Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Are You Ever Embarrassed?


No Censorship

Recommended Posts

I think it very possible that the religious element does have a higher percentage of conspiracy minded people, because conspiracy people are looking for Truth, so naturally they will look into religion, and very probably become a member of various religions/denominations over time.

There may even be a higher percentage of the mentally disadvantaged. Since most religious people are more accepting and will allow such people into their society and attempt to help them out.

Conspiracy Theorists can also have an extreme distrust of authority figures and institutions. So an argument can be made that CT'ers are actually less likely to become religious. The extreme religious people that resemble conspiracy nuts can thus arguably not be labeled conspiracists, but simply gullible and/or crazy and/or brainwashed.

Last month I met a conspiracist while at a friend's house warming party. Part of our conversation went like this:

CT: The Vatican is hiding things in the Secret Archives.

PA: No, the word secret here simply refers to the personal correspondences of the Popes through the years.

CT: You're wrong, I know they're hiding things.

PA: And you have proof of this?

CT: Yes, Jesus gave proof!

PA: Where?

CT: He said loving money was evil.

PA: Yes, how does this prove that things are hidden in the Secret Archives?

CT: Because the Catholic Church invented the banking system in Europe.

PA: And how does the banking system prove that things are hidden in the Secret Archives?

CT: Because the banks today are the biggest evil in the world today.

PA: Ok *change subject* hey, you want some vodka-soaked gummy bears?

Don't get me wrong, he was a nice guy, we had other conversations that were productive and fun. But "banks exist, therefore there are things hidden in secret Vatican archives" is not exactly a rational statement. But it is typical of a conspiracists distrust of authority.

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the OP, I'm not embarrassed when conspiracists say irrational things. I may perhaps get a tad annoyed when I and other Christians get lumped into a box and branded with the same brush as irrational Christians with fringe/fundamentalist philosophies, and perhaps I feel a little saddened when I see said fundamentalist people that end up reinforcing the stereotype. However, the same can be said of extremists in all world views who end up being the default stereotype of all people who identify as that belief.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you had actual knowledge and evidence of the genuine Chupcabra, being the non living carcass, and x-rays of carcass of that creature to verify that it wasn't some fabricated replica of an imaginary animal but a real specimen that stood about 12" in length, had features that would be self evident such as the horn on it head; face like a like a bat, which sat on a human shaped torso with two legs and two arms, yet had the scales like a fish evident more by the gils with slits on each side that indicates it was some type of aquatic creature yet x-rays revealed a rib cage, formed not typical shaped for a fish to protect the air sacs but yet contained other fish skeletal bones typical of a fish. But the rib cage was formed in the likeness those ribs found in air breathing mammals. However, the rib cage figuration was typical except but for the inverse collar bones upon which the wings on the back. However, look and see how a bat wings are connected, I didn't think of that until it just came to my mind which I didn't exam and that is how other winged creatures, particularily the bat, support the wings appendages. So do I embrass you by telling you about a creature which you don't think exists or ever existed but I have seen and observed with my own eyes.

Then don't read the rest then.

The initial reports of livestock deaths identified as possible chupacabra related reported tht the creature attacked at night, which the face and teeth of this specimen itself would appear to it was some member of the blood sucking bat species, but the horn or proboscis from the top of his head was just different since it wasn't asymmetrica to most commonly know animals with horns that are found, rams, bulls, goats symmetrical, having two. I can't think of one that only has one horn. But this one does, and do you know of any creature that has gills and air breathing features of a nose and lungs? This one has from the x-ray yet the hasn't been any incision or internal exam performed.

Which I think is how it has managed to escape detection for so long is that it comes out at night and feeds on blood like a bat, and slips back into the water after feed where in stays during the day. Now the specimen I had was 12 inch measured from the top of the horn to the bottom of the two lower appendages that extended off of and bottom part of main torso of the body. I didn't measure the length from the tail which it had extending off of the rear side of the bottom part of the torso because it had rigor mortised in a slight curl and so I used measure of the legs appearing appendages.

Like the arm appendages, the leg appendages too had web shaped fins instead of those digits found on a hand or foot. In addition it had a torso fin that run up along the back of above the tail at the bottom and extended up in between the two wings. I theorize that nobody had ever caught one fishing because if it feeds on blood which doesn't' mean it would necessarily would any interest in fishing baits such as minnows and livers since in my opinion would tend to suggest that at should have at some point it should have at least gotten hooked, or at least snagged on some fisherman's hook. I have found no reports of a fisherman or alleging that they caught a chupacabra.

The age can't be determined since there are no other known specimens in existence to compare the size with which could help identify whether this was a fully developed stage or some point in maturing. This specimen might have been in new born when it died and could develop into 2 or 3 times the size. At it's current size if someone saw this thing on the back of a livestock come flapping those wings and fly towards them, they might report it was the size of Godzilla and I would say that I could understand how they could have reached that perception too.

But just one addition comment, the initial reports of livestock being found dead by exsanguination without additional missing or dismembered livestock were usually found in the mornings, and where of small mammals like calfs, sheep and goats hence the term goat sucker, or Chupcabra, the livestock had also been observed alive the day prior to being found. And it become noticeable that the probability of addition trauma to the carcass was found in cases where the last observed time the livestock was alive reflected a period of a day or greater. Yet it would not be inconsistent with the fact these cases indicating tissue damage and removal also reported last time the livestock had been seen alive was greater than a day. In such, that additional time before discovering the carcass would have allowed other predators as coyotes or vultures sufficient time to have inflicted those wounds after the initial cause of death by the cupracabra without representing that the chupacrabra was a the cause of those wounds or that it even ate flesh except but for the blood. Almost all the cases I examined where from cases that dated back to the B.I. period of human history {Before Internet} they held consist to that model, now there are so many fabricated and balantly false information disseminated that I can't blame one bit for not even accepting the possibility that there could be any truth to what I am saying.

But if 10,000 people call a person a liar based upon their beliefs does that make something somebody says they have seen and observed a lie without any additional supporting evidence?

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: I can understand why you might be embarrassed by my typing skills.....after re-reading it I am, but don't use my poorer communication skills deflect from what you understand being said...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have known several people who claimed to be Christians (and might have technically qualified as such) who were bat-shot crazy. I knew one lady who was always going on in a full on SCREAM about how Poke' Mon was turning all kids toward Evil. And how real Christians should storm the stores and burn those Satanic cards. She also said anyone that went to see a Harry Potter movie was possessed by the Devil. Admitting to trying either of these terrible sins, or any of thousands of others would send her into a Shrieking Hysterical Fit of accusations of that person being the Devil and a Demon worshiper, and so on. She eventually had to leave our church.

Benjamin Franklin responded to Thomas Paine regarding this type situation, saying to the effect that if they are that crazy with the Bible, how much more crazy do you think they would be without the Bible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cool with that too. I'm talking about conspiracy theories and urban legends. As a Christian, some of them bug me, especially when people don't question them. The naivete feeds into common stereotypes that are used to paint millions of people with the same brush.

Your not keen on urban legends and conspiracy theories, but yet your a Christian.. Isn't that a bit of a paradox? ;-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have known several people who claimed to be Christians (and might have technically qualified as such) who were bat-shot crazy. I knew one lady who was always going on in a full on SCREAM about how Poke' Mon was turning all kids toward Evil. And how real Christians should storm the stores and burn those Satanic cards. She also said anyone that went to see a Harry Potter movie was possessed by the Devil. Admitting to trying either of these terrible sins, or any of thousands of others would send her into a Shrieking Hysterical Fit of accusations of that person being the Devil and a Demon worshiper, and so on. She eventually had to leave our church.

I know people like her, but most of them don't freak out like she does. My cousin thinks that classic animated Disney movies promote the practice of black magic and witchcraft. She has horror stories about people who read....horror stories, and they sound like fairy tales to me. I have more problems with the people (a very long list) who con the zealots than the zealots, themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the OP, I'm not embarrassed when conspiracists say irrational things. I may perhaps get a tad annoyed when I and other Christians get lumped into a box and branded with the same brush as irrational Christians with fringe/fundamentalist philosophies, and perhaps I feel a little saddened when I see said fundamentalist people that end up reinforcing the stereotype. However, the same can be said of extremists in all world views who end up being the default stereotype of all people who identify as that belief.

Most huge organizations have individuals with fringe views that don't represent the views of the membership of said organizations. There are times, though, when some do. This is probably true for some fundamentalist denominations and religions. Then, like you say, it's irritating when people assume that you share their beliefs because you share a label.

Your friend is safe from cuts from Occam's Razor. Of course, I believe some conspiracy theories here and there, so some people might think that I should wear a tinfoil hat to identify myself when I'm out in public. For instance, I share your friend's mistrust of authority but likely not to the same extent or in the same manner. There's too much crime and corruption to automatically trust folks in leadership positions. I don't reflexively suspect them of misdeeds and venality. There are many good people in high places. It's just that there are a few (or more) bad apples in every barrel, and human nature never changes. It's best to look at each situation on its own merits without forcing the pieces to fit to match your own notions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: I can understand why you might be embarrassed by my typing skills.....after re-reading it I am, but don't use my poorer communication skills deflect from what you understand being said...

We might not be on the same page. I'm not talking about whether or not cryptids exist (or subjects like that). I'm referring to things like books sold by cons who claim that they're escapees from the Illuminati, and they make outlandish claims that slur innocent individuals. For instance, a woman claims that she was a sex slave and that Bob Hope was a member of a secret society that partook in orgies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your not keen on urban legends and conspiracy theories, but yet your a Christian.. Isn't that a bit of a paradox? ;-P

I take it that you're referring to the life of Christ. I take that on faith. It's more than a conspiracy theory or urban legend to me. I'll leave it at that to try to stop the seemingly inevitable thread drift. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it very possible that the religious element does have a higher percentage of conspiracy minded people, because conspiracy people are looking for Truth, so naturally they will look into religion, and very probably become a member of various religions/denominations over time.

There may even be a higher percentage of the mentally disadvantaged. Since most religious people are more accepting and will allow such people into their society and attempt to help them out.

So only conspiracy theorists are looking for truth? I think not. But gullibility is gullibility
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you ever embarrassed when Christians or other theists (to a lesser extent) make wild and crazy claims that have no basis in reality?

I always hated this

-When a person declares himself a scientist, his validity is questioned to prove that he is a scientist.

- When a person declared himself a christian, everything that he does defines Christianity in all manners without the second thought as long as it is purposeful to the attacking party.

You know, when someone tells me that he/she's an Atheist, I question their decision to see whether they know what it really means. I usually find out that they simple either don't like to go to the Church or state "God can't sit on clouds".

So, when you see someone who "looks" like a Christian just consider this - the person is obviously delusional. Otherwise you might even call the Crusaders who've slaughtered so many people - Christians. It doesn't make sense for the Christianity nor what Christianity preaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid and attended a Pentecostal church (Elim), on most Sundays two people in the congregation would favour us by 'speaking in tongues' or better put, total gibberish. They made complete idiots of themselves with this nonsense, and it was hard not to giggle as it was so very silly.

Edited by JJ50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always hated this

-When a person declares himself a scientist, his validity is questioned to prove that he is a scientist.

- When a person declared himself a christian, everything that he does defines Christianity in all manners without the second thought as long as it is purposeful to the attacking party.

You know, when someone tells me that he/she's an Atheist, I question their decision to see whether they know what it really means. I usually find out that they simple either don't like to go to the Church or state "God can't sit on clouds".

So, when you see someone who "looks" like a Christian just consider this - the person is obviously delusional. Otherwise you might even call the Crusaders who've slaughtered so many people - Christians. It doesn't make sense for the Christianity nor what Christianity preaches.

That just goes back to the fact that there are countless variations on the Christian theme. There are hundreds of churches and cults that claim the label of "Christian". To your point, it's unfair to assume that one variation speaks for all variations. The same thing applies to other belief systems, like Islam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid and attended a Pentecostal church (Elim), on most Sundays two people in the congregation would favour us by 'speaking in tongues' or better put, total gibberish. They made complete idiots of themselves with this nonsense, and it was hard not to giggle as it was so very silly.

The Bible mentions speaking and interpreting unknown tongues. It's one of the spiritual gifts. Of course, some charlatans fake them. It's part of a long dishonest tradition with pre-Christian origins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible mentions speaking and interpreting unknown tongues. It's one of the spiritual gifts. Of course, some charlatans fake them. It's part of a long dishonest tradition with pre-Christian origins.

Hardly a gift if you make a total idiot of yourself! Remember the craziness of the so called 'Toronto Blessing?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just goes back to the fact that there are countless variations on the Christian theme. There are hundreds of churches and cults that claim the label of "Christian". To your point, it's unfair to assume that one variation speaks for all variations. The same thing applies to other belief systems, like Islam.

Problem I see, and I'll try to put this in simple terms:

* Person A claims to be an atheist, then says they believe in God! Every atheist says "they aren't really atheists"

* Person B claims to be Buddhist, then says they think hedonism is the way to enlightenment! Every Buddhist says "they aren't real Buddhists".

* Person C claims to be Christian, then says they don't actually believe in Christ, and Christians say that said people aren't true . Christians......

* Person D claims *insert belief* but expresses views contrary to said belief, adherents call them out on it.

Suddenly, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is introduced for option C. Suddenly the "who are you to judge" card is played. For some reason claiming to be "Christian" is actually treated differently to claiming to be of any other faith (except perhaps Islam). I don't see why people claiming Christianity are somehow given a free pass to legitimacy when no other faith in existence (Islam perhaps excluded) is afforded the same. Saying a person isn't exhibiting "Christian" beliefs or values is a judgemental attack rather than a valid sociological observation. But no self-respecting *insert belief* adherent would accept inconsistent claims as representative of their view (and rightly so). Christianity and Islam are treated as special cases.

For better or worse that's just how things seem to have gone in this world we live in.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem I see, and I'll try to put this in simple terms:

* Person A claims to be an atheist, then says they believe in God! Every atheist says "they aren't really atheists"

* Person B claims to be Buddhist, then says they think hedonism is the way to enlightenment! Every Buddhist says "they aren't real Buddhists".

* Person C claims to be Christian, then says they don't actually believe in Christ, and Christians say that said people aren't true . Christians......

* Person D claims *insert belief* but expresses views contrary to said belief, adherents call them out on it.

Suddenly, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is introduced for option C. Suddenly the "who are you to judge" card is played. For some reason claiming to be "Christian" is actually treated differently to claiming to be of any other faith (except perhaps Islam). I don't see why people claiming Christianity are somehow given a free pass to legitimacy when no other faith in existence (Islam perhaps excluded) is afforded the same. Saying a person isn't exhibiting "Christian" beliefs or values is a judgemental attack rather than a valid sociological observation. But no self-respecting *insert belief* adherent would accept inconsistent claims as representative of their view (and rightly so). Christianity and Islam are treated as special cases.

For better or worse that's just how things seem to have gone in this world we live in.

I'm not sure if I'm following your reasoning PA. Someone claiming to be atheist and yet having belief in God would be a logical contradiction, as would someone claiming to be Christian yet not believing in Christ, I suppose, if you mean not believing that Christ ever existed. There are many conflicting bible verses and traditions though so doctrinal differences don't, at least to my mind, make one sect more or less Christian than another. Arian Christians had every right to call themselves Christian though they diffed from catholic belief regarding the nature of Christ's divinity. The only reason they were branded heretics is because of a majority vote among bishops at Nicaea. Catholics believe that the wine and wafers at communion actually transform into the flesh and blood of Christ while protestants believe it merely represents these things. Who is to say one is more Christian than the other?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you had actual knowledge and evidence of the genuine Chupcabra, being the non living carcass, and x-rays of carcass of that creature to verify that it wasn't some fabricated replica of an imaginary animal but a real specimen that stood about 12" in length, .....

.....

.....

.....

I think maybe you ment to post this somewhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So only conspiracy theorists are looking for truth? I think not. But gullibility is gullibility

Wow, way to misread, misinterpret and make a big deal on purpose.

Please point out were I said ONLY CT people are looking for Truth? Or, maybe just don't respond, so you're not wasting my time.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a gift if you make a total idiot of yourself! Remember the craziness of the so called 'Toronto Blessing?'

It is a gift if everyone else thinks it is a gift. Which is almost always the case in these situations.

It is pretty naive to think that everyone must think the way you do. And if you don't think that, then why would you think everyone would think they are making a total idiot of themselves.

After all these same people fall quivering to the floor in rapture. They also pray for each other and actually expect something to happen. They also donate money and think it is to fund God's Kingdom. They also waste 2 or more hours on perfectly good Sunday mornings singing to a God they can't see.

Oh, but speaking in Tongues is "idiotic"? Not if everyone there is an "idiot".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I'm following your reasoning PA. Someone claiming to be atheist and yet having belief in God would be a logical contradiction, as would someone claiming to be Christian yet not believing in Christ, I suppose, if you mean not believing that Christ ever existed. There are many conflicting bible verses and traditions though so doctrinal differences don't, at least to my mind, make one sect more or less Christian than another. Arian Christians had every right to call themselves Christian though they diffed from catholic belief regarding the nature of Christ's divinity. The only reason they were branded heretics is because of a majority vote among bishops at Nicaea. Catholics believe that the wine and wafers at communion actually transform into the flesh and blood of Christ while protestants believe it merely represents these things. Who is to say one is more Christian than the other?

There are those who don't believe Christ existed (except perhaps as a theological ideal) and still call themselves Christian. But my comment was broader than that. But not quite so broad as the distinction between Protestant and Catholic. Minor doctrinal differences aren't at stake. Arian Christians may or may not have the right to call themselves Christian, though I think the 298-2 vote against them is enough to make a call on the legitimacy of their position.

But it's more than this. A group like Westboro Baptist Church (no affiliation with the Baptist Church, btw) can picket funerals and shout hatred and bigotry, totally ignoring the "love thy neighbour" thing that Jesus was on about, and the moment Christians say anything about their actions not representing Christ or Christianity, we're told that we cannot say whether someone is or is not Christian. Apparently saying "i'm Christian" is enough, and no one can say you aren't regardless of your beliefs or actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people look embarrassed about some of the things I say but I, especially recently, don't give a crizzzapp, I have every right to believe what I do or even contemplate wierd things that could be possible. And why is this in the spirituality forums? It should be in skeptic vs. Believers.

Edited by SpiritWriter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are those who don't believe Christ existed (except perhaps as a theological ideal) and still call themselves Christian. But my comment was broader than that. But not quite so broad as the distinction between Protestant and Catholic. Minor doctrinal differences aren't at stake. Arian Christians may or may not have the right to call themselves Christian, though I think the 298-2 vote against them is enough to make a call on the legitimacy of their position.

But it's more than this. A group like Westboro Baptist Church (no affiliation with the Baptist Church, btw) can picket funerals and shout hatred and bigotry, totally ignoring the "love thy neighbour" thing that Jesus was on about, and the moment Christians say anything about their actions not representing Christ or Christianity, we're told that we cannot say whether someone is or is not Christian. Apparently saying "i'm Christian" is enough, and no one can say you aren't regardless of your beliefs or actions.

Yeah, I guess I get your point there. I didn't know the Westboro Baptist church wasn't actually affiliated with Baptists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.