Craziest/ supidest theories you have ever heard

[OriginalLadders]

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

Why do you feel the need to mock religion so viciously? Your an asshole, and I am calling you out on it. You give atheists a bad name. Please stop.

Ridiculous ideas are worthy only of ridicule.

Like faith, intelligent design, the "truth" about 9/11, sexuality being a matter of choice and/or a threat to society, the Mayans being able to predict the end of the world and every other arbitrary prediction that the world would end.

 

[JonnyHG]

So recently here in good ol, America people have been theorizing that Tim Tebow,  an American football star who is devoutly religious, is the second coming of Christ, literally. Because the world is "supposedly" going to end this year many Americans have called Tebow a second coming because he has won some games he wasn't supposed to and because some of his stats from his latest game added up to 316 which is the book of revelation which from my limited knowledge of the bible states that Christ will return before the world is going to end in the form of someone famous and who seems to preform miracles. I see several holes in this theory one of which is why would Christ return in the form of someone only Americans give a shit about when there are Christians all over the world, also why would the Mayan calendar have anything to do with how the world is going to end according to Christians. So what are some of the craziest/stupidest theories someone has ever tell you.

316 is the Book of Revelation? Not sure what you are trying to say there.

According to Matthew 24:36, no one, not even Jesus knows the day or hour of his return. Interestingly enough, Jesus says 2 verses earlier that the generation at that time would see the end of the world in their lifetime.

Tebow had 316 yards passing in his playoff game against the Steelers. People are trying way too hard if they are trying to connect that to a Biblical prophecy. But yeah, this is probably the craziest thing I've heard in a while.

People will generally believe whatever is convenient for their world view.

 

[clayschuldt]

I had a crazy theory that the NFL was completely rigged and all the coaches and team owners new who would win at the start of the season.

I don't think rigging an entire NFL season would be THAT difficult. You wouldn't even have to have the every player in on the scame, just the quarter back and one player with the ability to drop a football by "accident".

Maybe Tebow is doing so well because a bunch of rich Christians paid off the NFL so that the Broncos would do well and elevate Tebow to huge fame.

Maybe that sounds crazy, but the rigged NFL theory does explain Brett Farve.

 

[albear]

Someone once told me they knew the Russians sent the 'Gay' over to Sanfrancisco during the cold war as a biological weapon against the USA but it got out of control.

 

[JonnyHG]

the idea of an invisible man in the clouds that can see everything and everyone at all times, that created all that is. thats pretty batshit bonkers to me! ^_^

It's no offense to me because despite your assumption that I'm a theist, I'm actually not. When theists say "You can't disprove it" it's not to mock the belief's of others, it's just a flimsy argument that doesn't seek to offend anyone; when atheists on the other hand use the immature "invisible etc etc" analogy it just makes atheists look like 13 year olds on XBL.

I don't understand. How is calling a god invisible, when he does in fact fit the definition of the word, a sign of immaturity? I don't even know if it's possible for anyone to debate this, regardless of what they believe. Some people choose to believe in an invisible best friend and some don't. It just seems to me that it's the former which is actually closer to a childlike mindset.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

I predict some form of storm, definitely including faecal matter.

OT: There was a thread a few days ago that basically said MLP was a dark conspiracy to brainwash normal adult males to be "Kind" and "Caring". That was just too weird to handle. I could see the OP of that thread's point though, it is still a bit weird that some people have changed their behaviour after watching FiM. But that isn't anything to worry about.

as brainwashings go, "Make them all nice!" is about as diabolical as orphan hugs.

OT: we're all in the jam of a doughnut. the actual doughnut is space. the planets are the jam. but the doughnut is actually the shell of a turtle.

Do unreadable theories count? I would then suggest the timecube http://www.timecube.com/ You lose IQ from just trying to understand .

 

[FernandoV]

the idea of an invisible man in the clouds that can see everything and everyone at all times, that created all that is. thats pretty batshit bonkers to me! ^_^

It's no offense to me because despite your assumption that I'm a theist, I'm actually not. When theists say "You can't disprove it" it's not to mock the belief's of others, it's just a flimsy argument that doesn't seek to offend anyone; when atheists on the other hand use the immature "invisible etc etc" analogy it just makes atheists look like 13 year olds on XBL.

I don't understand. How is calling a god invisible, when he does in fact fit the definition of the word, a sign of immaturity? I don't even know if it's possible for anyone to debate this, regardless of what they believe. Some people choose to believe in an invisible best friend and some don't. It just seems to me that it's the former which is actually closer to a childlike mindset.

Everyone believes in something intangible based upon only faith; there's no personal harm to you if they want to believe it. If you mock harmless beliefs just because you don't agree THAT'S immature. Don't give me lines about Crusades, radicals, etc etc because, yea, we're all aware that religion as an institution is capable of some evils but every organized institution is capable of influence to their favor; the faith of individuals shouldn't be marginalized for the crimes of the institution that claims the same faith.

 

[DanDeFool]

I once read that a certain group of people were revolutionary thinkers, whose new and radical world-view was destined to change the world and shake the existing order and ordinary people's way of life to its very foundations. You want to know what group this theory refers to?

Spoiler: Make sure you're sitting down!

Young-Earth Creationists!

Granted, the statement I'm referring to was published in Answers, a Christian science magazine, so I guess it's no surprise, but seriously?

I can agree that YECs have some radical ideas, but to call their ideas new and innovative and destined to change the world, when they're derived from 2000-ish-year-old manuscripts that have formed the cornerstone of Western civilization for at least a millennium, and are only now being (sort of, but not really) challenged by the actually new ideas presented in biology, physics, and other scientific fields, I think it's rather crazy that this guy expected his statement to be taken seriously.

 

[putowtin]

A friend of mine is convinced that Kirk Cobain and Courtney Love are one and the same person, so Kirt is still alive (as is Elvis), has had a sex change and is now Courtney full time (don't as about all those pictures of them stood together, that leads him into a hour long explanation of camera trickery)

Edit: And I can't believe I just read that time cube bollocks!

 

[Buizel91]

My friend theorized that there is a penis constant, and every race is divided up penis equally between its members. So races with a higher population would get less penis. His explanation for Africa was that they had a high mortality rate. No I don't think he was serious but that's still the craziest theory I've ever heard.

Like wtf?!?!

OT: That the US government planned 9/11...

And that Osama Bin Laden is still alive...

*Sigh* what a world we live in...

 

[DrOswald]

Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If I told you I could fly and then in response to you asking to prove it, I told you to disprove it, I'd hope that you'd call me an idiot.

In this case, no one was making any claim that God is real, only that unprovoked mocking makes you a jerk. Also, if you want people to stop believing in something, then the burden of proof is on you. If you want someone to take action you must bring something of substance to the table. The same is true if you want someone to begin believing in something. The burden of proof is whoever is trying to convince someone else. It is on whoever is trying to change the status quo. Attempting to disprove something is just as much a claim as attempting to prove something. Especially if the individual has a lifetime of religious experiences you want them to ignore.

People need to learn that there is a difference between respecting other people's right to believe what they want, and respecting other people's beliefs. The former is important, the latter, not so much.

The first is indeed more important. But respecting others despite their beliefs is very important, even if you do not share them. This is not happening here. In this thread people are mocking the most important beliefs of others and by extension insulting them. If you do not believe that is fine, but making a deliberate attack against someone's beliefs with the intent of insult is crossing the boundary of good taste and moral decency.

I am a liberal in a family of staunch conservatives. I have a great deal of experience trying to convince people of my point of view. I have found that disrespect causes no change and only encourages hate. It has no redeeming value. However, showing respect at the very worst encourages cooperation and a free exchange of ideas. It may even help a misguided individual to see the light, so to speak.

 

[spartan231490]

I find the theory of atheism to be pretty crazy. Communism I find to be pretty stupid. I'd say those are the two big ones.

 

[MetalDooley]

A lot of them have already been mentioned but here's one that hasn't been brought up yet..

Vaccines cause autism in children

Thousands of people still believe this and refuse to have their kids vaccinated despite the fact that the research was discredited and the doctor involved was deemed to have been unethical in his research by the medical authorities in the UK.FFS the guy was being paid by lawyers representing parents who believed that vaccines had harmed their kids

The sad thing is that it's the children who are suffering as they are being exposed to potentially dangerous diseases because of the stupidity of their parents

 

[Woodsey]

Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If I told you I could fly and then in response to you asking to prove it, I told you to disprove it, I'd hope that you'd call me an idiot.

In this case, no one was making any claim that God is real, only that unprovoked mocking makes you a jerk. Also, if you want people to stop believing in something, then the burden of proof is on you. If you want someone to take action you must bring something of substance to the table. The same is true if you want someone to begin believing in something. The burden of proof is whoever is trying to convince someone else. It is on whoever is trying to change the status quo. Attempting to disprove something is just as much a claim as attempting to prove something. Especially if the individual has a lifetime of religious experiences you want them to ignore.

People need to learn that there is a difference between respecting other people's right to believe what they want, and respecting other people's beliefs. The former is important, the latter, not so much.

The first is indeed more important. But respecting others despite their beliefs is very important, even if you do not share them. This is not happening here. In this thread people are mocking the most important beliefs of others and by extension insulting them. If you do not believe that is fine, but making a deliberate attack against someone's beliefs with the intent of insult is crossing the boundary of good taste and moral decency.

I am a liberal in a family of staunch conservatives. I have a great deal of experience trying to convince people of my point of view. I have found that disrespect causes no change and only encourages hate. It has no redeeming value. However, showing respect at the very worst encourages cooperation and a free exchange of ideas. It may even help a misguided individual to see the light, so to speak.

There are times when not openly mocking it is beneficial (like in an actual debate); I don't think that's a prerequisite for a thread based around the stupidest theories we've heard. So they get some gentle ribbing, so what? Learn to be less fragile.

Oops, I missed the first para:

"In this case, no one was making any claim that God is real, only that unprovoked mocking makes you a jerk. Also, if you want people to stop believing in something, then the burden of proof is on you. If you want someone to take action you must bring something of substance to the table. The same is true if you want someone to begin believing in something. The burden of proof is whoever is trying to convince someone else. It is on whoever is trying to change the status quo. Attempting to disprove something is just as much a claim as attempting to prove something. Especially if the individual has a lifetime of religious experiences you want them to ignore."

Bull to the Shit.

"Also, if you want people to stop believing in something, then the burden of proof is on you."

You can't prove a negative. You've just twisted the situation round and tried to slap burden of proof where it doesn't belong; what you're actually saying is that burden of proof belongs to everyone in the debate, so again I'll throw out the "I can fly; disprove it!" example.

"It is on whoever is trying to change the status quo."

If you're proving something else that would then appear to be to the contrary (say, evolution), not if you're denouncing something for which there is no evidence.

"Attempting to disprove something is just as much a claim as attempting to prove something."

Not if there's no evidence for what you're trying to disprove in the first place.

 

[requisitename]

Holocaust denial.

Does it matter? Who cares if someone denies it or not ?

Yes, it matters. It's a particularly nasty form of anti-Semitism. If you can't see why saying the Holocaust never happened and the Jewish community is making it all up in order to further their own agenda(s) is bad, I'm afraid I can't help.

So now , a person is not allowed to not believe something that everyone else believes? Isn't that the same kind of logic that caused the deaths of millions of people in the middle ages ?( Religious crusades)

A person should be allowed to believe or not believe what ever they chose, isn't that eveyones right?

I must admit to being a little puzzled here. This is a thread for the "craziest/stupidest theories you've ever heard".. I posted the one that struck me.. and it's okay for everyone else to do that.. but not me? Not this? Not.. something?

I honestly don't understand what's wrong with my thinking Holocaust denial is crazy/stupid. It's my opinion. By your own logic, It's my right to think it's stupid. Further, you're implying that people have the right to believe whatever they want without being challenged.. so, why are you challenging my beliefs? How are they different?

I actually don't care what other people believe. It's absolutely their right to be stupid by my estimation. But, someone asked what beliefs I think are stupid and I answered. Seriously, how did this become an issue? Why does it bother you so much that I am against Holocaust denial?

 

[dvd_72]

The first is indeed more important. But respecting others despite their beliefs is very important, even if you do not share them. This is not happening here. In this thread people are mocking the most important beliefs of others and by extension insulting them. If you do not believe that is fine, but making a deliberate attack against someone's beliefs with the intent of insult is crossing the boundary of good taste and moral decency.
.

Now hold on a minute! By your logic this entire thread is disrespectful, and I don't mean all the "Hur dur invisible god man does magic" stuff. I mean all the various conspiracy theories that have been laughed about here. Someone, somewhere, believes in that and you're mocking them too. You have no right to take any kind of moral high ground in this.

And while I agree that some anti-regligeon comments have been a little harsh, you cannot get angry at people stating thier opinion on it. If they don't believe it, they will think that the idea of god is bizzare and insane. On the flip side, theists will think that -not- believing in god is bizzare and insane.

If I say I don't believe in god and that I think the idea is strange and inherently flawed, and you become offended, then that makes me think you're a little too unsure of your beliefs, and that you feel the need to defend them from every percieved threat in order to maintain your world view.

The same goes for the reverse situation. If I say that I believe in god and that the idea of there being no god is strange and inherently flawed, and you get offended, then you are too unsure of your belief in the lack of god and need to take every opportunity to argue against it to convince yourself you're right.

I watched an episode of Dr. Who which included the most brilliant villain race I have ever seen. It is a race of aliens whom you forget they ever existed the moment you look away from them, even on a photograph or recording. And thanks to the efforts of the Doctor, we've been killing off their species since the moon landing, and we have no idea that we're doing it.

I remember that one! Can I use that as a parody conspiracy theory? please?

 

[JonnyHG]

the idea of an invisible man in the clouds that can see everything and everyone at all times, that created all that is. thats pretty batshit bonkers to me! ^_^

I don't understand. How is calling a god invisible, when he does in fact fit the definition of the word, a sign of immaturity? I don't even know if it's possible for anyone to debate this, regardless of what they believe. Some people choose to believe in an invisible best friend and some don't. It just seems to me that it's the former which is actually closer to a childlike mindset.

Everyone believes in something intangible based upon only faith; there's no personal harm to you if they want to believe it. If you mock harmless beliefs just because you don't agree THAT'S immature. Don't give me lines about Crusades, radicals, etc etc because, yea, we're all aware that religion as an institution is capable of some evils but every organized institution is capable of influence to their favor; the faith of individuals shouldn't be marginalized for the crimes of the institution that claims the same faith.

First of all, every PERSON is capable of evil, regardless of what they believe. Second of all, I did not mock any faith. Everything I said in my previous post is true. In my opinion, EVERY belief (or non-belief) needs to be criticized when it is justified. Justified criticism is not immature, and the lack of a harm from a certain belief is no reason for it to be exempt from criticism. And trust me, when I do mock beliefs it's because I have pretty good reasons, which go far beyond simply having a difference of opinion.

 

[spartan231490]

I present for your delectation: http://www.truthism.com/

A quotation: "Human beings were created (that is, invented) via genetic experiments that were conducted by reptilian aliens."

The site is made even funnier by the overall tone; you are an absolute moron for not realizing that reptilian aliens live inside the Earth. Which is hollow and has an internal sun. The crowning moment of funny is the section on women.

Thank you so much for posting this. I hadn't made it far enough to see the section on women last time when I first heard about this theory. I haven't laughed so hard in years. It was a great way to start off my night, thank you kind sir.

OT: I take back what I said. Truthism definitely way outdoes what I said before.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I am gonna go with Loose Change, just every form of Loose Change. The claim is ridiculous, and the evidence is the best of cherry picking, my favorite bit is the picture that shows "The Only Debris Found at the Pentagon Crash" and in the background you can see more plane debris.

Oh, it's very much a false claim. The people who made it don't even believe it.

Some crazy asshole gave them a shit load of money to turn a script the kids were writing about 9/11 being fake to make a documentary. A lot of money.

Should be things about it on YouTube.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm really torn between "intelligent design" and Scientology here. Sorry if anyone is offended by that, because that means your education has been severely lacking...

Disclaimer; I'm not anti-religious. It could well be that the Big Bang was a god snapping his fingers, but the whole 7-day creation 5000 years ago, irreducible complexity and other such arguments have been thoroughly voided.

And I really agree with Tim Minchin here:

I think you mean creationsim. Intelligent design is a compromise between creationism and evolution where god created the universe(all the way back to the big bang) in such a way as to cause it to evolve into the universe that exists now. Kinda odd, but certainly not as odd as most creationsist ideologies, certainly not 7 day creationsim.