Insane Beliefs

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Insane Beliefs

So I've unfortunately stumbled across a lot of garbage on YouTube of late... and whilst some of these arguements are weapons grade A bullshit, they are remarkable in their followings/supporters online!

Some example of these phenomena are the likes of Flat Earth, 'Fake' Moon landings, Planet X, Roswell and other alien based claims...

What's the weirdest crap you've found?

Currently I'm enjoying watching some humourous debunking channels aimed at these idiots, such as Conspiracy Catz.

I'd highly suggest him to people, at the very least for a laugh.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Algebe's picture
@Randomhero1982: What's the

@Randomhero1982: What's the weirdest crap you've found?

The Bible, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon

Sheldon's picture
Ah the book of moron...sorry

Ah the book of moron...sorry Mormon. Chloroform in print.

"Here is a book so dull, that birds would fall unconscious from the sky, were it to be read aloud in the open air."

Clive James

ʝօɦn 6lX ɮʀeeʐy's picture
I listen to a lot of Joe

I listen to a lot of Joe Rogan. His podcasts with Graham Hancock or the recent Bob Lazar have been the weirdest and most fascinating ones in my opinion. Its difficult to either agree or refute the things they say.

In Spirit's picture
Raelism, Reverend SunMyong

Raelism, Reverend SunMyong Moon, Politics and the glorification of war.

David Killens's picture
Just for shits and giggles I

Just for shits and giggles I joined a Flat Earth forum. After a few hours I came to the conclusion that they were absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Sheldon's picture
"Just for shits and giggles I

"Just for shits and giggles I joined a Flat Earth forum. After a few hours I came to the conclusion that they were absolutely bat-shit crazy."

A few hours?

The title pretty much says it all for me. All you have to do is stand on the coast on a clear day and watch a boat sail out of sight and then come safely back to know the fucking earth's surface is curved.

No fancy maths or technology required. Just a basic grasp of gravity.

Randomhero1982's picture
Oh Sheldon, you really haven

Oh Sheldon, you really haven't been exposed to flat earth... there is no gravity, but density (ironic) and buoyancy...

And I think they argue the boat saying over the horizon as we all know is actually due to perspective and some bollocks they refer to as 'angle of attack'.

They are lunatics!

They also argue rockets cant propel themselves in space... fuck me!!!

Conservation of momentum?! Its not tough, but they are incredible thick.

LogicFTW's picture
They also argue rockets can't

They also argue rockets can't propel themselves in space... fuck me!!!

I wonder how they explain how airplanes can fly. (Plus the absolutely epic in scale "conspiracy theory" that the entire commercial aviation industry must engage in without fail or mistake for over a century to make flat earth "work" instead of a roughly spherical earth.

Always cracks me up that flat earthers must claim enormous conspiracy theory after another to make their idea "work." The idea is so ludicrous it even makes the various religious ideas seem somewhat sane in comparison.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Randomhero1982's picture
Oh I know, the number of

Oh I know, the number of reality defying feats of physics and nature they require to even form a cogent sentence during a conversation is truly amazing.

They also now deny seismic events are due to tectonic plates as the seismic waves completely destroy flat earth... being a seismic instrument engineer, I find this my favourite.

Peurii's picture
I think things like Flat Eart

I think things like Flat Eart and Anti Vaxxerism are amazing examples of post hoc thinking, where each data point is distorted to fit their view of the world. But in all honesty it would be hypocricy to think that we all don't do that to some, probably lesser, extent.

Sheldon's picture
Yes, I've only read a very

Yes, I've only read a very little of their nonsense, as I have a very limited amount of patience for that crap. The propensity for humans to delude themselves in order to hold a favoured belief is astonishing though.

I read one encounter where a flat earther admitted he'd been on a commercial jet, and was asked if couldn't see the curvature of the horizon. I had to stop reading his response as it was physically painful.

Tin-Man's picture
@Random Re: "What's the

@Random Re: "What's the weirdest crap you've found?"

...*rubbing back of neck uncomfortably*... Ummm.... *shifting nervously from foot to foot*.... I, uh... I would, uh, really rather not say anything to incriminate myself in regards to your question, if that's okay.

Randomhero1982's picture
If this is in regards to the

If this is in regards to the link you sent me to "that" site.... well... I'm still haunted....

How did they squeeze a banjo in there????

Tin-Man's picture
@Random Re: "How did squeeze

@Random Re: "How did squeeze a banjo in there????"

Dude, the banjo wasn't all that complicated. However, getting the guy PLAYING the banjo in there was the REAL tricky part. (I forgot how many gallons of movie theater butter were used.)

In Spirit's picture
@Tin-man

@Tin-man

And all along I thought you were previously referring to the tin pellets shooting out from behind.
Hmm...that can be considered a dangerous weapon. I'll make sure to stand in front of you from now on just in case I'm on to something.

Tin-Man's picture
@In Spirit Re: "I'll make

@In Spirit Re: "I'll make sure to stand in front of you from now on just in case I'm on to something."

Uh, for what it's worth, if you think what comes out the back is bad, then you REALLY don't want to be in front... *shaking head slowly*... Basically, standing off to the left or right side is usually your safest bet.

In Spirit's picture
@Tin-man

@Tin-man

Haha. I had not thought about that.

What is this slimy material?....embarrassed and slowly shuffling off to your side.

Cognostic's picture
Teaching babies to fly in the

Teaching babies to fly in the name of God is a good thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMFe2mw2oSA

There is a right way and a wrong way to baptize a baby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8

Here is a stupid belief. Pools aren't safe for babies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA8LHMGkYn4

Get off my lawn's picture
Ooh, that's a tough one. I'm

Ooh, that's a tough one. I'm torn between the Nibiru cataclysm with Nancy Lieder at the helm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm), flat-earthers and the lizard people shite popularized by David Icke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_humanoid).

But really the worst people to handle are those bat-shit crazy people that believe every conceivable conspiracy theory thrown at them, all at the same time. Including, but not limited to: Nibiru, flat earth, 9/11, crazy numerology schemes that supposedly "prove" the bible, The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, Holocaust denial, denial of the theory of relativity, climate change deniers, etc. I've seen them, and I've debated with them. There is no end to the crazy there.

Cognostic's picture
9/11 - How do three buildings

9/11 - How do three buildings collapse, at free fall speed, into their own basements by being hit with two planes. Why do first respondents hear and report numerous multiple explosions, just like a demolition? Why is the building pulverized? Why is thermite found in the dust on adjoining buildings? How does flight 175 which hit the South Tower in the corner, result in the same collapse as the North tower that was hit dead center? The engineers who designed the Twin Towers claimed that it could withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft. So, what's up with that? "A study by The European Scientific Journal claims that the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers was the result of a "controlled demolition", but others blame the ignition of jet fuel as the cause. The mystery remains largely unsolved."
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/911-attacks-unanswered-questions...

How do you explain the classic "crimp" of a controlled demolition implosion when the center of the WTC was the strongest part of the structure and would have stood even if all the floors pancaked?

Why is there no mention or investigation of plane wreckage in the towers?

"What the 9/11 truthers and the Lawyers’ Committee have achieved is the destruction of the designation of 9/11 skeptics as “conspiracy theorists.” No US Attorney would convene a grand jury on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Clearly, the evidence is compelling that has put the US Attorney in an unenviable position."

All the evidence is on the side of the "Truthers" and the "Grand Jury" does not open an investigation based on "Conspiracy Theories." Too many facts and too much evidence really does raise serious questions. The only conspiracy here, is the government cover up.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: 9/11

@Cog Re: 9/11

I have to say I am with you on that. And I would REALLY love a plausible explanation as to how that third building collapsed like a controlled demo without being hit by any aircraft at all. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..." And why was no aircraft wreckage found at the Pentagon site?

Cognostic's picture
@Tin-Man: And why to 20

@Tin-Man: And why to 20 security cameras have no footage? And why is the hole so small that the plane could not possibly fit into it? And how can a pilot who is not a pilot fly a plane into a building just a few meters off the ground when experienced pilots say they could not do it. And down the rabbit hole we go. SOMETHING STINKS IN THE US GOVERNMENT.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "SOMETHING STINKS

@Cog Re: "SOMETHING STINKS IN THE US GOVERNMENT."

That is an understatement of galactic proportions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Cog - How do three buildings

Cog - How do three buildings collapse, at free fall speed...

f=ma
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - Why is thermite found in the dust on adjoining buildings?

Because thermite is basically metal dust.
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - How does flight 175 which hit the South Tower in the corner, result in the same collapse as the North tower that was hit dead center?

Because both buildings had the same kind of internal support structure, that failed.
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - The engineers who designed the Twin Towers claimed that it could withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft. So, what's up with that?

They modeled that based on regular commercial flights at normal speeds accidentally hitting the buildings. They didn't model it on lunatics ramming the buildings at faster speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - A study by The European Scientific Journal claims that the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers was the result of a "controlled demolition"

That simply appears to be false.
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - How do you explain the classic "crimp" of a controlled demolition implosion when the center of the WTC was the strongest part of the structure and would have stood even if all the floors pancaked?

The center of the buildings was where the previously mentioned support structure (that failed) was located.

LogicFTW's picture
Just to add to what nylar

Just to add to what nylar posted:

Why fly giant 60+ million dollar planes full of people into the buildings first if they were going to demolition the buildings anyways, and it was already stated in engineering plans that the buildings will stand even with a large plane hit. If "they" wanted to bring the buildings down, there would of been much better, easier and simpler ways to bring them down (even in subterfuge) then flying planes into the buildings. Also who benefits from the buildings coming down if not terrorist?

Even osama bin laden admitted he never thought that the planes would actually bring the buildings all the way down like that.

IF there was some grand conspiracy in all this, first place I would look is the plane that did not make it to its supposed "target." A potentially believable conspiracy could be that plane got shot down instead of the passengers overpowering terrorists.

If there was something to these conspiracies, (widely circulated ones like this) dont you think something would of surfaced by now 18 years later? Something beyond just talk?

David Killens's picture
Let us not forget that seven

Let us not forget that seven years earlier, in 1993, a huge bomb was detonated deep within the World Trade Center. One would assume that if any conspiracy was involved, they would have made sure the 1993 attack succeeded.

In Spirit's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

One could argue that in '93 it was left up to the 'terrorists' to design a plan or that it was badly planned by all involved and after it having failed the conspirators created a sure fireproof plan ( pun not intended) to make sure the plan would work. It wouldn't be the first time a plan did not work out as expected. All this said and the jury is still out.

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: " Cog - A

@Nyarlathotep: " Cog - A study by The European Scientific Journal claims that the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers was the result of a "controlled demolition"

RE: "That simply appears to be false". (THANKS FOR THAT). Regrettably, I will not buy into the other simple explanations you have offered. I did find the complete story here: https://www.911tap.org/publications/latest-newsletters/listid-1-newslett... I think Architects and Engineers against 9/11 have made inroads into discovering the truth with Resolution 610,

Of course Architects and Engineers will have their day in court. (I guess we will see.) There is a nice section on the top of the site labeled "Evidence." Right or Wrong - The investigation IMO needs to happen.

https://www.911tap.org/publications/latest-newsletters/listid-1-newslett...

THERMITE: The WPI professors, who were “shocked” by the “Swiss cheese appearance” 2 of the steel, reported their analysis in Appendix C of the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study, making the following recommendation:

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed....” 3

A simple explanation for the source of sulfur, as well as the high-temperature corrosion and erosion, is “thermate,” which is produced when sulfur is added to thermite. In “Revisiting 9/11—Applying the Scientific Method,” Dr. Steven Jones explains:

“When you put sulfur into thermite it makes the steel melt at a much lower temperature, so instead of melting at about 1,538°C it melts at approximately 988°C, and you get sulfidation and oxidation in the attacked steel....

“The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is in general faster than basic thermite in cutting through steel due to the presence of sulfur.” 4

How did NIST respond to FEMA’s recommendation?
First, NIST ignored it — thus ignoring what the The New York Times called “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

Second, NIST claimed that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, providing the following answer in its WTC 7 FAQs:

“Once [debris] was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.” 5

Third, when asked at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, whether NIST had tested “any WTC 7 debris for explosive or incendiary chemical residues,” NIST lead investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder replied:

John Gross, who represented NIST on the FEMA Building Performance Study, poses next to the eroded, sulfidated steel. NIST would later claim that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, and John Gross would deny the existence of molten metal.

“[T]here is reference often made to a piece of steel from Building 7.... But that piece of steel has been subsequently analyzed by Professor Barnett and by Professor Rick Sisson, who is also from [WPI]...and they reported in a BBC interview that aired on July 6 [2008] that there was no evidence that any residue in that...piece of steel had any relationship to an...incendiary device in the building.” 6

Besides contradicting NIST’s position that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7, Dr. Sunder’s response raises the question: Why did NIST not ask to study that piece of steel if they knew it existed? Furthermore, why did NIST not perform experiments to verify the leading fire-based explanation for the source of sulfur, which was the buildings’ gypsum wallboard?

Though NIST was not up to the task, a civil engineer named Jonathan Cole was. In his experiment documented in the video 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel, he used a wide flange beam packed with crushed gypsum board, crushed concrete, aluminum scraps, steel scraps, and diesel fuel, and he burned it for 24 hours, continually adding fuel such as brush, furniture, floor panels, and wood logs. At the end of his experiment he reported:

“The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel, and building materials did not cause any intergranular melting. So, if [these materials] did not cause the intergranular melting and sulfidation, then some uncommon substance that is not normally found in buildings must have caused it....

“There is a reason why NIST...never conducted any experiments or found that source of sulfur in order to solve this deepest of mysteries. Perhaps NIST knew the most logical cause of the sulfidation of the steel is from some type of thermitic reaction....”

THERE IS INFORMATION ON ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS OF COURSE AND THIS IS NOT ATHEISM OR RELATED. I KNOW YOU WILL GO THROUGH EVERYTHING BECAUSE THAT IS JUST THE SORT OF PERSON YOU ARE.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/steel-sulfidation

There is a great breakdown of all the evidence for controlled demolition on this site.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - And why was no

Tin-Man - And why was no aircraft wreckage found at the Pentagon site?

Wreckage was found; not you too Tin-Man!??!
---------------------------------------------------------

Cog - And why is the hole so small that the plane could not possibly fit into it?

Because planes are not idealized rigid bodies.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - And I would REALLY

Tin-Man - And I would REALLY love a plausible explanation as to how that third building collapsed like a controlled demo without being hit by any aircraft at all.

Because it was damaged by the collapse of one of the adjacent towers and burned all day?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.