Saturday, May 5, 2012

CONSPIRACY THEORY #1963

Okay. I changed the title to "1963" intentionally. A good conspiracy theoricist has to have some fun!

However, this blog will never become a Conspiracy Theory clearing house. I will address certain stories that I feel very strongly about. This is one of them.

Occasionally, I find information from people who have the time and resources to pursue these things and publish their findings.

You must admit, however, conspiracy theories make life more interesting. Imagine how painfully boring life would be without a good CT to explain the really big, inexplicable events in life and history.

JFK


Well, let us take heart as Vincent Bugliosi takes multiple swipes at us "conspiracy theorists" in his interview with Dennis Prager on The Dennis Prager Show.  It was condensed and replayed on Townhall.com's podcast "Weekend Journal" today. I guess serendipitously finding and listening to this podcast has unintentionally stirred my pot.

After listening to the interview, I was left feeling like the "loser" whose life was coming apart that like Mr. Bugliosi said I was! Amazing.

Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John F. Kennedy all by himself. Any questions?

Just one. Or two.

Agnosticism


I found out my buddy Vincent is an "agnostic" in his belief about God. This hits credibility where it counts the most!  See Amazon.com for his book, "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question."

Here is the book description:

"Vincent Bugliosi, whom many view as the nation’s foremost prosecutor, has successfully taken on, in court or on the pages of his books, the most notorious murderers of the last half century—Charles Manson, O.J. Simpson, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, in the most controversial book of his celebrated career, he turns his incomparable prosecutorial eye on the greatest target of all: God. In making his case for agnosticism, Bugliosi has very arguably written the most powerful indictment ever of God, organized religion, theism, and atheism. Theists will be left reeling by the commanding nature of Bugliosi’s extraordinary arguments against them. And, with his trademark incisive logic and devastating wit, he exposes the intellectual poverty of atheism and skewers its leading popularizers—Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.

Joining a 2,000-year-old conversation which no one has contributed anything significant to for years, Bugliosi, in addition to destroying the all-important Christian argument of intelligent design, remarkably—yes, scarily—shakes the very foundations of Christianity by establishing that Jesus was not born of a virgin, and hence was not the son of God, that scripture in reality supports the notion of no free will, and that the immortality of the soul was a pure invention of Plato that Judaism and Christianity were forced to embrace because without it there is no life after death.

Destined to be an all-time classic, Bugliosi’s Divinity of Doubt sets a new course amid the explosion of bestselling books on atheism and theism—the middle path of agnosticism. In recognizing the limits of what we know, Bugliosi demonstrates that agnosticism is
the most intelligent and responsible position to take on the eternal question of God’s existence
."
 [Emphasis mine]

Barf!

Conspiracy Theory!!!


I also found out that Vincent (we are on a first-name basis now, for variety's sake) has another book out, which would by no means appear to be conspiratorial in any way. Perish the thought. Here it is:

"The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder"

Now we see that Mr. Bugliosi (see previous paragraph) has a notion that "conspiracy theorists" are losers whose lives are coming apart and need something to believe in to explain their loss of control.

Gee, it seems like he just wants to sell his book, "Reclaiming History," which was the subject of his interview mentioned above, and reclaim history from CT-types who distort the truth, etc.

Blah, blah, blah. All together now: "Cha-ching!"

Final thought: 1 Corinthians 13:12

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."


Post a Comment