Alex Jones Exposes Atheists

[segnosaur]

Re: Alex Jones...

He basically talks about things I am interested in and most of the behind the scenes if you will of what is not really reported much in the MSM.

That's because the Main Stream Media usually tries to to this thing called "fact checking".

yeah, I know, surprising. Guess when you realize that you'll be ridiculed if you get things wrong (whereas Alex Jones just plows right on through.)

I can use a few other MSM articles to show you just that. I have done that in a couple threads.

I've also seen you post from GlobalResearch, another site heavy with nonsense. Doesn't exactly make you look that great.

Just look at how confusing the whole Libyan embassy attack. The information has changed through the whole story. Jones had some guests to show that this was not spontaneous right from the start. And now that is proven to be correct.

There's a saying... even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

Oh, and by the way.. the attacks happened September 11. Just doing 30 seconds of googling found that the Main Stream Media was already putting out stories that the attack was professionally executed as early as September 12.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/12/libya-us-ambassador.html

Jones is off on some things, and other media is off on other things.

He always talked about how the CIA helped to create Al-Queda, which is an undisputed fact.

Except that its not...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/26/terry-glavin-lies-damn-lies-and-the-cias-creation-of-the-taliban/#more-52091

The U.S. did fund various anti-soviet militia groups in Afghanistan, but bin Laden basically did a lot of the building of al Quaeda himself (using a lot of his own money.)

Edited October 2, 2012 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

That's because the Main Stream Media usually tries to to this thing called "fact checking".

Alex does his fact checking as well. Most of the facts are right off the government websites. One thing he always says is go look for the info yourself. It's there if you want to see it.

Don't take his word for it, and don't take my word for it either.

yeah, I know, surprising. Guess when you realize that you'll be ridiculed if you get things wrong (whereas Alex Jones just plows right on through.)

I've gotten things wrong before, and I will get things wrong in the future. I could be all wrong about Jones as well. But at least I understand that there is a possibility I am wrong.

I've also seen you post from GlobalResearch, another site heavy with nonsense. Doesn't exactly make you look that great.

I've seen others post from GlobalResearch so I thought, hey it's acceptable. But that may be part of the problem or conditioning that people don't accept information from other websites. I also use articles from the MSM as well. And as you know I don't trust the MSM much at all. But every now and then you can see part of the truth hidden between the lines of most MSM articles.

There's a saying... even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

Ok.

Oh, and by the way.. the attacks happened September 11. Just doing 30 seconds of googling found that the Main Stream Media was already putting out stories that the attack was professionally executed as early as September 12.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/12/libya-us-ambassador.html

I agree the information was there right from the start. But for the US media it carried the movie bit as far as it could until people started to understand the real story. The fact that the White House had to backtrack proves that they were trying to pull a fast one over the people in an attempt for political gain.

CBC did report it early on, but take a look at the US MSM, most ran with the movie bit until it was called out. I admit I was duped a bit by it at first, but always in the back of my mind 'there is something more to this'. And that turned out to be so.

Except that its not...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/26/terry-glavin-lies-damn-lies-and-the-cias-creation-of-the-taliban/#more-52091

The U.S. did fund various anti-soviet militia groups in Afghanistan, but bin Laden basically did a lot of the building of al Quaeda himself (using a lot of his own money.)

Then you would want to take issue with what Hillary Clinton said and not what I have posted. And I was talking about Al-Queda more than the Taliban. Even when a speckle of truth is actually spoken by these people, many just seem to ignore it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZK6SVlQ1Y

[Wayward Son]

I love how Alex Jones managed to infiltrate the bohemian grove. Jon Ronson - who was writing a book on nutcases like Jones, met up with Jones and two of his sidekicks, plus a person who had previously managed to "infilitrate" the grove. Jones and his side kicks had managed to come up with a dangerous and delusional method of possibly getting in seal team 6 style by going miles and miles out of their way and scaling some pretty ridiculous terrain.

But, the person who had infiltrated the grove before had a different idea....walk in like everyone else. Anyone could do it - just don't look crazy. Jones dismissed such an idea as a good way to get to get killed, so Jones and one sidekick entered through a modified, but still completely insane way through ditches and bushes. They managed to tape the events, somehow surviving certain death, and had an opinion of the events that only a mind bogglingly paronoid conspiracy theorist could have.

Ronson and the other guy just walked straight in, without encountering a hint of security, watched the events, met up with Jones, who was seeing imaginary dragons everywhere, for a couple minutes. And walked back out. Ronson viewed it as basically a boring, meaningless frat party for businees people who are beyond college in terms of work, but not maturity level. Jones, however, doesn't earn his living by seeing things as they actually are.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Wayward Son

[segnosaur]

Alex does his fact checking as well.

All I can say is... HA HA HA HA!!!!

I still remember some claim on his web site from years back that the U.S. had this big military build up with thousands of troops on the Afghanistan border prior to 9/11, which showed that it was an "inside job". Of course, no such military build up existed, and even when the U.S. acted to overthrow the Taliban, they did it with a small number of actual soldiers, some air power, and local militias.

And then of course there's the whole "evidence of demolition during 9/11" bunk.

I've also seen you post from GlobalResearch, another site heavy with nonsense. Doesn't exactly make you look that great.

I've seen others post from GlobalResearch so I thought, hey it's acceptable.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

And the fact that one person was foolish enough to use them as a source doesn't mean that its a good idea. I've also seen people post information from WhaleTo and Mercola but those aren't exactly respectable either. The key is to consider the source, judge whether they have a reason to be biased and the impact if they end up being wrong.

Here's what I find ironic... you claim that you want people to "look for yourself". Yet if you took your own advice and actually investigated the GlobalResearch web site, you would have seen other examples of nonsense on it, which should have made you be cautious of anything they post. I know whenever someone refers to a source I'm not familiar with, I try to learn more about it.

But that may be part of the problem or conditioning that people don't accept information from other websites.

That's because when someone posts a reference to something like GlobalReasearch or Infowars, we ask ourselves... is this a well known source, or just some yahoo who's thrown up a web site? Do they have enough staff to verify their stories? How much will they be harmed by posting incorrect materials? Do they benefit more from being inaccurate than they do by being honest?

GlobalResearch, Infowars/prison planet, and so many others fail on those points.

Re: Alex Jones reporting Libya attacks "planned"...

Oh, and by the way.. the attacks happened September 11. Just doing 30 seconds of googling found that the Main Stream Media was already putting out stories that the attack was professionally executed as early as September 12.

I agree the information was there right from the start. But for the US media it carried the movie bit as far as it could until people started to understand the real story.

Ummm... going back to google, I found other U.S. sources that also point out that the attacks were planned in advance that were published on the 12th.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012/09/12/deadly-embassy-attacks-were-days-in-the-making/57752828/1

Then you would want to take issue with what Hillary Clinton said and not what I have posted. And I was talking about Al-Queda more than the Taliban. Even when a speckle of truth is actually spoken by these people, many just seem to ignore it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZK6SVlQ1Y

You know, I'm always amazed at the "believers", and how they tend to use youtube videos as "proof". I guess its a lot easier to point to some video clip rather than an actual analysis.

Now, here's my question... did you actually watch the video? She doesn't say they created Al Qaeda. She says they funded militia groups that they're now fighting against, not specifically al Qaeda.

Believe it or not, there are other terrorist and militia organizations out there apart from Al Qaeda.

[Wayward Son]

Alex Jones does the same thing psychics do. Say as many things as possible. Recognize that your viewers want to believe, so they forget that almost all the claims are complete misses, and re-interpret a few vague statements to mean something more than they do.

[g_bambino]

Considering we are the most complex things in the universe that we know of, it's not unreasonable to make such an assumption.

In those circumstances, it's not unreasonable to consider it. It is, however, unreasonable to believe it to be a hundred percent true.

[Guest Manny]

In those circumstances, it's not unreasonable to consider it. It is, however, unreasonable to believe it to be a hundred percent true.

Sorry, just based on the facts we know. Not sci-fi

[Mr.Canada]

I don't this guy is worth discussing. He's obviously an attention whore.

[Guest Manny]

I don't this guy is worth discussing. He's obviously an attention whore.

Which guy, you mean me?

[segnosaur]

Alex Jones does the same thing psychics do. Say as many things as possible. Recognize that your viewers want to believe, so they forget that almost all the claims are complete misses, and re-interpret a few vague statements to mean something more than they do.

That's a very good point. What he does does look a lot like "cold reading".

[GostHacked]

That's a very good point. What he does does look a lot like "cold reading".

It is a lot like cold reading. And it is more of an overall sense of what is going on. The ability to connect the dots and provide some kind of analysis is important. Weather you agree with it or not, that is part of what he does.

And that is not unlike many news reporters out there who give their own analysis of what is happening in the news.

[segnosaur]

That's a very good point. What he does does look a lot like "cold reading".

It is a lot like cold reading. And it is more of an overall sense of what is going on. The ability to connect the dots and provide some kind of analysis is important. Weather you agree with it or not, that is part of what he does.

Do you even know what "cold reading" is?

When you see a psychic or other fortune teller on TV, they will typically give a dozen or 2 "predictions". They know almost all of them will be wrong, but by giving enough guesses they can expect maybe one might be "correct". Then, what happens is that the person looking at the preductions will latch on to the one correct preduction, and forget the more than dozen that were wrong. Furthermore, they'll remain vague. They will try to skew the results by making more 'educated' guesses (e.g. an older person might be asked about a deceased spouse because elderly people often become widows/widowers). But its still guessing.

The same goes with Alex Jones. He makes a whole mess of B.S. "predictions". Most of them are right out to lunch. A few might seem correct, but only if you massage the facts a bit. But his followers ignore the dozen misses, and concentrate on the single hit.

[Mighty AC]

It's made even easier because those that watch Jones really, really, want his ideological babblings to be correct.

[Mighty AC]

<RANT> This has probably been covered multiple times but I am still annoyed by the dishonest attempt by religious speakers like Alex Jones to frame atheism as a belief system. It is the opposite in fact. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, which is the default position we all take in normal situations.

For example: Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Probably not. Most people do not believe in something until satisfactory evidence is provided. We don't have faith in the existence of Nessy until satisfactory evidence to the contrary is provided , that would be abnormal. Almost all of us feel the same about the big foot, unicorns and a living Elvis. So people don't act in the name of their atheist beliefs. There are no atheist beliefs. Just like people don't act in the name of their a-big foot beliefs, or a-unicorn ideology. </RANT>

[GostHacked]

Based on some experiences this week on another forum, it's apparent that Jones is not all he claims to be either. Someone did a drive by posting in the forums section, the info was not vetted and Prisonplanet.com made a report claiming the report was a hoax. So I am wondering why they would even to bother to make the claim it was a hoax. Almost seems like an attempt to marginalize the site in some way.

Anyways, can't say for sure that this happened as I think it has happened.

[Michael Hardner]

<RANT> This has probably been covered multiple times but I am still annoyed by the dishonest attempt by religious speakers like Alex Jones to frame atheism as a belief system. It is the opposite in fact. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, which is the default position we all take in normal situations.

For example: Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Probably not. Most people do not believe in something until satisfactory evidence is provided. We don't have faith in the existence of Nessy until satisfactory evidence to the contrary is provided , that would be abnormal. Almost all of us feel the same about the big foot, unicorns and a living Elvis. So people don't act in the name of their atheist beliefs. There are no atheist beliefs. Just like people don't act in the name of their a-big foot beliefs, or a-unicorn ideology. </RANT>

Interesting take, but I don't agree.

The analogy would be that atheists claim there is no monster, and no water at the bottom of Loch Ness. They are not simply criticizing a positive claim, they are making a positive claim - that there is nothing outside the known universe. We`ve been through this before, and my take on it is that agnosticism is the opposite of theism AND the opposite of atheism. Some claim it`s the same as atheism, but I disagree.

[Sleipnir]

(didn't read any of post beyond the first page)

How can an atheist worship a higher being if they are an atheist to begin with?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

The analogy would be that atheists claim there is no monster, and no water at the bottom of Loch Ness. They are not simply criticizing a positive claim, they are making a positive claim - that there is nothing outside the known universe.

The no water part of your analogy is obviously silly. However, you are right that some atheists also make positive claims like "There is no god". We can't prove a negative so making a positive claim is, to some extent, a statement of belief. That does not change the definition of atheism though. Atheism still just represents a lack of belief.

As a result of the misuse of the term, most of the 20% of Americans that claim to have no religion will not identify themselves as atheist. What many describe as atheism would be better labeled as anti-theism.

[Michael Hardner]

The no water part of your analogy is obviously silly. However, you are right that some atheists also make positive claims like "There is no god". We can't prove a negative so making a positive claim is, to some extent, a statement of belief. That does not change the definition of atheism though. Atheism still just represents a lack of belief.

The question is "what is outside the known universe". A theist says "god", an atheist says "nothing", an agnostic says "who knows, I'm open to suggestions".

As a result of the misuse of the term, most of the 20% of Americans that claim to have no religion will not identify themselves as atheist. What many describe as atheism would be better labeled as anti-theism.

I think Atheism is a positive claim, i.e. "I believe in "NO-GOD"" Agnosticism is probably what we're really talking about.... ie. who knows ? who cares ? show me something...

[cybercoma]

MH, that's not really conceptually true. All atheism means is a person does not believe in God. In the same way, the agnostic doesn't believe in God either.

Edited October 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

MH, that's not really conceptually true. All atheism means is a person does not believe in God. In the same way, the agnostic doesn't believe in God either.

Then what is an agnostic ? Is an agnostic just an atheist with a bit more of an open mind ?

[cybercoma]

Then what is an agnostic ? Is an agnostic just an atheist with a bit more of an open mind ?

They're the same thing, as far as belief in God goes, imo. People cling to agnosticism because of the stigma religious people have created around atheism. Agnosticism basically avoids answering the question of whether or not they believe in God by answering a different question, whether or not God exists. If you have no idea whether or not God exists, then you can't very well believe in God. If you believed in God, you would be a theist. The question of God's existence and the question of whether a person believes in God are two different things, although logically related.

To define things:

Theism -- is the belief in God or deities.

Atheism -- is the absence of belief in God or deities. (a-, denoting absence)

Agnosticism -- is a position on the existence of God or deities.

Hopefully this makes it clear that you can't possibly believe in God if you question God's existence. The definitions of atheist and agnostic have to do with the relationship and difference between the notions of "belief in" and "existence of."

[Mighty AC]

Right... Belief vs Knowledge

Theist - Belief in deities

Atheist - absence of belief in deities

Gnostic - Claims knowledge that an assertion is true

Agnostic - Makes no such claim.

The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Check out the chart here: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Combining Terms

1. Agnostic Atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists

2. Gnostic Atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. Agnostic Theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. Gnostic Theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

[Michael Hardner]

Mighty AC - that clarifies things in a new way for me. I'm that rare bird - an Agnostic Atheist Christian.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, an impossible position certainly is rare. I'm also an agnostic atheist or weak atheist. What's your story then? What do mean by Christian? Do you attend a church but don't subscribe to the message?