them are ignoring you. There are many who are hungry for whatever information you(and others) might have that can bring us back into the commonly accepted understanding.
[/quote]
If you have a particular point to argue, give it. Enough with this whining and vague accusations.

As for "conspiracy theories" the burden of proof is on those holding the theories. If it comes down to proving negatives, the debate becomes senseless. ("How can you prove that Jesuit-Masonic-Jewish-Communist-Lizard-men are [b]NOT[/b] controlling America's government?") For many conspiracy theorists, any evidence presented against the conspiracy claims are merely evidence for how powerful the conspiracy cover-up is.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1113330' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:17 PM']
If you have a particular point to argue, give it. Enough with this whining and vague accusations. [/quote]
Whose whining? I'm addressing the rather lazy principle of refusing to dialogue with people who hold novel ideas simply because some who hold these ideas will not listen to reason. If this was a principle we should follow then evangelization of any kind would be pointless because there are so many people in all faiths who do not understand critical thinking or common sense. I would go so far as to say that there are relatively few people who have an adequate grasp of these things, myself included.

I've made my point quite clear. I've made no accusation that the posters here have not already accepted as applicable to them.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1113330' date='Nov 6 2006, 11:17 PM']As for "conspiracy theories" the burden of proof is on those holding the theories. If it comes down to proving negatives, the debate becomes senseless. ("How can you prove that Jesuit-Masonic-Jewish-Communist-Lizard-men are [b]NOT[/b] controlling America's government?") For many conspiracy theorists, any evidence presented against the conspiracy claims are merely evidence for how powerful the conspiracy cover-up is.
[/quote]

And for others it would be something to consider. The sweeping generalization is what I am addressing. Yes, the burden of proof is on those who claim something is up. So? I wouldn't deny that at all. The only thing you guys would have to do is explain away all the arguments of the "crazies". Once you have done that then there is nothing more you can do but pray, but at least you would have tried. With this dismissal approach absolutely nothing good happens on either side (if indeed the "conspirators" are right).

Edited November 7, 2006 by goldenchild17