atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Bgood]

A short list:

1) Non sequiturs; reasoning that a conclusion follows from a set of premises when it in fact does not do so. (e.g. Arguing that Bush and America's involvement with the bin Laden family implied a similar relationship with Osama bin Laden.)
2) Argument from ignorance; the belief that if no better explanation is available, the one that one has must be correct. (This is a common theme even outside conspiracy theories, that if person B doesn't know why X, then person A must be on to something. Many times we don't know, we may never know. And this is exacerbated when people like 9/11 Truthers present details that people aren't familiar with and then imply that it means something when this person whom you've accosted with unfamiliar information can't explain it.)
3) Propaganda; appealing to emotion to generate a conclusion rather than facts, evidence and logic. (Despite having ample bad guys to draw from, 9/11 truthers inevitably look to people they don't like. To the best of my knowledge, the pope has yet to be implicated in 9/11.)
4) Fraud and lies (or simple mistakes); presenting facts which are either known to be untrue, or which one has omitted to check.

I think this list can be applied to more than just "conspiracy theories". Lawyers generally use these tactics to sway jurors in favoring their clients for one instance. Also I think it would be tremendously important to admit that any government official who is in charge of psychological propaganda and in debunking conspiracy claims is fully aware of this list. So they will play on it like a fiddle.

Basically these 4 characteristics or techniques can be used virtually to "prove" or "disprove" anything! The very fact that this list is projected onto specifically conspiracy nutjobs is the very essence of ostacizacing and labeling. It is a form of bigotry, definitely not science!

Don't we have any original thinkers on this forum instead of just people who only copy and paste what they get off other websites and act like as if the are the eternal owners of all knowledge?