Conspiracy Theorists Can’t Even Tell When They’re Being Trolled

Conspiracy theorist Bob Mitchell

Are you a sheeple? Do you blindly follow whatever you’re told and refuse to exercise critical thinking? If you said yes, then may I offer you a theory about reptilians? If you’re tired of being condescended to by your semi-homeless cousin (the one who always has “big things on the horizon, man”) because you believe things just ‘cuz the “lamestream media tells you,” then you are about to read the most satisfying recipe for humble pie: conspiracy theorists are so credulous when it comes to news from alternative sources that they can’t even discern when that news is just simple trolling. A group of American and Italian researchers collaborated a little while back on a little social experiment. The researchers examined the social media habits of Italian conspiracy theorists, who believe some real gems that not even our American conspiracy theorists are man enough to take up: Pages like Scienza di Confine, Lo Sai or Coscienza Sveglia promote heterogeneous contents ranging from aliens, chemtrails, geocentrism, up to the causal relation between vaccinations and homosexuality. Vaccines lead to buttsex. I guess if you get poked once, it’s not a huge stretch to get poked again. The researchers examined the social media habits of these conspiracy theorists as compared to the social media habits of people who are fans of science- and evidence-based pages. They found that conspiracy-minded people interacted almost exclusively with other conspiracy pages. The science-oriented people commented on at least a slightly greater variety of pages, but the conspiracy theorists were pretty much set in their alternative media bubble. So set were they in their bubble that even when scientists presented them with internet memes which were clearly sarcastic parody of conspiracy memes, some 80 percent of people who liked and shared them were people who interacted exclusively with other conspiracy sites. In other words, they weren’t sharing the troll memes ironically; they thought they were real. What does this mean in a soundbite? It means that a Google U degree doesn’t teach you squat about critical thinking. A quick peek over at Literally Unbelievable is enough to prove that much. However, some people’s critical thinking skills are so fine-tuned that they will blow your mind (right after they blow something else). God bless

Read more at http://wonkette.com/579681/the-snake-oil-bulletin-lets-read-bible-prophecy-porn-together#1qjhboL0Wd8hC5wB.99

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.

The Spiritual Ramifications for Australia over the Passing of Cricket Commentator Richie Benaud.

Cricket Commentator Richie Benaud

There are few men who can pass on and can be remembered as one of the really great icons of Australian cricket. That was the life of Richie Benaud. Furthermore, not many cricketers have matured so gradually yet ripened so fruitfully as Benaud. With little to show for his first six years in Test cricket, he blossomed as a fully-fledged all-rounder in South Africa in 1957-58, then flowered as a charismatic captain at home against England in 1958-59. He repossessed the Ashes, which his teams then successfully defended twice. As a leg spinner, he was full of baits and traps, and he batted and fielded with verve. Yet it was his presence, as much as anything, which summoned the best from players: cool but communicative, he impressed as one to whom no event was unexpected, no contingency unplanned for. The same has applied to his journalism: terse, direct and common sensical, and his broadcasting: mellow and authoritative. His wise head was sought by Kerry Packer in the formation of World Series Cricket in 1977, conferring respectability on the breakaway professional circuit. A guru to Ian Chappell and Shane Warne among others, he is perhaps the most influential cricketer and cricket personality since the Second World War.

Already the accolades have started to pour in over the life of a man who will be remembered as one of the true gentlemen of the game of cricket. In fact, even after the passing of one of the greatest Prime Ministers this land has ever known, Malcolm Fraser, there has not been as much sorrow, sympathy and out pouring of grief shown to the passing of any other man in living memory. Nonetheless, we still need to have a reality check on the passing of Richie Benaud. That is the main purpose of this article. Not so that we can treat the passing of Richie Benaud in a derogatory manner. Instead, so that we are able to analyse and place the passing of Benaud and the reaction that is has caused into a true perspective comparative to the spiritual state of the nation. Firstly, I have always been someone who has treated the passing on of anyone with the greatest deal of respect that each and every individual deserves. No matter how good or bad someone was in life, it is not up to us to judge the final destination of anyone. That is the job of God alone. Even though he was great in the eyes of diehard cricket fans. A true devotee and representative to the game itself. He was still just a cricket commentator. A cricket journalist of some repute. However, there matters of extreme spiritual prominence to the nation at play here other than the passing of one man. A man whose very existence and passing has been acknowledged by current and past Australian Prime Ministers alike. That is true if one man passes to his appointed place and in doing so he is treated as a demi God. A man who could do no wrong. As such, he will be given a state funeral. However, does a man who was nothing much more than a cricket commentator deserve a state funeral? There are so many others who have done so much for the community who are not treated in a similar manner? It is true, he was a good bloke. Then again, he also earned a good living and made a good life for himself out of cricket. However, what the current fanfare over the passing of indicates is that we as Australians are in a great deal of strife if we place one man and the game that he represents over and above God almighty himself. I have tested this analogy out and found it to be true in so many; if not all instances. Mention God to the average ham in the street and how they were put here, and what their final destination is going to be, and the majority are definitely none committal. However, mention the death of Benaud and strangely enough most of those of whom I have spoken to are quite willing and able to speak with a great deal of knowledge over the subject. This fact alone is a true indicator that we as a nation are well and truly on the road to being completely sports mad. Regrettably, to the exclusion of God almighty himself. For goodness sakes wake up Australia before it is too late. That sad and sorry state can only lead in one direction for the nation as a whole, eternal damnation. God’s richest blessings.

WHY I AM NOT A DISPENSATIONALIST John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. CHM popularised Darby more than any other Brethren author. As there was no Christian teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again," and they believe that in His grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, His purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as He has shown unmerited favour to the Church, He will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham. I am not a dispensationalist; it is unbiblical.