Conspiracy theories. Why some people believe them.

[vnx205]

Rather than hijack one of the other threads in which we have been presented with a conspiracy theory, I have started a new one to discuss the phenomenon of why conspiracy theories are so popular.

I don't want to discuss any particular conspiracy but will need to refer to one to illustrate some of the points I want to make.

Often conspiracy theories are started and believed by people who didn't pay attention in class while the maths teacher was covering the topic of probability. If an unusual combination of events occurs leading to a very beneficial outcome, those who paid attention in maths lessons would probably say something along the lines of, "I couldn't have organised that better myself if I had tried." The conspiracy theorist would look at the same series of events and the outcome and their first assumption would be that it must have been arranged, because the outcome was so beneficial and that they had never seen that sequence of events before.

Conspiracy theories often appear to have the support of experts in the field. That is very easy to arrange. All that is needed is for the expert to be given a particular version of the facts and the desired answer will naturally be forthcoming.

For example, the claim is often made that only an expert marksman could have achieved what Martin Bryant did in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Of course experts will be impressed by the marksmanship if they have only some of the facts. If they learn that most of his shots were at point blank range and that some of them were fired into people lying wounded on the floor, they would be less impressed. There is plenty of evidence of just how close the gun was to the victims when it was fired. One woman had her eardrum damaged by the blast when she was shot in the back. That only happens at very close range.

If the experts assume or are led to believe that Bryant fired from a distance at moving targets, of course they respond with the answer the conspiracy theorist want. The fact is that when Bryant shot at people over longer distances, he missed a lot.

Give the expert the right information and they will give you the answer you want.

Often the reason people believe the conspiracy is because they simply don't understand that there is another simple explanation.

Much is often made of the fact that Bryant's lawyer took photos of him in gaol and had his camera confiscated. The reason offered by the conspiracy theorists is that it was part of some plot to prevent witnesses correctly identifying the gunman. That doesn't even make sense when you consider that Bryant's photo had already been published in national newspapers. Confiscating the lawyer's photos would not keep Bryant's appearance a secret.

The real reason the camera was confiscated is that unauthorised photography is forbidden in Australian gaols. Years ago, I was outside Grafton gaol, preparing to take a photo with my Brownie Box Camera, when a member of the prison staff rushed across the road and warned me that photos were not permitted.

There was no pointless attempt to keep Bryant's appearance secret. What happened was normal procedure. If conspiracy theorists don't know what the normal procedure is, they are able to dream up an explanation that suits them.

A further example of conspiracy theorists being unaware of normal procedure is the fact that Bryant was held in isolation. They see something sinister in this. The simple explanation is that prisoners who have harmed children tend to be at the bottom of the pecking order in prisons. Many of Bryant's victims were children. Had he not been kept isolated, he would almost certainly have come to harm. He was isolated for his own protection.

Those are just some of the reasons that conspiracy theories gain traction. Others are much simpler. Often they depend on the repetition of information that is quite simple wrong.

We all tend to want answers; we want things to make sense. Some people want simple answers to complex questions. The real world is complex. Often events occur which are hard to explain. As someone said, "Truth is stranger than fiction." Coincidences do occur. Unlikely events do occur. After all the chances of winning a lottery are depressingly small, yet someone always has the winning ticket.

Research has shown that the best indicator of whether a person will believe a conspiracy theory is that they believe other conspiracy theories. The belief is not a response to a single event; it is part of a world view held by the believer. The evidence is really irrelevant.

Believing in a conspiracy theory gives people a sense of power. They can convince themselves that in spite of the efforts of the government, multinational companies, Big Pharma, etc, through their own efforts they have found out the truth. That allows them to believe that they have outsmarted those authorities.

It may be that we all have some genetic disposition to believe conspiracies, but that most people look at the evidence and see that there is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain events. Evolution could explain why we instinctively imagine that we are surrounded by threats. The cavemen who always assumed that the rustling of leaves in the bush was just the wind rather than some predator would have been less likely to survive to pass on their genes.

I am going to take a leaf out of JohnF's book and repeat that I want this to be a discussion about why people believe in conspiracies. I don't want an argument about the Bryant case.

[isuzurover]

It is not just conspiracy theories, I think there is a cross section of the community who need some sort of cause to believe in. You find such zealots in a range of areas, however the main ones seem to be:

environmentalism
religion
health

However I have noticed that the conspiracy theorists also tend to have "fringe" views on many of the above issues as well.

I think it boils down to the mantra of Fox Mulder in the X-Files: "I want to believe"

[Sparksdisco]

It's all about building on obscure truths then telling believable lies.

Also building a sense of fear of the unknown and the unknown being bad.

[Chucaro]

IMO conspiracy theories are the result of lack of trust by people to those that have important positions in society like politicians, directors of organizations, church leaders,media, etc.
There is nothing new about them, just read the bible and talk about Judas and you have one there (Then again better no, this thread will go for ever :D)\

There are 3 main conspiracy types:
Systemic conspiracy theories
Superconspiracy theories
Event conspiracy theories ( We can classify Bryant's case in this one)
The case of some politician that have been removed from office also can be included in the Event type of conspiracies.

[jonesfam]

I don't believe in all that stuff!
The moon landings weren't filmed from Arizona, it was really outback QLD & there was no-one on the grassy knoll, Jackie shot him with a .22 pistol!

Really, after the GFC where a whole lot of banks in the world were definitely doing some very funny & secretive book keeping I can understand how some people could believe in some of this stuff, even I think that was some sort of conspiracy.

But I think some of it is just trying to not admit to reality & some of it is to blame others for your lot in life. I.E. If the USA Govt can take out 1000's of people & demolish 2 iconic buildings just to start a war they are definitely keeping ME down.

And, maybe, some people should just get a life. I Googled said Martin Bryant a while back, there were more sites about how he didn't do it than about the facts. To sit there & come up with that & then write a great big essay about it, get a life.
Worse than us writing about Land Rovers & conspiracy theorists.:D
Jonesfam

[4range]

I reckon any one that tries to debunk conspiracy theories, is probably in the employ of the CIA, & the secret society within the freemasons, & are only trying to prevent the truth from comming out!

Ok - I am crawling back into my hole now!

[korg20000bc]

Isn't this just another soapbox topic?

All it will do is create division among our members.

[frantic]

Let me give you an example of "false" conspiracy theorists. Where you agree with the evidence but not the proposed solution.
I understand and do not argue the massive evidence of global warming but do dispute the Gillard-brown / E.U/ U.K solution that even the U.K govt has proven to be a failure through their own figures. Put this up and you get labelled an -anti global warming conspiracy type.:D
I may take my kids to church but also teach them about evolution(not the 5k bunkum creationist spiel), Darwin and his work. It's about looking at all the evidence and forming an opinion, not cherry-picking half the facts or having a vested interest influence those presented and the course taken.

[superquag]

Cynicism and/or a very deep understanding of human nature...

Bear in mind that the disposition we refer to (loosely) as a 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is found in disproportionally higher %'s amongst leaders/Pollies/rapidly upwardly mobile executives/greedy wannabees, it is no surprise that such folk are quite happy to trample on others to obtain their ends, whatever the motives.

Using the examples mentioned, I see no surprise in a survival situation (War, or my own political/military career...) in England witholding info on Pearl Harbour. The result of bringing the USA into the war and thus taking heat of the British 'justifies' such perfidy.

On the other end of the balance staff, Gen Macarthur was at one stage quietly but bluntly reminded that the longer-term interests of America were more important than supporting his requests for matieriel to defend Austrtalia and/or win battles in this area...
Or, Australia could be sacrificed for the greater good of America if the Leaders so determined. WE (Congress & faceless lobbyists etc) run the war, NOT you (a mere soldier and employee)...

Most of us exhibit empathy for our fellows, psycho/Sociopaths dont and can't. But they're adept at adapting themselves to 'interface' with us, behaving in whatever way they - correctly - interpret as being most beneficial for them.

People range in capacity and dispositions from the softest to the most vicious, and logically, the most intelligent and merciless - coupled with competance - are more likely to rise to positions of power, honour, riches and influence.
(- Four highly desirable 'assets' that can be parlayed into any and everything.)

Again, with a reference to 'Logic', groups of like-minded "winners'' are likely to band together to obtain an end, at the expense of everyone else. ie, Phoebus light bulb cartel, c1920.

As well as this, there is what I call GroupThink. A simple example is the excuse "Nothing personal, it's just Business" - says the hitman as he pulls the trigger.
If you push an idea long, hard and skillfully enough, the sheep eventually accept it. This can be called 'Propaganda', but 'Marketing' is the current term... - Just google 'Ed Bernay' and spend a long time.....:eek:

For the more indolent readers... click on this link. Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928) (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html)

My last 2 cents worth... I have no problem with the existance of Conspiracies, the challenge is working out which ones are true...and which are the results of incompetance, miscommmunication, paralysing corporate structure and/or sheer bad judgement.
- Such as the wasted 30 minute warning of Peal Harbour.

Just don't start me on the Great Conspiracy of the Type II Diabetes Industry :mad::mad::mad:

[vnx205]

Isn't this just another soapbox topic?

All it will do is create division among our members.

Division isn't necessarily a problem. Differences of opinion appear frequently on the forum and don't seem to cause any problem.

For example, I have been following with great interest, (though at this stage just academic interest) the differences of opinion about wide V narrow tyres on the "Frazer Island" thread. I see those differences as enlightening rather than alarming.

Surely as long as the discussion is about the topic rather than the people who hold those views, the the discussion is worthwhile. I am interested in why people hold the views that they do. I had expected that some others might find i t an interesting topic.

[Chucaro]

Isn't this just another soapbox topic?

All it will do is create division among our members.
Which it is a conspiracy :D

[korg20000bc]

Division isn't necessarily a problem. Differences of opinion appear frequently on the forum and don't seem to cause any problem.

For example, I have been following with great interest, (though at this stage just academic interest) the differences of opinion about wide V narrow tyres on the "Frazer Island" thread. I see those differences as enlightening rather than alarming.

Surely as long as the discussion is about the topic rather than the people who hold those views, the the discussion is worthwhile. I am interested in why people hold the views that they do. I had expected that some others might find i t an interesting topic.

If that were the case I'd've expected a less-preachy and dogmatic initial post.
But, maybe I have misread you.

[Hay Ewe]

I think that many people don't sit back and

a) make effort to research all the facts
b) consider the possibilities
c) consider the reasons
d) consider similar past events
e) consider all the facts
f) take what the media produce as 'the word'
g) reconsider all the facts
h) form their own opinion

Years ago, I had a work problem, I was staying with my mother at the time, she advised me to stick to the facts, don't get emotional.

Its been bloody good advice

Hay Ewe

[sheerluck]

It does make me laugh that people believe so many negative things, invariably about the government, and they believe so passionately. These conspiracy theorists believe that the government is capable of so much, but the reality is that they can barely do the basics right, such as keeping the potholes on the roads filled in.

Yes there have been cover ups in the past. But these have been down to a few bad apples, or errors of judgment or someone screwing up really badly.

For me, if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then generally speaking I would be pretty confident I was dealing with something of the Anatidae family.

However, for a conspiracy theorist, there would be questions like "Have you proved that it's not just a bear on the way home from a CIA sponsored fancy dress party?", or "it wasn't a duck, as it was part of a government plot to make the whole population believe in fairies".

[vnx205]

... .... ..

If you push an idea long, hard and skillfully enough, the sheep eventually accept it.

I'm not sure that it is helpful to label people who don't automatically believe conspiracies as "sheep". I believe that my use of the term "conspiracy theorists" is merely a descriptive term, while "sheep" is simple a derogatory label.

My last 2 cents worth... I have no problem with the existance of Conspiracies, the challenge is working out which ones are true...and which are the results of incompetance, miscommmunication, paralysing corporate structure and/or sheer bad judgement.
Yes, as someone said, "given a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up, you should always choose the latter. :)
...



There certainly have been conspiracies in the past and there are conspiracies going on now, but that doesn't prove that any particular conspiracy now is real.

There is one conspiracy to conceal the truth that I would like to mention, not for any particular reason except that my family was personally affected and I have just finished reading a second book that confirms the conspiracy. It doesn't prove anything. I simply want to tell the story.

After WWII, there was a conspiracy to keep families in the dark about what happened to the Australian and British POWs at Sandakan. The reason given was that it would have upset the families to know the truth. Whatever the reason, the truth was suppressed for a long time.

When I was growing up, I knew that my grandfather had died near the end of WWII as a result of being a POW in Changi prison. I believe that is all my grandmother ever knew of what happened to her husband.

I now know that he was transferred to Sandakan POW Camp and died in the camp on 12th July 1945. The fact that he was still alive then is quite remarkable given that he was 51 years old at the time. He was too ill to have been forced on the death marches but died of disease resulting from the starvation and brutality he and the other POWs endured.

There definitely was a conspiracy to keep those details quiet, but there is no flow-on effect from that conspiracy. Just because that one was real does not mean that every other accusation about a government conspiracy is true.

[vnx205]

If that were the case I'd've expected a less-preachy and dogmatic initial post.
I probably have to plead guilty to that accusation. :)
But, maybe I have misread you.

Feel free to offer an opposing view about why people believe in conspiracies.

[vnx205]

It does make me laugh that people believe so many negative things, invariably about the government, and they believe so passionately. These conspiracy theorists believe that the government is capable of so much, but the reality is that they can barely do the basics right, such as keeping the potholes on the roads filled in.
... ... ..


It really does beggar belief that a group that so many of the general public believe could not organise a carnal interface in a house of ill repute could efficiently organise something as complex as some of the conspiracies theories that exist.

Given the number of leaks from government sources about other subjects, it is also difficult to believe that everyone involved could keep their mouth shut.

[korg20000bc]

Feel free to offer an opposing view about why people believe in conspiracies.

I appreciate the invitation!

[steane]

I think there is a healthy middle ground on this topic. Blindly believing and never questioning what we are "officially told" is as dangerous as jumping to extreme conclusions about a subject and thinking 'conspiracy!'.

I'm sure that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are baseless...but I bet there are a few, probably the ones you'd least expect, that aren't.

I base that possibility on the fact that not all 7 billion of us are honest, fair and without agenda.

[manic]

You can have an interest in conspiracy theories without believing in them. I enjoy exploring angles to shady events. I try to remain open and analytical until all doubt has been removed. Its a healthy exercise, even if it is slightly exhausting. Sometimes I cant be bothered to decide at all :D

[BreakingBad]

Apart from other reasons already mentioned I think some people believe conspiracy theories because they like rooting for the underdog.

Having said that, I think some legitimate arguments are labelled as a 'conspiracy theory' in a bid to discredit them.

[frantic]

A lot of conspiracy theories stem from economic acts of ignorance that cause "issues or deaths" when the gamble goes wrong.;)
We had a piece of equipment that had millions spent on it doing new electricals and was deemed ok for use for a while longer structurally so as to not delay business/profit. It collapsed, injuring 1 and narrowly missed crushing 2 , and was never rebuilt. The conspiracy theory goes company did not want it, the reality is hungry for more production pressure put on the engineer to ok it and the people in charge did the repairs in the wrong order. The conspiracy comes into play when the cover-up to cover their arses has more holes than swiss cheese.

[ramblingboy42]

If you want to stupidly believe conspiracy theories don't go to this website.....it just blows conspiracy theories to where they belong......and theyre all listed there....
The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com)

[Disco Muppet]

I think people believe in conspiracy theories for the same reasons that some people believe in religions. They're not satisfied with a simple answer, or the answer given by some people. They look for something more, something that makes it make sense to them. And there's nothing wrong with that, if you want to believe in God or chemtrails or bigfoot then that's fine, you clearly feel the answer other people give isn't good enough, same reason why I don't believe.
It's when either side decides that their opinion on the topic is more worthwhile than the others, or that everyone needs to believe what they do, that's when it starts getting nasty and innappropriate.

[superquag]

Originally Posted by superquag
... .... ..

If you push an idea long, hard and skillfully enough, the sheep eventually accept it.

I'm not sure that it is helpful to label people who don't automatically believe conspiracies as "sheep". I believe that my use of the term "conspiracy theorists" is merely a descriptive term, while "sheep" is simple a derogatory label.

Hmm, did'nt make myself clear. My bad. - Meant if a line was pushed hard/long and well enough, most people (being un-motivated etc) will eventually accept it. My sheep as above, are the ones who blindly DO believe whatever they're told, 'Conspiracy' or NOT conspiracy... Sheep are easily managed in a group, - try herding a group of cats ! Cats are independant thinkers.

My last 2 cents worth... I have no problem with the existance of Conspiracies, the challenge is working out which ones are true...and which are the results of incompetance, mis-commmunication, paralysing corporate structure and/or sheer bad judgement.
Yes, as someone said, "given a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up, you should always choose the latter

I'd tend to agree with you here! - Kermit made an error of judgement and more people died in Pearl Harbour than would have. Simple. Occam's Razor is a pretty good default approach....

What is Occam's Razor? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html)

IF appliance manufacturers can agree on planned obselescence, then there is no reason to believe that other industries are immune from such evil activites. Whether they do that by actively conspiring...or just the result of common (evil) human behaviours....

[JohnF]

There has and always will be conspiracies. Let us look at the 1600s for example. King James was the king of England. There was the gunpowder plot to blow up him and parliament-- we used to celibate that with Guy Fawkes Cracker night when we were kids. Then there was Archbishop Laud who conspired to return England to the power of Rome, causing the English civil war. Then There were a whole host of other conspiracies that century. Tgen at the end of that century was another conspiracy to depose King James II and place William of orange on the throne-- and thank God that one succeeded.

come over to the 1800s and we have conspiracies like the Oxford Movement which were very well documented, plus the Conspiracy to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. See the History books are full of Conspiracies, and there is not a century without dozens of them.

And their are hundreds more known. These are just a few examples of the top of my head out of Thousands of Conspiracies that our our History books do plainly Document.

[JohnF]

I think people believe in conspiracy theories for the same reasons that some people believe in religions. They're not satisfied with a simple answer, or the answer given by some people. They look for something more, something that makes it make sense to them. And there's nothing wrong with that, if you want to believe in God or chemtrails or bigfoot then that's fine, you clearly feel the answer other people give isn't good enough, same reason why I don't believe.
It's when either side decides that their opinion on the topic is more worthwhile than the others, or that everyone needs to believe what they do, that's when it starts getting nasty and innappropriate.

History books documenting Histories do show Conspiracies in every century of the last 2000 years so why do you think they are not happening now.

[Landy Smurf]

land rovers were built out of aluminium because it was left over after the war.
The series one was built to be a small tractor that they could use on roads.
The whole conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy IMHO.

[vnx205]

There has and always will be conspiracies.
... .... ...


I think I said something like that earlier.

However that does not encourage me to believe the conspiracy theories that are quite clearly not supported by the facts.

You do know that there are people who believe that there is a big gaping hole at the North Pole and the Earth is hollow. Surely you draw the line at that one.

[vnx205]

History books documenting Histories do show Conspiracies in every century of the last 2000 years so why do you think they are not happening now.

It's not so much that I don't believe that conspiracies are happening now.

It's just that I am a bit selective about the ones I believe.

I tend to dismiss the ones that seem to defy the laws of physics, the ones that are not supported by reliable evidence and the ones promoted by internet crackpots who appear to have some sort of agenda.

[superquag]

And by their very nature, Conspiracies only come to light long after they've done their work... - If at all. :eek:

- Did you parents have proof that light bulbs were deliberately built to last shorter service times? Some of that generation were suspicious.... Today, we have the evidence.

[vnx205]

And by their very nature, Conspiracies only come to light long after they've done their work... - If at all. :eek:
Only the well organised ones. :p

- Did you parents have proof that light bulbs were deliberately built to last shorter service times? Some of that generation were suspicious.... Today, we have the evidence.

I hope you are not offering that as a reason to believe that the moon landing was faked or that Elvis is still alive? :D

EDIT
Was that a carefully chosen play on words? :D :D

[Disco Muppet]

History books documenting Histories do show Conspiracies in every century of the last 2000 years so why do you think they are not happening now.

Given that at no point in this thread has anyone said they're not happening, I'm not entirely sure why this is relevant?
What we're talking about are the more far fetched theories, not the existence of conspiracies in general.

[bob10]

or that Elvis is still alive? :D


Elvis is alive, & living with Richie Valens, the big Boppa, & Buddy Holly, Bob;)


1/5 Elvis. Is he Alive? Shocking Evidence! - YouTube (http://youtu.be/_mkZUBdtu5A)

[sheerluck]

Given that at no point in this thread has anyone said they're not happening, I'm not entirely sure why this is relevant?
What we're talking about are the more far fetched theories, not the existence of conspiracies in general.

exactement mon petit coquillage!

Conspiracy is one thing, a conspiracy theory is something different. Conspiracies have happened through the centuries, of all the various types, but conspiracy theories only seem to have been borne of the Internet age.

To say that conspiracies have occurred, therefore all conspiracy theories are correct is the logic of a fool.

[Disco Muppet]

Are you calling me a little shell? :huh::mellow: :D
Regardless of how much evidence is provided to the contrary, someone will always know "What really happened", they'll know someone who was there, or saw the evidence, but it was never them.
It's only to be expected with such widespread availability of unfiltered information that a fair proportion of it is a load of old cobblers.

[vnx205]

I could have made it clearer by calling the thread "Idiotic, Ridiculous, Crackpot Conspiracy Theories. Why do some people believe them?", but I though that might be a bit provocative and possibly a bit dogmatic. :)

There is no mystery about why a lot of people believe there was a conspiracy by Volkswagen to avoid admitting there was a problem with their cars. It fitted the known facts and most thinking people would agree that it was plausible.

Elvis still alive? Now that is a different matter entirely!

It is the fact that people believe the ones that don't fit the facts and require extraordinary stretches of the imagination to believe that are really the intended subject of this thread.

[Disco Muppet]

Elvis still alive? Now that is a different matter entirely!

To quote Frankie Boyle; if you're going to fake your own death, surely you wouldn't pick a ****ting related accident :D





It is the fact that people believe the ones that don't fit the facts and require extraordinary stretches of the imagination to believe that are really the intended subject of this thread.

The thing that I find hilarious is that these people think said conspiracies are by governments or shady corporate groups who utilise the governments like puppets.
What they fail to understand is that to successfully execute a plan for such a conspiracy, the logistical demands would be simply outrageous.
Now, government departments aren't that good at ordinary logistical operations, do people really think they'd be able to pull off your average grand scheme conspiracy? Their own ineptness would have it crashing down around their ears within a month or two :Rolling:

[sheerluck]

........The thing that I find hilarious is that these people think said conspiracies are by governments or shady corporate groups who utilise the governments like puppets......

99.99% of government employees just want to do their allotted hours, and get home to dinner, or breakfast, or whatever just like the rest of us. They aren't going to be thinking of ways to conspire in horrible ways to railroad policy through. Just to use the Martin Bryant case as an example, can you imagine a government committee in session, 20 guys sitting round a table:
"We need to find a way of getting some new gun laws through"
"How about staging a mass murder in Tasmania, using special forces personnel, and getting a local simpleton to be the scapegoat"
"Yep, I'm cool with that"
"Motion carried?"
"Ok, any other business? No? Let's have lunch then"

[BreakingBad]

99.99% of government employees just want to do their allotted hours, and get home to dinner, or breakfast, or whatever just like the rest of us. They aren't going to be thinking of ways to conspire in horrible ways to railroad policy through. Just to use the Martin Bryant case as an example, can you imagine a government committee in session, 20 guys sitting round a table:
"We need to find a way of getting some new gun laws through"
"How about staging a mass murder in Tasmania, using special forces personnel, and getting a local simpleton to be the scapegoat"
"Yep, I'm cool with that"
"Motion carried?"
"Ok, any other business? No? Let's have lunch then"

From my experience the people in govt that run meetings do so because they love meetings. If they all agreed there'd be no use for a follow-up meeting. I can't image that happening unless it was scheduled for Friday just before lunch. That meeting is typically about which pub to go to that arvo. :D:D

[korg20000bc]

hmmm

[JohnF]

I think I said something like that earlier.

However that does not encourage me to believe the conspiracy theories that are quite clearly not supported by the facts.

You do know that there are people who believe that there is a big gaping hole at the North Pole and the Earth is hollow. Surely you draw the line at that one.

Now if I was Conspiring to take over the world what would I do????

Naturally along with the Truth people put out there I would give a lot of provably false conspiracies so people would reject the true along with all those lies that I had put out there.

[vnx205]

Now if I was Conspiring to take over the world what would I do????

Naturally along with the Truth people put out there I would give a lot of provably false conspiracies so people would reject the true along with all those lies that I had put out there.

So all those really crazy conspiracy theories are the work of one person or one group intent on taking over the world? :eek: :D

[Disco Muppet]

Apparently you'd be terrible at conspiring to take over the world, you've just told us all how you'd do it!
That makes us your co-conspirators...
:p

[Chucaro]

Now if I was Conspiring to take over the world what would I do????

Naturally along with the Truth people put out there I would give a lot of provably false conspiracies so people would reject the true along with all those lies that I had put out there.

:confused:

For your first question I have a guess but then again the soapbox is closed :p

For the second point I need help from the fellow members to understand it before start assuming the meaning of it :(

[Disco Muppet]

For the second point I need help from the fellow members to understand it before start assuming the meaning of it :(

John is saying he'd put a load of rubbish conspiracies out there so that people would tar any notion of a conspiracy with the same brush.

[Chucaro]

John is saying he'd put a load of rubbish conspiracies out there so that people would tar any notion of a conspiracy with the same brush.

Is that a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory?

[vnx205]

Now if I was Conspiring to take over the world what would I do????

Naturally along with the Truth people put out there I would give a lot of provably false conspiracies so people would reject the true along with all those lies that I had put out there.

There is a problem with your plan.

It depends on everyone leaping to the conclusion that if one conspiracy is true, they must all be true and if one is false they must all be false.

It depends on people having a mind set along the lines that if a big multinational company or the government is involved there definitely must be a conspiracy.

It depends on people believing that just because there was a cover-up about something in the past, like DDT, there must be a cover -up now about vaccines.

Not everyone thinks that way. Some people are a bit more discriminating. They look at the evidence and base their conclusion on the facts.

So your plan won't work. :)

[Ferret]

TED Ideas Worth Spreading: The pattern behind self-deception (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception. html)

Watch it right through till the end. You might want to get vaccinated against something :D

[sheerluck]

This one is not so new, but about to be rehashed. Apparently the US Navy are in the business of shooting down airliners.

Conspiracy theories, outrage swirl around 1996 crash of TWA 800 - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/twa-800-documentary-debate/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular)

[D110V8D]

Not sure if this is a marketing strategy or a conspiracy (perhaps a marketing conspiracy??) but this morning I went into an outlet of one of the larger supermarket chains to buy, among other things, some shredded mozzarella cheese.

Now would you believe there wasn't any other brand of mozzarella cheese available except for the house branded type. As far as I know it's a recent addition to their (every increasing) line of products.

One could be led to believe that they were trying to get their customers to only buy their cheese, or perhaps it's crap cheese and everyone else before me realised this and bought out the stock of all the other brands.

I tend to believe it's a conspiracy. :D:D

[85 county]

Jesus Christ did not die, the bible actually says this ( if you actually read it) , this story came about in the 1420s with the attempt to amalgamate the many various Christian churches at that time, until then they had just been killing each other. The reason was that the European Royal families claim decendency from Christ thus they have the divine right to rule. The church wishing to weaken the royal families power came up with the death of Christ.

Christ died to save us from our sins. This came from the reformation movement and was designed to weaken the ( mainly) catholic churches hold on power. until then you were born a sinner or not, it was preordained. that’s why a French chick was BBQd

So when conspiracy becomes truth then every thing else is a conspiracy. it is as ageless as people have been able to communicate.

Darwin was very much the Christian man of his day, it was not he who disclaimed creation, it was others who reinterpreted his works and claimed thus. If you think about it dawins evolution has nothing to do with creation or the spark of life. The argument is based around the "spark of life" or first life (evolutionists) and in the image of god ( the church) neither of which was disputed by Darwin.

[vnx205]

Not sure if this is a marketing strategy or a conspiracy (perhaps a marketing conspiracy??)
.. ... ..


Your observations are correct and there are a number of issues raised by the increased market share of home brand products.

For example:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/competition-regulator-warns-supermarkets-on-own-brands/story-e6frg6nf-1226315908289)
and
Which? says supermarkets trick shoppers into buying own-brand products by copying household names | This is Money (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2307538/Which-says-supermarkets-trick-shoppers-buying-brand-products-copying-household-names.html)

[incisor]

Jesus Christ did not die, the bible actually says this ( if you actually read it)

as i read it, the bible does say Jesus dies on a cross, after being crucified the roman way not stoned as was the jewish way...

it is mentioned in 4 of the major gospels

Matthew 27 deals with the crucifixion, death and resurrection but most common modern versions of the bible tend to say " he breathed his last breath" or "sighed his last sigh" instead of saying he "died"

but we wont get too involved shall we :P

[Chucaro]

.................................................. ..........
but we wont get too involved shall we :P

Yes keep the Judas conspiracy theory out before the experts start reading the posts :D

[sheerluck]

as i read it, the bible does say Jesus dies on a cross, after being crucified the roman way not stoned as was the jewish way...

it is mentioned in 4 of the major gospels

Matthew 27 deals with the crucifixion, death and resurrection but most common modern versions of the bible tend to say " he breathed his last breath" or "sighed his last sigh" instead of saying he "died"

but we wont get too involved shall we :P

So you're saying that there might be some inaccuracies involved in the telling of some of those stories Inc? Fancy that! :Rolling:

[Disco Muppet]

as i read it, the bible does say Jesus dies on a cross, after being crucified the roman way not stoned as was the jewish way...

it is mentioned in 4 of the major gospels

Matthew 27 deals with the crucifixion, death and resurrection but most common modern versions of the bible tend to say " he breathed his last breath" or "sighed his last sigh" instead of saying he "died"

but we wont get too involved shall we :P

Except then he said his name was Brian and they let him down.

[sheerluck]

Except then he said his name was Brian and they let him down.

Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each ;)

[Disco Muppet]

Out of the door, line on the left, one cross each ;)

I'm Brian, and so is my wife.

[Ferret]

Except then he said his name was Brian and they let him down.

Bollocks. In a documentary I saw the other week at the Perth Arena his name was Ben, Ben Forster.

[Disco Muppet]

Bollocks. In a documentary I saw the other week at the Perth Arena his name was Ben, Ben Forster.

Well Mr. Jesus, we've got you for fraud and possession of false documents.
You've got some 'splainin' to do.
What a horrendous conspiracy.

[JohnF]

So all those really crazy conspiracy theories are the work of one person or one group intent on taking over the world? :eek: :D

I did not say that, I did say what a person would logically do. And there will always be some wackos & some paranoid people.

[JohnF]

Apparently you'd be terrible at conspiring to take over the world, you've just told us all how you'd do it!

:p

Yes,but no one would believe that I really plan on doing it. All would say it is just a Conspiracy Theory.

[JohnF]

This one is not so new, but about to be rehashed. Apparently the US Navy are in the business of shooting down airliners.

Conspiracy theories, outrage swirl around 1996 crash of TWA 800 - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/twa-800-documentary-debate/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular)

Last Friday's SMH newspaper had an article that said 200 witnesses say they saw streaks of light heading towards that Airliner.

200 witnesses should get to have a say

[JohnF]

Last Fridays SMH Newspaper on page 16 has President Obama saying that spying on the public saves lives.

[JohnF]

Jesus Christ did not die, the bible actually says this ( if you actually read it) , this story came about in the 1420s with the attempt to amalgamate the many various Christian churches at that time, until then they had just been killing each other. The reason was that the European Royal families claim decendency from Christ thus they have the divine right to rule. The church wishing to weaken the royal families power came up with the death of Christ.

Christ died to save us from our sins. This came from the reformation movement and was designed to weaken the ( mainly) catholic churches hold on power. until then you were born a sinner or not, it was preordained. that’s why a French chick was BBQd

So when conspiracy becomes truth then every thing else is a conspiracy. it is as ageless as people have been able to communicate.

Darwin was very much the Christian man of his day, it was not he who disclaimed creation, it was others who reinterpreted his works and claimed thus. If you think about it dawins evolution has nothing to do with creation or the spark of life. The argument is based around the "spark of life" or first life (evolutionists) and in the image of god ( the church) neither of which was disputed by Darwin.

Though, I would really like to reply to this post, I do not think Inc would like me to reply, so I will pass.

[vnx205]

Last Friday's SMH newspaper had an article that said 200 witnesses say they saw streaks of light heading towards that Airliner.

200 witnesses should get to have a say

You seem to be assuming that they have not had a say.

Read a few of these articles and you will see that this "new" evidence is not actually new. One of the articles explains that it is normal practice in accident investigations to discount eyewitness accounts because of their unreliability. The physical evidence is more reliable.

Look at some of the evidence available that supports the fuel tank explosion explanation. It looks more convincing that the "evidence" for the various conspiracy theories.

Opinion: Flight 800 conspiracy? Where's proof? - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/20/opinion/adcock-flight-800/index.html)

Page 3 - Why the TWA Flight 800 Conspiracy Theorists Are Wrong - TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11956914/3/why-the-twa-flight-800-conspiracy-theorists-are-wrong.html)

TWA Flight 800 & the Media's Coverage of Conspiracy Theories | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/351598/twa-flight-800-medias-coverage-conspiracy-theories-jim-geraghty)

[Chucaro]

I am looking froward for the posts during and after the happy hour :p

[vnx205]

I am looking froward for the posts during and after the happy hour :p

I think I have a bottle of red handy that should provide the lubrication necessary for some typical contributions during happy hour. :p

[sheerluck]

Though, I would really like to reply to this post, I do not think Inc would like me to reply, so I will pass.


I think I have a bottle of red handy that should provide the lubrication necessary for some typical contributions during happy hour. :p

I don't drink, but I feel it may be necessary later :Rolling:

[Ferret]

The hopeless reality of it.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/240.jpg

[V8Ian]

there will always be some wackos & some paranoid people.
:o Surely you jest. :angel:

[Ferret]

The hopeless reality of it.

Yes John, we know the 'incredible truth' and who's behind it. I thought you might identify with it. :D

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/232.jpg

[Disco Muppet]

This thread =
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/229.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DiscoMuppet/media/giphy_zps34610106.gif.html)

Happy hour only makes it better :Rolling:

[Chucaro]

.........and wait there is more

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/228.jpg

[85 county]

as i read it, the bible does say Jesus dies on a cross, after being crucified the roman way not stoned as was the jewish way...

it is mentioned in 4 of the major gospels

Matthew 27 deals with the crucifixion, death and resurrection but most common modern versions of the bible tend to say " he breathed his last breath" or "sighed his last sigh" instead of saying he "died"

but we wont get too involved shall we :P

OH go on


So you read the King James, there is more than one bible. But then Jesus was walking down the road a few days /weeks latter. Even had a feed with some strangers and that is in the king James. “dead man walking maybe" ??

The roman punishment of crucifixion was. To be nailed to any wall tree or stake (crosses were not used for another 300 years). For 24 hours a sort of trial by pain. you don’t die your a god bloke, you do die your not.

[Disco Muppet]

So you read the King James, there is more than one bible. But then Jesus was walking down the road a few days /weeks latter. Even had a feed with some strangers and that is in the king James. “dead man walking maybe" ??



Uhm....Think you might have missed a chapter or two mate...

[85 county]

Uhm....Think you might have missed a chapter or two mate...

Uhm no

[sheerluck]

.......So you read the King James, there is more than one bible........

And we won't mention the differences between each version will we? Each one purported to be "the truth".

[Chucaro]

And we won't mention the differences between each version will we? Each one purported to be "the truth".

I can see that tomorrow we will have some lessons about this :angel:

[85 county]

And we won't mention the differences between each version will we? Each one purported to be "the truth".

na sticking with the 1420s amalgamation collections of books AKA the bible

[Disco Muppet]

Are we going to be schooled on the "real" Bible, where Jesus is rescued by a team of crack God-Commandos?
Or where he wasn't crucified, his mates got really drunk and duct-taped him to a tree and he woke up in a strange cave three days later?
Or where he faked his death in order to hang out with Elvis and Paul Mccartney (who is also dead)?

[sheerluck]

I can see that tomorrow we will have some lessons about this :angel:

No, I've said we won't talk about the differences between them, which means that no-one can talk about it.

JohnF's rules, not mine.

[sheerluck]

na sticking with the 1420s amalgamation collections of books AKA the bible

Ah yes. I must say Genesis was always my favourite.





Or at least until some of their later albums, Calling All Stations was a shocker.

[THE BOOGER]

Are we going to be schooled on the "real" Bible, where Jesus is rescued by a team of crack God-Commandos?
Or where he wasn't crucified, his mates got really drunk and duct-taped him to a tree and he woke up in a strange cave three days later?
Or where he faked his death in order to hang out with Elvis and Paul Mccartney (who is also dead)?

Its true they made a movie about it

Suicide Squad - YouTube

[Disco Muppet]

Its true they made a movie about it

Suicide Squad - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8)

That's what I had in mind when I wrote that :p

[Chucaro]

Your people are a evil bunch, Pancho the pope is going to use the cane :p

[Disco Muppet]

Your people are a evil bunch, Pancho the pope is going to use the cane :p

I wasn't expecting that.
Then again...
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...

[Ferret]

... the Spanish Inquisition...

Don't talk about that either, it's still in progress last I heard.

[Chucaro]

With 26.8 % unemployment rate they will have few people free to join the cause, then again with the Spain national debt there is not money for the ammunition :D

[JohnF]

With 26.8 % unemployment rate they will have few people free to join the cause, then again with the Spain national debt there is not money for the ammunition :D

The Second World War was started soon after Germany was broke. See Germany was broke and the best way of getting out of debt is to borrow lots of money in order to start a war. That is how economics works. Many wars were started by countries in order to get out of debt throughout History.

It is obvious you guys do not understand money matters. See Governments do not own money. The US Federal reserve is a private company, is not owned or controlled by the Government. It is owned by international Bankers, who lend their money to the government, to start Arms Races, or whatever. Then the Government puts up taxes in order to pay the interest on what they borrowed from the international Bankers.

Ditto with the Australian Reserve Bank.

Government never owns money, the bankers do.

When the government wants more money they go to the bankers who give them a draft giving the Government permission to print much more money, for which the Government pays the Bankers interest.

That is for every bank note in your wallet which the government printed, the Government pays a fair bit of your taxes as interest to the Bankers.

[THE BOOGER]

Yes the fed res in the US is private but here the govt does own the reserve bank wholly and soley as far as I know we do not pay interest to the reserve bank except to cover govt bonds issued by the bank for the govt:)

[JohnF]

I am looking froward for the posts during and after the happy hour :p


I think I have a bottle of red handy that should provide the lubrication necessary for some typical contributions during happy hour. :p


I don't drink, but I feel it may be necessary later :Rolling:

Of course you guys will not know which organisation openly says it will rule the world while having many Billions invested in alcohol production in order to keep you guys happy and unaware of its aims.

[Chucaro]

Of course you guys will not know which organisation openly says it will rule the world while having many Billions invested in alcohol production in order to keep you guys happy and unaware of its aims.

.........and that was how start the conspiracy during the last supper, they drunk red wine and finished in trouble :D

Cheers John, to your health :twobeers:

[Ferret]

Of course you guys will not know which organisation openly says it will rule the world while having many Billions invested in alcohol production in order to keep you guys happy and unaware of its aims.

You talking about Acme Corporation, John. Yeah, Pinky and the Brain have been plotting the take over of the world from within Acme labs for years. Never knew Acme were into the booze though. I thought they mostly made anvils and giant rubber bands.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/159.jpg

[Disco Muppet]

Meanwhile, at the Legion of Doom....




Or rather....



Meanwhile, at the AULRO International Comedy Festival

[bob10]

I see it is time for for a tribal elder to add some substance to this discussion.
[ BTW, Qld Won, Twice...;):angel: ] Bob

MONTY PYTHON Moody Bible institute liturgical service announcement! - YouTube (http://youtu.be/wKPVF09JHQc)

[bob10]

I wasn't expecting that.
Then again...
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...

You asked for it , Bob


The Spanish Inquisition - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Tym0MObFpTI)

[Disco Muppet]

You asked for it , Bob


The Spanish Inquisition - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Tym0MObFpTI)

Hmm...
Who did it better?
Mel Brooks´ Spanish Inquisition - YouTube

[JohnF]

You asked for it , Bob


The Spanish Inquisition - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Tym0MObFpTI)


Hmm...
Who did it better?
Mel Brooks´ Spanish Inquisition - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg&ytsession=6hwsn7o00r-Nk27RTjc4cn699W4EAfhUITg_VcVHbtf1NyP-5JY7bd_SqELvJEIOj4FhyJmR1KB1hD0TBQu85S8TFOHXpefaug ubpaGg6a1r_XBSlFzao0AwOwrT36TirQ_ZcRrvpauuBXnKGsX4 e1FDAsEmTRmnS1zRNP2KZGi8ZwVN7lC72yNf0dk9zI0F_KwLmq 6mHfDEvvQ35Zwv2tT0zPGy3dWdbNQe7L9QZ-AYUjKjOAhpwkmPy6PYzRgeo5mpi8gImyqIvnDNPrJimXWsi-RCiVkpLi-9boggSHQqZTz1ZZKiQ41Rx0Ya6BWhXzcpCqE_aCXDHUPDCAGY-1K9nEAZIuZRTsGrdoVPM_zLh9jRtjEJ1Kl6mgm7L--rkIqVLAjBBhlGGnhBIpfOyrKqwwoKbuIT9i1kN-s95NmwIasIeZHvpJKhhwswp3QRkKXk1aPzZN6fk4qcpDCbNU_p 553x8rB0JqxEZ_TP_383LAPSldHd0DMP-3a9zu7ZKwJaYXvPjYfuetWE44etmXCu_ZAc4ZC1oPhmJpzleEP dHUEvRox_slHHqraLs5TOm09owLd1oH-Kd0R4blrAF6nUq_wm5zJh)

Spanish inquisition was no laughing matter. Hitler's Gestapo torturing and killing people was nothing compared to the Inquisition that burnt between 68 And 150 million people at the stake [but the Gestapo was based on the Inquisition].

Do Google Spanish Inquisition in Google Images and look at all the old black and white pictures from the old books describing it. Some of these very old black and White woodcuts go back to when the Inquisition was in full force-- I have seen some of these from the 1600s--I have held books from the early 1600's in my hands.

Yet you guys think this is a joke--It is no Joke. What Stalin did in Russia Murdering 50 million people, what Pol Pot did in Cambodia murdering 3 million people, was a drop in the bucket compared to those tortured & murdered by the Inquisition.

I did have an Old Newspaper clipping [lost when we moved some years ago] that told of Road Engineers cutting through a 100 foot high hill in Spain and then finding that this hill consisted entirely of small burnt fragments of human bone and ash from the time that the Inquisition burnt all that would not obey its decrees at the stake. Yet this was a very minor unrecorded site of the Inquisition in Spain.

And you may not know that the last person burnt at the Stake by the Inqisition was burnt in Mexico in 1830AD. And some of Mexico was talking of reintroducing the Spanish Inquisition just a couple of decades back.

And you probably have never been to Lima Peru where the Spanish Inquisition burnt many at the stake. Or to Goa India where the Portugese Inquisition wiped out all Christians who would not conform to Romanism. Or to Ethiopia, China & Japan where the Inquisition wiped out those existing Christians who would not adopt Roman Catholicism, etc.

I do doubt any of you have ever read up on what it really was like, prefering Monty Python's account of it.

[sheerluck]

.......the Inquisition that burnt between 68 And 150 million people at the stake

I remember vividly debunking your numbers on the Spanish Inquisition in 'the thread that shall not be named or returned'.

If you take the median of your estimates at 110million people burnt at the stake, then that represented more than 25% of the estimated entire world population in 1550 AD. Probably a little ambitious, given that the Spanish Inquisition covered only the Iberian Peninsula, parts of Western Europe, the Spanish controlled New World and the Goan colony.

In the SI's most active years, a period between 1482 and 1610, there were less than 100,000 people tried under their rules, with approximately 2000 in total executed either in person, or 'in effigy'.

I suggest you read a book by Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, rather than the propaganda you currently read.



I do doubt any of you have ever read up on what it really was like, prefering Monty Python's account of it.

I prefer Monty Python's version, but I spent a year studying the Spanish Inquistion, and other parts of the Dark Ages. One of the many, many reasons why religion will never make sense to me.

[V8Ian]

John Cleese (not F;)) has made a lot of instructional/educational videos.

[Disco Muppet]

I do doubt any of you have ever read up on what it really was like, prefering Monty Python's account of it.

At no point during my two years of studies of religion of ancient history did such inflated numbers pop up when talking about the spanish inquisition. Nothing I've been able to find suggests even close to your numbers.

Bit of info about Mel Brooks for you though. He's a Jew, and was one of the
first people to poke fun at the Nazis with The Producers, and has done quite a bit in his films. He thinks that if you lose the ability to laugh about something, then it holds it's power over you, which is something I quite agree with. Hell, I wouldn't have even known about the Spanish Inquisition if it wasn't for that movie.

So yes John, I'd estimate that there are quite a few people here who have a fair idea of what they're talking about, and can provide evidence to support their claims, usually with evidence that hasn't been lost or misplaced ;)

[JohnF]

I remember vividly debunking your numbers on the Spanish Inquisition in 'the thread that shall not be named or returned'.

If you take the median of your estimates at 110million people burnt at the stake, then that represented more than 25% of the estimated entire world population in 1550 AD. Probably a little ambitious, given that the Spanish Inquisition covered only the Iberian Peninsula, parts of Western Europe, the Spanish controlled New World and the Goan colony.

In the SI's most active years, a period between 1482 and 1610, there were less than 100,000 people tried under their rules, with approximately 2000 in total executed either in person, or 'in effigy'.

I suggest you read a book by Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, rather than the propaganda you currently read.




I prefer Monty Python's version, but I spent a year studying the Spanish Inquistion, and other parts of the Dark Ages. One of the many, many reasons why religion will never make sense to me.

You have got to remember that the inquisition [not the spanish one] ran from 320AD to 1830AD. So these figures are for that whole period of timed, and the population of the world in 1550 is imaterial to those figures. The Spanish Inquisition was a very small part of the Inquisition at large.

Australia and Antartica are the only continents not to have suffered under the Inquisition.

To look at the Inquisition as a whole you have to look at the Inquisition in countries like England, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Germany, Bohemia, Philippines, etc.

You did not take into account such things as the Spanish inquisition in Holland, etc. In Holland the Inquisition destroyed whole cities which were Protestant until one dutch man had enough. He snuck out and dug a whole through the Dike flooding the whole Country.

At that time thje Spanish Inquisition stopped persicuting the Dutch protestants. Seee spain could not feed itself at that time, because the Noblemen who owned the cattle drove them into the farms of the peasants to eat their crops. So of course the peasants stoppped growing crops.
General deciding that Holland must follow the religion of its king, and used the Inquisition to do this.


So Spain invaded Holland to take its crops, the Spanish Inquisition wiping out Protestant cities, killing everyone. And this they did before this dutchman flooded that country of Holland which is below Sea level.

After this Spain realised they could no longer use the Inquisition against the dutch. See a 5 foot six inch spanish soldier in heavy armour could not keep his head above six foot six of water. So spain withdrew its inquisition, not knowing how to force the Dutch to follow its Catholic Beliefs.

Lea's book is one I would love to read.

You should read the 8 volume Acts and Monuments by John Fox, from the late 1500's-- it is online. I could not find a paper and ink version when I tried, but have a one volume abridgement that cuts out most material.

You should also read the 1160 very large pages of "Martyrs Mirror," by Theilman van Braugh first published in 1660AD in Dutch translated into English in 1830AD--the English Edition is available as a reprint. And I do think this is online also, but I prefer my print edition.

And then try to track down the 29 volume, 1911AD 11th edition, Encyclopedia Brittanica and do read what that says about the Inquisition. Do not bother reading later editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica which were published by the Roman Catholic Chigago University as they changed the history that was in that earlier "Scholar's Edition" of the Briitannica, deliberately changing the History of the Inquisition.

And there are many more old books that I could quote on this. And Lea's book is one I have always wanted, since I read some quotes from it around 20 years ago.

[bob10]

[QUOTE=JohnF;193898

I do doubt any of you have ever read up on what it really was like, prefering Monty Python's account of it.[/QUOTE]

I have read about the Spanish nightmare, and yes, I do prefer Monty Pythons version. Any sane person would. I dare suggest you should stop living in the past, live for the present, and look to the future. Study history to understand the present, remain vigilant to make sure the past does not repeat, but do not live in the past , and don't try to give positive thinking people a guilt trip. In this case, I put you in the same boat as the Taliban, join the 21st century, focus on the positive history of the World, I doubt you have ever bothered to look for it, you seem to prefer to the dark side, and I don't mean to offend. Bob BTW, a training video for you, ;):D

Monty Python - Always Look on the Bright Side of Life - YouTube (http://youtu.be/jHPOzQzk9Qo)

[Chucaro]

Without "putting you in the same boat as the Taliban" I agree with what Bob have said, we learn from the past as long we look at it in an objective way but look into the future.
I trust that the Catholic Church it is much better now that what used to be and under Pancho the new pope things start looking even better.

[sheerluck]

You have got to remember that the inquisition [not the spanish one] ran from 320AD to 1830AD. So these figures are for that whole period of timed, and the population of the world in 1550 is imaterial to those figures. The Spanish Inquisition was a very small part.....
<snip>
...........You should also read the 1160 very large pages of "Martyrs Mirror," by Theilman van Braugh...... .

John, I've spent an entertaining few hours this afternoon, just reading up again on the Inquisition to make sure that what I remember of my studies is correct. And yes, my memory is clear. Deaths numbering in the thousands from the Inquisition, which lasted from 1184 to 1830, and definitely not millions. The various Inquisitions kept very good records apparently. ;)

And whole towns wiped out in Holland by the Inquisition? You really are wide of the mark there. Remembering as you may that I spent a good chunk of my childhood living and studying in Europe (my second and third times living in Germany were near the Dutch-German-Belgian border), I learned a thing or two about European history. Those deaths (again numbering in the thousands) were related to the Calvinist northern Dutch wanting to throw off the oppression of their Catholic Spanish rulers. It was not caused directly by the Inquisition as stated in your post.

And finally....'Martyrs' Mirror' that wonderfully impartial book documenting the stories of 4000 or so Christian martyrs from the first century to the early 18th. Still no evidence of 'tens of millions' of deaths.

And something that made very interesting reading today that I had not read before - the Peruvian part of the Portuguese Inquisition which lasted from 1569 to 1820. A total of 32 deaths recorded, and they are all listed by name.
Still no evidence of 'tens of millions of deaths'.

[Chucaro]

Other documents state that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths which even if it is an unacceptable crime but it is not near the deaths cause by tribal disputes in Africa modern times.
The Rwandan Genocide (IMHO a mass slaughter) caused 500,000 within 3 months and the total was in the order of 1000000 :(
Humans never learn :(

[Disco Muppet]

The Rwandan Genocide (IMHO a mass slaughter) caused 500,000 within 3 months and the total was in the order of 1000000 :(


By definition, a Genocide can't really be anything but mass slaughter Chuca, no opinions can really state otherwise. :(

[Chucaro]

By definition, a Genocide can't really be anything but mass slaughter Chuca, no opinions can really state otherwise. :(

You are correct mate, the " correct" definition reads:
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, Caste, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide

Which IMO looks to elaborate or " grammatically correct" definition. I like to be more plain about it.

[bob10]

This is a good read, Bob
Torquemada and The Spanish Inquisition (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1301551h.html)
Torquemada and The Spanish Inquisition, by Rafael Sabatini, free ebook.
gutenberg.net.au
gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1301551h.html

[bob10]

Without "putting you in the same boat as the Taliban" I agree with what Bob have said,

Yeah, mate , probably a bit over the top there, but the point I was trying to make, is that old mate & the mad Mullahs can't drag themselves away from the dark past, & find it difficult to focus on the present, as opposed to the past. And the future holds no change, for he, or them. How sad, Bob

[Ferret]

...Lea's book is one I would love to read.

...And Lea's book is one I have always wanted

Maybe you should read it John.


A HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES: HENRY CHARLES LEA

Probable Frequency of Burning

...I am convinced that the number of victims who actually perished at the stake is considerably less than has ordinarily been imagined. The deliberate burning alive of a human being, simply for difference of belief, is an atrocity so dramatic and appeals so strongly to the imagination that it has come to be regarded as the leading feature in the activity of the Inquisition. Yet, frequent as recourse to the stake undoubtedly was, it formed but a comparatively small part of the instrumentalities of repression. The records of those evil days have mostly disappeared, and there is now no possibility of reconstructing their statistics, but if this could be done I have no doubt that the actual executions by fire would excite surprise by falling far short of the popular estimate. Imagination has grown inflamed at the manifold iniquities of the Holy Office, and has been ready to accept without examination exaggerations which have become habitual.

According to you the inquisition resulted in 68 - 150 million burnt (your words), whole cities destroyed (again, your words). Given what Lea writes do you think the phase "...ready to accept without examination exaggerations which have become habitual." applies to you? I do.

[JohnF]

I have read about the Spanish nightmare, and yes, I do prefer Monty Pythons version. Any sane person would. I dare suggest you should stop living in the past, live for the present, and look to the future. Study history to understand the present, remain vigilant to make sure the past does not repeat, but do not live in the past , and don't try to give positive thinking people a guilt trip. In this case, I put you in the same boat as the Taliban, join the 21st century, focus on the positive history of the World, I doubt you have ever bothered to look for it, you seem to prefer to the dark side, and I don't mean to offend. Bob BTW, a training video for you, ;):D

Monty Python - Always Look on the Bright Side of Life - YouTube (http://youtu.be/jHPOzQzk9Qo)

It used to be said that

"we are destined to repeat the mistakes of history, if we do forget past mistakes of History."

see Who said Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Those_who_do_not_learn_from_the_past_are_ doomed_to_repeat_it)

for similar quotes.

Oh and bob, you do not offend me.

I do not prefer the dark side, just expose it.

[JohnF]

Other documents state that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths which even if it is an unacceptable crime but it is not near the deaths cause by tribal disputes in Africa modern times.
The Rwandan Genocide (IMHO a mass slaughter) caused 500,000 within 3 months and the total was in the order of 1000000 :(
Humans never learn :(

One Roman Catholic source, I now forget which one, and where to find that reference, claimed the inquisition ran under the reigns of 80 popes. I would extend it further than that.

But the inquisition stated early, even if it was not named the inquisition back then. See the picture in

Today's Saint (February 9): Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (http://www.episcopalnet.org/Saints/Feb9CyrilOfAlexandria.html)

This Bishop Cyril of Alexandria decreed that all who opposed his teachings must be put to death, and a small number of these were killed.

Now you may say so what. But then multiply this by a thousand Bishops doing this same thing and you get huge numbers dying back then.

"Saint" Cyril of Alexandria 376 AD -444 AD was killing the Pre-reformation Protestants of his day, and he was born 50 years after the persecution of these so called Christian Heritics had started. and up to 1830 the bishops kept killing the Pre-reformation Protestants-- though they never had the name Protestant at that time.

In the time of Constantine the great--a bit after 320AD, Constantine made an agreement with the Pope. All roman Citizens who would convert to Catholicism would get a gold coin and a white robe. All who would not convert would be put to death. That was the start of the Inquisition. The Bishops only had to denounce a family for refusing Catholicism and they died. and tens of thousands were slaughtered this way every year.

Now you may say that was not the inquisition, but people dying because they choose not to be Roman Catholic is the Inquisition.

And some of these slaughters were on a mass scale. For example around the late 1500s--I would have to check the exact date, the inquisition jailed the whole population of one Waldensian Valley, for refusing to accept Roman CATHOLICISM, a total population of 15,000 people. just one year later those of this 15,000 who had survived that jailing--they were tortured and starved in that jail, only 380 of them skin and bones, were released, and driven over the mountains in mid winter wearing barely any clothes into Switzerland--and they had no body fat to keep them warm. Many of those surviving 380 were dropping dead by the cold snow of the high alpine snow covered passes in mid winter, as they were marched into Switzerland, a country that granted them freedom--a few years later 70 of these survivors led by Pastor Henry Arnaud recaptured their valley by a sort of gorilla warfare. They would attack a large garrison of Papal Soldiers-- sometimes thousands of Papists, then retreat up the mountains. As these soldiers pursued then they would roll rocks down onto these soldiers, etc,

How do we know this is true. The British Government financed a memorial to this event, that is called "the glorious Return" during the mid 1600s.

And there are a great number of books written on "The Glorious Return," and some original documents in museums.

But there were other big slaughters of the Waldenses, going back to the 4th century-- though this was possibly the biggest slaughter of these people. The Waldensian Valleys are in the alps in Northern Italy, and Rome did not like other Christian religions anywhere, especially in Italy, so close to Rome.

The only reason any of these Waldensians survived in the weather in the mountains--heavy mists and fogs, Narrow gorges which papal armies had to march through while Rocks were rained down on them, caves where the Waldenses could flee too, mountain tracks on sheer mountain slopes that the Waldenses knew, but if you did not know the track you could fall to your death, etc. That is why the race survived over twelve hundred years of Papal persecution, but they lost thousands of their people during that twelve hundred odd years, because Rome never gives up on her attempts to wipe out all who will not accept her Doctrines.

[JohnF]

Other documents state that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths which even if it is an unacceptable crime but it is not near the deaths cause by tribal disputes in Africa modern times.
The Rwandan Genocide (IMHO a mass slaughter) caused 500,000 within 3 months and the total was in the order of 1000000 :(
Humans never learn :(

You might not realize it but this Rwanda genocide was the Inquisition. The Rwanda Hutus were Roman Catholics, and those they killed at the instigation of the Catholic priests were Protestants. Today the Vatican is protecting Catholic priests who are wanted as War Criminals by the international courts [not all war criminals in this are Roman Catholic, but too many are].

war crime (international law) : Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals -- Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635621/war-crime/224690/Rwanda-and-Yugoslavia-war-crimes-tribunals)

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Catholic Nuns have been also convicted of war crimes, as Nuns also Gleefully participated in the killing of the Protestants who would not accept the Pope's decrees--

Two Rwandan Nuns Convicted of War Crimes - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80960&page=1)



Now earlier I did mention 1830, the date when the Inquisition burnt the last Protestant at the stake. But the Inquisition never stops killing Protestants as Rwanda shows us, though today they call it a war. A war where Roman Catholic priests and nuns urge their followers to kill those who will not obey Catholic teachings.

In the last 20 years Catholics have publicly called for the re-introduction of the Inquisition in France, Germany, Croatia, Mexico, South America, etc. You see this in Newspapers, etc. occasionally. The Inquisition is not something that happened in the Dark Ages, and then went away. It is here trying to again rear its head today.

The current Pope was mentioned, Pope Francis, a Jesuit. He is named after the second Jesuit General Saint Francis Xavier, the Jesuit Saint who took the Inquisition to India and Japan, etc. Francis Xavier is the patron Saint of Australia, the only inhabited continent not to have the Inquisition.

And Francis Xavier is the Patron of the movement to force the whole world to be Roman Catholic

Fun times are ahead.

[bee utey]

JohnF, you are discussing religion, front and centre, which is currently against forum rules. I'd stop if I were you.

[Chucaro]

John, I am not Catholic and do not follow any regulated religion.
I do not like control greedy organizations or people.
I can see by the "tone" in your posts a "hint"of hate to the Catholic church.
The greed for control is a human characteristic (fault) that it is not only occur among Catholics it is also among other regulated religions that "start" their own organization (regulated religions in this case) to have control of others.
Greed for control it is a cancer to humanity :(

[Chucaro]

JohnF, you are discussing religion, front and centre, which is currently against forum rules. I'd stop if I were you.

I just have my strong coffee and could not help myself and replied to him, my apologies for breaking the rules :(

[bee utey]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/1622.jpg

[sheerluck]

JohnF, you are discussing religion, front and centre, which is currently against forum rules. I'd stop if I were you.

+1. Unfortunately, I can see this thread having it's life shortened somewhat. :(

[JohnF]

Other documents state that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths which even if it is an unacceptable crime
Humans never learn :(

Oh, Chucaro-- not counting the 15000 Waldenses that have monuments to their deaths in prison, do you remember my post where I said that in Spain they cut through a 100 foot high hill that consisted of small burnt fragments of human bone-- the main lot of those human bodies & bones having been burnt away, and Ashes. A 100 foot high hill does represent a huge number of people being burnt at the stake. And guess what. This was one of the very minor sites, thatt was so minor History does not record it as being a site of the Inquisition. If you did the slightest amount of reading on the Inquisition you would read of more than 6000.

See the Jesuit way of minimising the inquisition is to put it to just a few people in Spain.

But a few years ago in Lima Peru, the government took over the Old Cathedral and opened it to tourists. There on the walls of the basement were recorded the names and crimes of those burnt at the stake, crimes like "Refusing to eat Pork." "Keeping the Sabbath with the Jews," "Sabbatising," etc.

Now multiply that by the cathederals in every other Spanish ckity in South america, and Asia, and you have huge numbers, much more than your 6000. The Cathedral in Goa India where thousands were burnt at the stake if they did not die under the Torture, is also open to tourists.

Ten start going around the world to places like Scotland where under Mary Queen of Scots, Protestants were burnt by the Inquisition, then under King James the Second the Inquisition killed thousands of Protestants who would not become Roman Catholic, not by burning at the stake but by hanging them or beheading them.

Then multiply that by every other Roman Catholic country and you will see much more that 6000 that you do quote.

I have an old book-- still in print, called "A Cloud of Witnesses" that gives the history of the inquisition under King James II in Scotland.

Some interesting stories in this book. The Protestant Parishioners of one church, may have been St. Giles Church, but would have to check, did not want the New Catholic Priest who was appointed to that Church. So they locked him out of the Church. So he climbed in through the window. So the parishioners said they would listen to him. When he started to ;preach Catholicism the picked him up and threw him out of the window. For that quite a number of them were hanged, or killed by the sword. See the Inquisition was determined all Protestants in England would become Roman Catholic.

So the Protestants upset at the Inquisition under king James II trying to force them to become Catholic invited William of Orange to come to England and take over the throne. 100 years after the Spanish Armada tried to bring the Inquisition to England, with 160 ships of Soldiers & instruments to torture the Protestants, along with the friars to do it-- a Storm defeated that Spanish Armada, plus the second Spanish Armada just a few years later, and now 100 years Later a Storm defeated the ships of King James II who tried to stop the protestant Armada freeing Scotland & England from the Inquisition. William Invaded, and freed England from the Tyranny of the Catholic Inquisition, giving men freedom to worship how they chose.

[JohnF]

You are correct mate, the " correct" definition reads:
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, Caste, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide

Which IMO looks to elaborate or " grammatically correct" definition. I like to be more plain about it.

I do hope you did not that definition includes "religious group." That is what the Inquisition was:-- The mass Genocide of a religious Group, those following Religions other that Catholicism. It was the worst Genocide in the history of the world.

[JohnF]

Maybe you should read it John.



According to you the inquisition resulted in 68 - 150 million burnt (your words), whole cities destroyed (again, your words). Given what Lea writes do you think the phase "...ready to accept without examination exaggerations which have become habitual." applies to you? I do.

You might be thinking the inquisition was just those burnt at the stake but it was not. It was the forcing of people everywhere to accept Roman Catholicism.

For example those 15000 Waldenses I mentioned in the above Post. The Pope sent ther armies to capture them, and put them in prison and then tortured and staved all but 380 of them to death over a year, before politics changed and 380 survivors were marched through the snow storm, wearing a few inadequate rags out of the country. That was the Inquisition. That was the determination to kill those Pre-reformation Protestants if they could not be forced to accept Roman Catholicism. And then multiply such incidents around the whole world and you have the many millions of victims.

Yes, if you do want to define the Inquisition as just those burnt at the stake, you will get lower numbers than I have quoted. If you define it as those who died at Roman Catholic hands because they refused to become Roman Catholic, then you do get the numbers I stated.

And I define the victims of the Inquisition as those who died rather than becoming Roman Catholic, resisting forced religion.

[Chucaro]

John you are insisting in having a religion debate, you remind me the old door to door Electrolux salesman back in the late 50's early 60's.
I AM NOT INTERESTED

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/1621.jpg

[JohnF]

JohnF, you are discussing religion, front and centre, which is currently against forum rules. I'd stop if I were you.

I have avoided quoting the Bible, I have not said who is right and who is wrong, I have not even said If I believe in God on this thread. And I do not think that I was the person who first mentioned the inquisition. I just defended my figures on the number of victims when those who know nothing about it said that my figures are wrong. For example Chucaro said their were 6000 victims in total, way short of the 50-150 million I did claim. I showed these Waldenses where over 14600 of them were Victims of the inquisition, the residents of just one valley.

So I am showing people need to educate themselves with the facts, and not assume that someone who states 50-150 million is a wacko Conspiracy Theorist who bases his statements on what is not knowledge.

I was charged with getting my facts wrong because I got them from the wrong sources. That is not correct. I get them from sound old sources, not from Jesuit sources who deliberately try to change history to paint their church in a better light.

See I have an 1st Edition Encyclopedia Britannica 1776AD, plus a 1910 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica in my personal library [not counting some other Encyclopedias that were purchased second hand like these Britannicas]. The twelfth edition edition Encyclopedia Britannica at twelve smaller volumes was half the size of the large 29 volume 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica, because the Jesuits removed every article unfavorable to the Roman Catholic Church after the Catholic Church purchased the rights to that Encyclopedia through their University of Chicago.

See they wanted to change the history of the Catholic Church, and could only do that by changing the items in the standard reference Encyclopedia, the Britannica. After all we know about their cover ups as far as Pedophilia goes through the current inquiry. So why would they not conspire [conspiracy again] cover the extent of their Inquisition as well. Logically if you are deliberately covering paedophilia, as is so frequently in the recent Newspapers reporting on the Inquiry, why would you not also have a conspiracy to cover the extent of the Inquisition.

Now you could always reject those old sources from the 1800s and earlier that say millions were burnt and killed other ways by the Inquisition, and accept their sanitized Jesuit changed History of this, or you could start looking at what I say from my research, along with believing it is a rare priest who molested kids. Or you can believe the truth and so believe that there was a conspiracy to keep the public ignorant.

But as far as your claim that I am getting into religion, I have not once on this thread-- as afar as I recall, even hinted at my religion, if any--yes I do know it was on the soapbox, but only those who were on the soapbox would have an inkling what I think from this thread. And I have deliberately done it that way.

But It was publicly stated by my opponents that I read the wrong books, implying I am wacko. So I defended that attack on my Character, which is why so much has been said on the inquisition. My statements are in the right ball park, but of course we cannot know the exact numbers. That is why estimates say things like 68-150 million died in the Inquisition.

[JohnF]

John, I am not Catholic and do not follow any regulated religion.
I do not like control greedy organizations or people.
I can see by the "tone" in your posts a "hint"of hate to the Catholic church.
The greed for control is a human characteristic (fault) that it is not only occur among Catholics it is also among other regulated religions that "start" their own organization (regulated religions in this case) to have control of others.
Greed for control it is a cancer to humanity :(

I do not hate Catholics, I love them--some of my friends are Catholics. but hate coverups--Paedophile priests, the numbers in the Inquisition, etc.

[Ferret]

You might be thinking the inquisition was just those burnt at the stake but it was not. It was the forcing of people everywhere to accept Roman Catholicism.

No John I was not thinking of forcing people to become catholics. I was specifically thinking of your claim that 68 - 150 million were burnt at the stake. Lets be clear on this, this is what was being disputed, your specific claim 68-150 million people burnt at the stake.

Do you back it up? No, instead you wriggle, concede it would not be that high if were just talking about burnings at the stake and then change the nature of your claim to something else.

I thought I might write a response to the rest of your posting today but they get so weird (ie The inquisition was in Rwanda. The Jesuits changing the history of the world events by changing the Encyclopaedia Britannica.) that I don't think I'll bother any more with your nonsense. Responding just gives you a platform.

Instead, since you mentioned the word 'Wacko' somewhere in your ramblings I think I'll just let you climb upon your platform and let you expand upon it further yourself.

[frantic]

John F :angel: Your numbers don't add up!
It's male cow excrement that the inquisition by your "figures" could hunt down and kill over 500,000 people a year but to try and invade England , you know the Spanish armada, they could only gather 55,000 troops from 2 separate areas.
Spanish Armada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sheerluck]

No John I was not thinking of forcing people to become catholics. I was specifically thinking of your claim that 68 - 150 million were burnt at the stake. Lets be clear on this, this is what was being disputed, your specific claim 68-150 million people burnt at the stake......

It's quite clear that the numbers themselves are not credible. To give a range as large as 68-150million is absurd, a total of between 3 and 5 times the entire population of Australia 'killed by the Inquisition'. Bullcrap. The sheer logistics of rounding up that many people, subjecting them to trial, killing them and disposing of them in an age when travel was slow, limited and population centres were small would not be possible. To kill such large numbers of people, especially those not happy about being killed, would result in huge losses on the other side too.

The Inquisition was only founded in the 12th Century, so to count anything prior to that shows a desire to fly in the face of historical fact. Whatever reason that people were killed before then, and in the name of whatever or whomever, is irrelevant to this discussion.

And it is abundantly clear John, that you need to widen your reading circle.

[Chucaro]

.................................................. ....
And it is abundantly clear John, that you need to widen your reading circle.

It will not do it any good if it is "selective"

[wrinklearthur]

My dear old mum, still has misgivings about obtaining a book to read, if it is on "The List".

As an author herself, she is a lot happier writing a fiction based on fact, than trying to write fact, as she feels it causes upsets when someone's interpretation of events doesn't match another's view, as an 85 year old she thinks she now has 85 reasons to avoid that sort of grief.
.

[BreakingBad]

. . . the Inquisition that burnt between 68 And 150 million people at the stake . . .


Were they burnt individually or en masse? (or should that be in mass?)

How many trees were used to burn them all?

[Chucaro]

My dear old mum, still has misgivings about obtaining a book to read, if it is on "The List".

As an author herself, she is a lot happier writing a fiction based on fact, than trying to write fact, as she feels it causes upsets when someone's interpretation of events doesn't match another's view, as an 85 year old she thinks she now has 85 reasons to avoid that sort of grief.
.

I agree with you mum but then again Morris West, of my favorite writers, some times his work created a good controversy .

[JohnF]

+1. Unfortunately, I can see this thread having it's life shortened somewhat. :(

Now I have not in this thread said anything that would indicate any of my beliefs, other than making it clear that I do not believe in forced Vaccinations, and do believe that there are some conspiracies. Anyone who had not read the Soapbox or the Cantina, will not know if I am an Atheist, or Agnostic, Satanist, pagan, Muslim, Orthodox Jew, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Scientologist, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Daoist, or what ever, from anything that I have written in this thread.

So please keep this away from religion, as I have not gone there, other than stating in one previous post that by using Monty Python on the Inquisition was greatly minimising this. After all the Inquisition was used against Muslims, Protestant type Christians & all other Non-catholic Christians, Jews, Witches, Pagans, Gypsies, Atheists, Roman Catholics [including Roman Catholic Bishops & Priests], plus many other groups of People. See the Inquisition was non-discriminatory as far as who it chose as its victims. If you did not like a neighbour you only had to tell the Inquisition that he did something that the Catholic Church did not like—he missed Mass one Sunday because he could not be bothered going, etc., and the Inquisition would imprison him & torture him. If you were imprisoned by the Inquisition you could always minimise your torture by confessing and naming a lot of other people to the Inquisition, who would then join you in the dungeons. And the Inquisition would confiscate his lands if they suspected him, So that as they confiscated the land of there victims through the Inquisition the Catholic Church ended up owning over half the properties of Europe, such was the extent of the Inquisition. And as a great number of its victims were not land owners, but Tenants or travellers, its victims were in countless millions.

I do hope this thread is allowed to continue.

Some posts after the inquisition was mentioned, made the claim that I was reading the wrong books, and so getting what I was saying from Fanatical sources, in other words they were telling every reader of this Thread that they should not ever believe anything I say. And for that reason, it was necessary for me to point out that I am the one using sound sources, and so people should not dismiss what I am saying as being unsound. Which is why it was absolutely necessary to defend my statements with the facts of History. Because if I could not convince people that I could possibly be right, then everything else that I do say will be considered the idea of a fanatic.

Conversely, if I can prove that I may be correct, or at least get closer to the truth, then people may think about other things that I do state, or may state in the future.

So this issue of whether or not I was right about the Inquisition becomes very important to any previous or future posts

[JohnF]

No John I was not thinking of forcing people to become catholics. I was specifically thinking of your claim that 68 - 150 million were burnt at the stake. Lets be clear on this, this is what was being disputed, your specific claim 68-150 million people burnt at the stake.

Do you back it up? No, instead you wriggle, concede it would not be that high if were just talking about burnings at the stake and then change the nature of your claim to something else.

I thought I might write a response to the rest of your posting today but they get so weird (ie The inquisition was in Rwanda. The Jesuits changing the history of the world events by changing the Encyclopaedia Britannica.) that I don't think I'll bother any more with your nonsense. Responding just gives you a platform.

Instead, since you mentioned the word 'Wacko' somewhere in your ramblings I think I'll just let you climb upon your platform and let you expand upon it further yourself.

What I should have said is that between 68 and 150 million people were killed by the Inquisition, a big percentage of those burnt at the stake,

Not all those who died by the inquisition were burnt at the stake. And I can justify millions being killed from History.

And I am not wriggling, I am firm on my statement, excepting I will acknowledge that others say 50 million, and I will not argue if that is all someone on this forum says-- because I will admit it may have been only 50 million, as exact numbers are uncertain. But the numbers are in this sort of order, and I have a nother post below on parts of the inquisition you guys possibly know nothing about.

[JohnF]

John F :angel: Your numbers don't add up!
It's male cow excrement that the inquisition by your "figures" could hunt down and kill over 500,000 people a year but to try and invade England , you know the Spanish armada, they could only gather 55,000 troops from 2 separate areas.
Spanish Armada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada)

History books do say they had a fleet of 160 ships, some of these being big galleons, some being smaller ships. I have books on the armada at home. I did not give numbers for the number of Soldiers, and as far as the numbers killed every year it was only 100,000 at the maximum, as I will mention in a post below--which already is written.

[JohnF]

It's quite clear that the numbers themselves are not credible. To give a range as large as 68-150million is absurd, a total of between 3 and 5 times the entire population of Australia 'killed by the Inquisition'. Bullcrap. The sheer logistics of rounding up that many people, subjecting them to trial, killing them and disposing of them in an age when travel was slow, limited and population centres were small would not be possible. To kill such large numbers of people, especially those not happy about being killed, would result in huge losses on the other side too.

The Inquisition was only founded in the 12th Century, so to count anything prior to that shows a desire to fly in the face of historical fact. Whatever reason that people were killed before then, and in the name of whatever or whomever, is irrelevant to this discussion.

And it is abundantly clear John, that you need to widen your reading circle.

I actually will suggest that you are the one who needs to read more. The thing you mentioned about disposing of the bodies is solved by the Inquisition cremating people alive, leaving just ash.

Noting that that there was no Conspiracy to cover the wide spread Paedophilia among the Roman Catholic Clergy according to sources prior to the current inquiry, then we must consider the possibility that the Roman Catholic sanitized these Histories of the Inquisition the very same way. And if that is the case, the older books stating between 50,000,000 and 150,000,000 people died during the Inquisition—between about 330AD and 1830AD, a period of 1500 years, then the numbers the old books & encyclopaedias from before the Jesuits took over the Encyclopaedia Britannica in after 1910AD could actually be correct.
That is an average of 100,000 killed by the inquisition per year going by the higher estimate, and is only 33,300 per year on the lower estimate

Now consider that the Pope caused 3 whole nations to be wiped out, the Vandal nation, the Herulii, and the Ostrogoths, 3 Nations that were Arian Christian nations, a form of Christianity that Rome rejected, and I do not know if these nations that the Papacy caused to be wiped out are counted in that estimate of 50 to 150 million destroyed by the Papacy during the Inquisition, but these three whole nations were destroyed at the instigation of the papacy well after the Inquisition first started around 330AD. Of course the Papacy wrote to the Caesar and asked him to wipe out those Arian nations, and did not do that themselves, but the Caesars of that time were (Roman Catholics, who did what the popes told them to do. So when the Pope told them to wipe out nations because they refused to obey the Pope, the Caesars did that. Constantine had moved the Capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, leaving the Pope to rule the Roman Empire as a sort of co-Caesar from Rome. History records at least one Pope stated “I Am Caesar” because he ruled in the seat of the Caesars—Rome. There was no Caesar but the Pope ruling in Rome after Constantine, though the Roman Empire continued for well over 3 more Centuries. And this Roman Empire after Constantine had Roman Catholicism as its official religion, and used the Inquisition [though it may not have been called by that name that early] to kill all those who refused to become Roman Catholics.

Do note that several times in history two Caesars ruled jointly. For example there is a Roman two headed coin from 13AD showing Caesar Augustus on one side, and Caesar Tiberius on the other side, as Augustus ruled jointly with his stepson Tiberius for his last two years.

Now you guys, at least those of you from English ancestors, probably have heard of the Battle of Hastings in 1066AD, when William the Conqueror had invaded England. What you might not know is that the Roman Catholic Queen Margaret had written to the Pope and complained that her subjects were heretics who refused to follow Roman Catholicism. And so the Pope sent William the Conqueror to invade England and so force England to all be Roman Catholic. William the Conqueror was accompanied by Archbishop Lanfranc who became the Archbishop of Canterbury along with his many priests & monks of the Inquisition to force all the British Subjects to become Roman Catholic.

Queen Margaret was made a Roman Catholic Saint for wiping out Heresy in Britain, wiping these primitive Christians out by using the Inquisition to burn those who refused to adopt Roman Catholicism at the stake.

I do guess by your posts on the Inquisition, that most of you do not know of this part of the Roman Catholic Inquisition against Protestant Christians who refused to obey the Pope, but if you look up books on the Catholic Saints you will find that Queen Margaret was sainted for wiping out heretics, though those books about the Roman Catholic saints may not mention Queen Margaret getting British subjects burnt at the stake for refusing to convert to Catholicism—but other Histories do record this fact.

In Britain do now go back to the arrival of Augustine, as recorded in Bede. Augustine arrived about 580AD. He bought the Inquisition to Britain. Bishop Augustine ordered the British Christians to accept the Pope and accept him as there Bishop. These British Christians refused to do this, so Bishop Augustine stated to these British Protestants of 580AD if you do not do not accept the Pope you will die by the sword. So The Roman Catholic Bishop Augustine’s soldiers slaughtered 1600 students at the University of Bangor, for refusing to accept Catholicism, plunging Britain into the Dark Ages. This had also happened at around that time to quite a number of universities throughout Europe, plunging Europe into the dark ages by killing all of those Protestant intellectuals of that era.. So the Inquisition was very active at that time. After wiping out all the university staff and students Bishop Augustine set out to kill off all of the Protestants of Britain of that timer. You can read the History of this very small part of Inquisition that killed many thousands of Protestants in Bede. And for hundreds of years after that people of Britain died under the Inquisition in Britain for refusing to accept the pope as their head.

Now on top of the Spanish Inquisition plus the often reoccurring Inquisition in Britain, you do have to consider the Roman Catholic Inquisition in Ireland, in Scotland, in the Netherlands, the Roman Catholic Inquisition in Bohemia, in Transvillania, in Scandinavia, in Germany, the Balkans, Italy, Hungary, in Croatia, in France [about 1/3 of all French killed at once stage by the armies of the Inquisition, the Huguenots in the Saint Bartholomew Massacre, these Protestants killed by the Roman Catholic Armies of the Inquisition in that Massacre as they refused to accept Roman Catholicism, but there were many others burnt at the stake in the French Inquisition, Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier,—from whom the current Pope Francis gets his name, plus several other Jesuits studied at the College of Montaigu at the University of Paris, and so the Jesuits learned how to run the Inquisition from the monks of that University of Paris who were already burning as many French people as they could at the stake, Historically much earlier Massacres of the Inquisition in France include the killing of whole cities of the Albigenses of Southern France. Sadly I have seen –Shirts in shops plus a couple of people wearing disgusting T-shirts that stated “Kill them all, God will know his own.” That disgusting saying did come from the Roman Catholic Inquisition against the French Albigeneses, See when the army of the Inquisition captured one of the Albigeneses cities, the general was asked how could they tell who were Roman Catholics and who were the Heretics that were to be killed, so that the Inquisition’s General did reply “Kill them all, God will know his own,” that is kill the faithful Roman Catholics who tolerated the Albigenese as well as all the Albigenese, as they could not tell who was who, and which ones were to be killed. So that whole cities were killed that way by the Inquisition, in order to exterminate all the heretics, as it did not matter to the Inquisition whether or not faithful Roman Catholics also died as collateral damage. Pope Innocent III was the Pope who sent that army of the Inquisition against the great many cities of the Albigenses in Southern France, in his Inquisition against those Albigenese. Way throughout its history France had the Inquisition killing so called heretics who had refused to obey the Pope]

As a matter of fact not one European Country avoided the Inquisition, absolutely every country of Europe having had the Inquisition at some stage of its history for centuries. And the Roman Catholic Inquisition went and took the stake to parts of Africa—Ethiopia for example, into Russia, to wipe out hundreds of Thousands in India, the Philippines, went into Central Asia, into every country of South America & into the Spanish Parts of North America, went into China, Japan, etc.

Our Continent. Australia is the only inhabited Continent in the world who never had the Inquisition torturing & burning people at the Stake.

And as a side issue, do not forget that the Vietnam War of modern times started with Buddhist Monks pouring petrol over themselves and setting fire to themselves as a protest against Roman Catholicism forcing the Vietnamese to become Roman Catholic. These Buddhist monks burning themselves to death caused a backlash against Roman Catholicism, so the Roman Catholic President of the United States, John F. Kennedy sent in troops. And this escalated into the Vietnam War.

Going back to Japan, in the 1500s the Japanese government, who was opening up to Europe sent ambassadors to Europe. There these Japanese Ambassadors saw a number of people being tortured to recant and be burnt at the stake by the Inquisition when they refused to recant, and so reported this back to the Japanese Government. So Japan finally slaughtered every European in their country and closed their doors to trade with Europe for a number of Centuries the Japanese Shogun saying they did not want such a Monstrous Uncivilised Religion that would do this to people to be in their Civilised Country Japan—the Jesuit Francis Xavier had started the Inquisition in Japan, against Christians who apostatised and refused Catholicism in Japan at that time. That was a number of people being burnt at the Stake by the Inquisition in Europe that these Japanese Ambassadors saw was what tipped the scales, not many being killed in Japan—Jesuits probably hid much of their Japanese killings in that they said these people were a threat to the Japanese Shogun. The Shogun killed many people but humanely by beheading them, not by the inhumane methods like the inquisition usually used. The Inquisition only used beheading a few times, as they wanted people to fear them, so used the stake as much as possible.

So as far as the post that claimed Europe only has a population of so many million during the Spanish Inquisition, you have to look at the population of the whole world, not just of Europe, as the inquisition extended to every inhabited Continent excepting Australia. And you have to count the millions who died throughout the Centuries, the huge numbers under Augustine in Britain, plus those in Continental Europe at that time, and so on through the Centuries. Then add the Inquisitions mass genocides, the Albigenses in Southern France, the Huguenots, the Waldenses who were often attacked and killed by the Papal Armies from 538-around 1700AD, sometimes killed in very large numbers, the mass Genocides by the Armies of the Inquisition in Bohemia, etc., and the figure of 6000 that someone read and posted becomes laughable in its insignificance compared to the Roman Catholic Inquisition as a whole.

[JohnF]

It will not do it any good if it is "selective"

Sadly you are the one who reads selectively. I read old Encyclopedias, old histories, etc. not the Sanatized versions where Jesuits have changed the histories just like they covered up Paedophiia.

[bee utey]

JohnF, instead of posting your multi page slanted ranteds on a LAND ROVER FORUM, why don't you:

go to wordpress.com

sign up for your own blog page

ITS TOTALLY FREE!!!!!

post up a link to your endless screeds

share the link WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS

allow comments on your site

and publish where a random moderation doesn't undo your lifes work!!!

[JohnF]

Were they burnt individually or en masse? (or should that be in mass?)

How many trees were used to burn them all?

Not all were burnt as explained in my above post. History does record the burning of 30 at a time-- and old wood cuts show the burnings of a great many at one time--you can get these old woodcuts through Google images.

[Chucaro]

Sadly you are the one who reads selectively. I read old Encyclopedias, old histories, etc. not the Sanatized versions where Jesuits have changed the histories just like they covered up Paedophiia.

John, I am not a bible/ old testament busher I just not read garbage or selective/bias information ;)
Remember

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/1519.jpg

[JohnF]

JohnF, instead of posting your multi page slanted ranteds on a LAND ROVER FORUM, why don't you:

go to wordpress.com

sign up for your own blog page

ITS TOTALLY FREE!!!!!

post up a link to your endless screeds

share the link WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS

allow comments on your site

and publish where a random moderation doesn't undo your lifes work!!!

That will solve a problem of mine mentioned in the how to remove Facebook Porn thread.

But I commented because others bought up errors about the inquisition.

Chucaro, I am not having a religious debate, You told me only 6000 people were killed by the inquisition. I am debating your figures, saying it was between 50 & 150 million people killed by the inquisition, and backing up my figures with historical facts. Outside of the defunct Soapbox I have never once commented on whether or not the Roman Catholic Inquisition did the right thing in killing those people, or not. I have not taken any side in this thread, just argued the historical facts. And these historical facts are there in the old history books, but some on this threads want to deny these historical facts of history. And right or wrong of what happened was not mentioned by me, I just stated examples of what happened. Oh in a post below I do state what the Japanese Shogun thought of the Inquisition, but never said whether or not I agree with their summation of the Inquisition. See I have taken a religious neutral position on the Inquisition during this discussion, never once saying if I agree or if I disagree with what happened in an effort to keep religion out of this thread, other than stating the facts of History. But you guys got together in a conspiracy—or may be not a conspiracy, to cast doubt on what I stated, so that I needed to give the historical facts to back up the Truth about the Inquisition, If you guys had not shown your ignorance of History by insisting that I was wrong, then all this discussion on the Inquisition would not have happened. In the post below I do give a number of examples from the Inquisition that apparently do show that you have never read history books, but choose to disagree with facts of History that I do give without looking at all this history, If you do not know the facts of History please do not disagree with the history of the Inquisition that I have given, unless you do want to be proved wrong.

Now you may debate my 68-150 million, but My posts have proved a couple of million died at least. And I can prove many more died, even if I cannot prove the full figures.

Have you looked up reference that I gave like Bede. Have you looked up Queen Margaret, Have you looked up the Inquisition againsyt Albigenses, and the Hugonauts, in France. etc. If not do not say I am wrong without looking at such facts of history, preferably in non Roman Catholic books before 1910AD-- they hid facts about Paedophilia, just like the are hiding facts about the Inquisition, in order to minimise it. And the Catholic Church conspiring to hide Paedophilia is now an undenyable matter of public record, if you read the Newspaper reports of the Inquiry.

[JohnF]

John, I am not a bible/ old testament busher I just not read garbage or selective/bias information ;)
Remember

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/07/1519.jpg

Chucaro, if you will not look at the History in Bede of the Inquisition under Augustine, the History of Queen Margaret bringing the Inquisition to England/Scotland in her day--around 1066, and how she was made a Catholic Saint for doing this, the History of the Inquisition against the Hugenouts, the History of the destruction of the Albigenses, in southern France, by the inquisition, all which do show that your quoted 6000 deaths is garbage, then you are the one teaching Garbage.--sorry, I do not like attacking people, but it is you who are giving garbage, as just a searchon these 4 will show, let alone other searches I could give to you.

Do not say I am giving garbage if you cannot bother checking what I claimed, but looking this material up.

and since when are histories found in old editions-- before 1910, of the Encyclopedia brittanica garbage. Bede for exaple is a very old History from about 800AD-- would have to check the exact date. You cannot say a History that old is garbage, especially as Bede was risking the Err of the inquisition in writing this History. And Bede was a Roman Catholic, so he was not writing his History from a view antagonistic to Catholicism.

[Ferret]

What I should have said is that between 68 and 150 million people were killed by the Inquisition, a big percentage of those burnt at the stake

A big percentage were burnt at the stake, how big a percentage?

Lets assume 30% of your low estimate of 68 million deaths. So still ~20 million died at the stake by burning according to you. Not credible and an exaggeration as stated by Lea. If you have sources which support it then provide the references - stories of priests climbing through windows and other anecdotes don't cut it.

Now to conspiracy belief since it is supposedly the thread topic:-


.... The twelfth edition edition Encyclopedia Britannica at twelve smaller volumes was half the size of the large 29 volume 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica, because the Jesuits removed every article unfavorable to the Roman Catholic Church after the Catholic Church purchased the rights to that Encyclopedia through their University of Chicago.

It would help greatly if you conspiracy theorists would get your stories straight. You claim the 12th edition of the E of B was done over by the Jesuits. Joseph McCabe writing in 'The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica' claims it was the 14th edition of the E of B that got fiddled by the Jesuits. So which is it?

Let's assume your right and it was the 12th edition and it does consists of only 12 volumes. The problem is the actual publishing history of the E of B says the 12th edition consisted of the original 29 volumes of the 11th edition plus an extra 3 volumes giving a total of 32 volumes.

Lets assume the publishing history is wrong and the 12th edition was just 12 volumes as you state and was halved in size because the Jesuits did in fact remove every article unfavourable to the catholic church. Seriously, are you mad, an encyclopaedia, a compendium of articles from all branches of knowledge from the early 20th century, and ~50% of the totality of that knowledge comprised articles unfavourable to the catholics? :eek:

That's not credible either and another exaggeration.

[vnx205]

Seriously, are you mad, an encyclopaedia, a compendium of articles from all branches of knowledge from the early 20th century, and ~50% of the totality of that knowledge comprised articles unfavourable to the catholics? :eek:

That's not credible either and another exaggeration.

If John had been responsible for writing the EB, then well over 50% might have been anti-Catholic.
:p

[akelly]

The Soapbox lives, eh?

[mikehzz]

I think they call it "rising from the dead" :D


And as a side issue, do not forget that the Vietnam War of modern times started with Buddhist Monks pouring petrol over themselves and setting fire to themselves as a protest against Roman Catholicism forcing the Vietnamese to become Roman Catholic. These Buddhist monks burning themselves to death caused a backlash against Roman Catholicism, so the Roman Catholic President of the United States, John F. Kennedy sent in troops. And this escalated into the Vietnam War.

What parallel universe are you in John? :) The US were paranoid about the spread of communism. Remember McCarthy and "reds under the bed"? Blaming Catholics and Buddhist monks for the Vietnam war is ludicrous. The US was saving the South Vietnamese people from the perils of unwanted communist take over, just like they are saving Iraq and Afghanistan...with similar results. At least there are weapons, ammunition and supply corporations with their associated shareholders doing very well out of it even though times are economically tough. Now there is a conspiracy theory. :o

[BreakingBad]

Spanish inquisition was no laughing matter. Hitler's Gestapo torturing and killing people was nothing compared to the Inquisition that burnt between 68 And 150 million people at the stake [but the Gestapo was based on the Inquisition].



. . . the Inquisition—between about 330AD and 1830AD, a period of 1500 years . . .


You first quote figures for the Spanish Inquisition.

Then you drop the reference to 'Spain' and refer to it simply as 'the Inquisition'.

Then you quote a much broader date range which implies the Spanish Inquisition lasted approx 1500yrs.

Is that what you meant? Can you clarify your statement?

[Ferret]

And later he broadens that date range again to the present times.

[frantic]

Ahh now your version of the "truth" comes out.
Basically your blaming every war since JC on RC and counting every death as a number in your inquisition conspiracy theory :twisted: Welcome to simplified stupidity. Have fun chasing your tail in circles:p

[bob10]

I do not prefer the dark side, just expose it.

A black hole sucks matter in, until all is dark. You seem to attract nothing but dark thoughts, is that by accident, or design? Bob

[Flipper]

A black hole does not suck in dark matter Bob, and science is just a religion where beliefs change regularly under different ideas and thoughts in the name of science, daily.
If you are feeling so robust Bob to play words in belittling LR members because of there point of view, it just proves how uninformed you are in the way science works.

[Disco Muppet]

A black hole does not suck in dark matter Bob

He never said it sucks in dark matter, he said it sucks in all matter until only darkness is left.
There is quite a difference.



science is just a religion where beliefs change regularly under different ideas and thoughts


That kind of precludes it from being a religion ;)

[akelly]

A black hole does not suck in dark matter Bob, and science is just a religion where beliefs change regularly under different ideas and thoughts in the name of science, daily.
If you are feeling so robust Bob to play words in belittling LR members because of there point of view, it just proves how uninformed you are in the way science works.

But definitely not as uninformed as someone who describes science as a religion. There is no one less informed about science than someone with that opinion.

[mikehzz]

There is a certain religious fervour in some people's unshakeable belief in the scientific method. We could get the thread canned if we keep going. :D

[JDNSW]

But definitely not as uninformed as someone who describes science as a religion. There is no one less informed about science than someone with that opinion.

It all depends on how you define "religion". Science is, quite simply, the logical and systematic organisation of knowledge, with measurement and mathematical descriptions of this knowledge. For many people logic and a rational approach to the world fulfil the same role as does religion for others. The only "belief" in science is that logic works - and five hundred or more years of amazing success in explaining and predicting the world does rather support this view. Unlike religions, science does not pretend to explain everything.

But if you define "religion" as a belief system, not backed by measurable data, then yes, science cannot be included.

John

[akelly]

It all depends on how you define "religion". Science is, quite simply, the logical and systematic organisation of knowledge, with measurement and mathematical descriptions of this knowledge. For many people logic and a rational approach to the world fulfil the same role as does religion for others. The only "belief" in science is that logic works - and five hundred or more years of amazing success in explaining and predicting the world does rather support this view. Unlike religions, science does not pretend to explain everything.

But if you define "religion" as a belief system, not backed by measurable data, then yes, science cannot be included.

John

Heaps of definitions of religion are around, but they're all a variation on the same theme:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Nothing like a science. Even the 'soft' sciences are nothing like a religion. If you start with a belief, you aren't a science.

Cheers,

Adam

[mikehzz]

Heaps of definitions of religion are around, but they're all a variation on the same theme:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Nothing like a science. Even the 'soft' sciences are nothing like a religion. If you start with a belief, you aren't a science.

Cheers,

Adam

But you have to start somewhere. The starting point is the belief in the scientific method as the be all and end all. Some people can see this in a religious context as there are devotional and ritual observances, even moral ones, just minus the superhuman agencies. Plenty of scientists have committed scientific heresy by straying from the true path of the scientific method.

[akelly]

But you have to start somewhere. The starting point is the belief in the scientific method as the be all and end all. Some people can see this in a religious context as there are devotional and ritual observances, even moral ones, just minus the superhuman agencies. Plenty of scientists have committed scientific heresy by straying from the true path of the scientific method.

No, science does not start with any belief. It starts with an observation and curiosity: 'why did that happen?'. The next thing that happens is an attempt to explain the observation. No beliefs, no magic, nothing that cannot be observed. Nothing like a religion.

People may well defend the scientific method with fervor, but that does not make science a religion. No scientist has beheaded another for disagreeing with their findings - in fact, the disagreement is actively sought (peer review).

[mikehzz]

I think we are getting caught up in terminology. The difference between religious as an adjective and religion as a noun. You will never convince me that science isn't religious in it's own defence against religion. :) They are opposite sides though as science is based on skepticism while religion essentially denies skepticism. I'm out of here before John wakes up... :D

[akelly]

I think we are getting caught up in terminology. The difference between religious as an adjective and religion as a noun. You will never convince me that science isn't religious in it's own defence against religion. :) They are opposite sides though as science is based on skepticism while religion essentially denies skepticism. I'm out of here before John wakes up... :D

Science is not based on skepticism. It's based on observation.

We aren't getting caught up in terminology - you're defending the indefensible. Science has no commonality with religion at all, to suggest it does is nonsense.

Science and religion aren't opposite ends of a spectrum; science is science, religion is religion. There is no 'opposite of science' - the concept doesn't even make sense.

All science starts from ignorance and works towards understanding through observation. All religion starts from ignorance and invents mysterious beings in defiance of observation.

[mikehzz]

Science is based on the interpretation of observable phenomena and subject to change at any time the interpretation changes. In effect, what you believe to be true today may not be true tomorrow. This doesn't stop scientists from defending the current observations as if they were gospel, often completely alienating any dissent of their view in the process. I see religious fervour in it similar to any bible basher. History is littered with examples. People have to believe something whether they want to or not.

[akelly]

Science is based on the interpretation of observable phenomena and subject to change at any time the interpretation changes. In effect, what you believe to be true today may not be true tomorrow. This doesn't stop scientists from defending the current observations as if they were gospel, often completely alienating any dissent of their view in the process. I see religious fervour in it similar to any bible basher. History is littered with examples. People have to believe something whether they want to or not.

Ok, you're going to have to provide an example of a scientist defending 'current observations as if they were gospel, often completely alienating any dissent of their view in the process'. Otherwise admit that this is nonsense.

Should be simple, since 'history is littered with examples'.

[frantic]

Mike I think you might be confusing science with atheism?
A scientist will investigate and come to a proof backed conclusion on a subject as will a person with a scientific mind this will and has been proven to benefit humanity through history. Whereas a "proclaimed "atheist will preach just as bad if not worse than a devout fundamentalist from any religion. Wasting just as much time doing nothing as any religious door knocker just looking for argument rather than discussion.
Where some get confused is the difference between scientific theory and law. I'll let better edumacated :D people fill in the rest.

[akelly]

Mike I think you might be confusing science with atheism?
A scientist will investigate and come to a proof backed conclusion on a subject as will a person with a scientific mind this will and has been proven to benefit humanity through history. Whereas a "proclaimed "atheist will preach just as bad if not worse than a devout fundamentalist from any religion. Wasting just as much time doing nothing as any religious door knocker just looking for argument rather than discussion.
Where some get confused is the difference between scientific theory and law. I'll let better edumacated :D people fill in the rest.

Yeah, tons of atheists are murdering kids for dancing in the rain. Just as bad as religious fundamentalists, us atheists.

[wrinklearthur]

Does a Light photon have mass? So, on collision between two photons do they lose momentum and spin / vibrate at a new slower rate with the appearance of a third product separating containing the resultant wasted vibration, could this resultant be the dark matter?

To quote something told to me by Grote Reber, "The Big Bang is Bunk!".

So is the Big Bank Theory a conspiracy and the expanding universe, isn't accelerating?

All the red shift of far Galaxies could be then, is the further away a photon is generated, the more time it has to shed energy.
.

[frantic]

Yeah, tons of atheists are murdering kids for dancing in the rain. Just as bad as religious fundamentalists, us atheists.
Just as bad in the "preaching" as a waste of time not the practice;) it always helps to read a full post.
To me it's just as bad a waste of time an uninvited door knocker preaching the bible as a atheist forming a group , going to monthly meetings and debating(preaching) in public or to other workmates or family/ friends. At work we have a fundamentalist "witness" and my brother is a member of the atheist society and they both preach the same way.:twisted:

[JohnF]

A big percentage were burnt at the stake, how big a percentage?

Lets assume 30% of your low estimate of 68 million deaths. So still ~20 million died at the stake by burning according to you. Not credible and an exaggeration as stated by Lea. If you have sources which support it then provide the references - stories of priests climbing through windows and other anecdotes don't cut it.

[who says stories of Priests climbing through windows does not cut it. The old book on the Inquisition under King James II in Scotland called “A Cloud of Witnesses” gives that story, as does the large 3 volume book “History of Protestantism” by J A Wylie, 1845AD, etc. Wylie is on the Internet, and he was a Presbyterian—which I am not. I have Wylie in paper and ink book, along with a the volume “History of the Baptists” from 1830, Histories of the Anabaptists, Histories of the Waldenses—at least one by a Waldensian Author, and I have a number of Roman Catholic dictionaries & Encyclopaedia, etc. See a book does not have to be from any of my beliefs for me to read it, as I read many things that disagree with my belief.]

Now to conspiracy belief since it is supposedly the thread topic:-

It would help greatly if you conspiracy theorists would get your stories straight. You claim the 12th edition of the E of B was done over by the Jesuits. Joseph McCabe writing in 'The Lies And Fallacies Of The Encyclopedia Britanica' claims it was the 14th edition of the E of B that got fiddled by the Jesuits. So which is it?

[what I knew was that after the 11th edition the Jesuits did change many Histories in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. As I have never seen a 12th edition I had assumed it was the twelveth edition, without checking up on this. I have seen a much shorter edition of aproxamately 15 volumes—it may have been the 15th edition]

Let's assume your right and it was the 12th edition and it does consists of only 12 volumes. The problem is the actual publishing history of the E of B says the 12th edition consisted of the original 29 volumes of the 11th edition plus an extra 3 volumes giving a total of 32 volumes.

[so I am not arguing, it was a later edition that was changed, as I wrote my post from Memory, which is why I got the edition wrong. What I had remembered was that after the 11th edition, the Roman Catholic Church changed many Histories. And I had seen a much shorter edition, about 15-16 volumes, half the size of the 11th Edition, which may have been the 15th edition. But histories definitely changed. I have compared a few articles between the 11th edition, which I can access, and a later edition, might be the 15th.]

Lets assume the publishing history is wrong and the 12th edition was just 12 volumes as you state and was halved in size because the Jesuits did in fact remove every article unfavourable to the catholic church. Seriously, are you mad, an encyclopaedia, a compendium of articles from all branches of knowledge from the early 20th century, and ~50% of the totality of that knowledge comprised articles unfavourable to the catholics? :eek:

That's not credible either and another exaggeration.

If you think it is not credible, the day you do find an 11th edition if you do—and I can access one of these that is not for loan, then start doing some reading comparing those editions—yes I have only compared a couple of the articles, not all of them.

I do suggest you read what the ex-Roman Catholic priest Joseph McCabe stated, see

Joseph McCabe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which says:--

“In about 1947, McCabe accused the Encyclopædia Britannica of bias towards the Catholic Church. He claimed that the 14th edition, which had been published in 1929, was devoid of the critical comment about the church that had been in the 11th edition.[6] McCabe similarly accused the Columbia Encyclopedia of bias towards the Catholic Church in 1951.[7] These and similar actions have made him be termed a "Catholic basher" by his Christian critics. Biographer Bill Cooke, however, disputes the allegation, citing McCabe's opinion that "Catholics are no worse, and no better, than others", and "I have not the least prejudice against the Catholic laity, which would be stupid."[”

[akelly]

Just as bad in the "preaching" as a waste of time not the practice;) it always helps to read a full post.
To me it's just as bad a waste of time an uninvited door knocker preaching the bible as a atheist forming a group , going to monthly meetings and debating(preaching) in public or to other workmates or family/ friends. At work we have a fundamentalist "witness" and my brother is a member of the atheist society and they both preach the same way.:twisted:

Yeah, all those door-to-door atheists, always annoying people...

[JohnF]

If John had been responsible for writing the EB, then well over 50% might have been anti-Catholic.
:p

You really should start reading the Old books. I wonder if you totally ignore the Roman Catholic Church's Conspiracy to cover Pedophilia in the same way.

Do you realise that around 1/5 of the worlds population is Roman Catholic, and during the last 1500 years the majority of Europe were Roman Catholic, hence a big part of the Encyclopedia has to be about Catholicism or Catholics on that basis alone.

[JohnF]

You first quote figures for the Spanish Inquisition.

Then you drop the reference to 'Spain' and refer to it simply as 'the Inquisition'.

Then you quote a much broader date range which implies the Spanish Inquisition lasted approx 1500yrs.

Is that what you meant? Can you clarify your statement?

I did not think I had refered to the Spanish inquisition, except when directly quoting someones reference to it. Most of my statements simply said "Inquisition." I never said the Spanish Inquisition lasted 1500 years. I said the Inquisition, that is Roman Catholics killing people who trefused gto become Catholics, lasted 1500 years. There is a post of mine where I stated Caesar Constantine, who converted to Roman Catholicism, killed those who opposed Roman Catholicism, which was done with the blessing of the Catholic Church.

Constantine converted to Catholicism around 321AD. I gave the date of around 330AD as I do not know how many years after he converted that he started killing those who refused to become Catholic-- but History books will show this.

Then I stated that the last person was burnt at the stake be the Inquisition in 1830AD in the Country of Mexico.

330AD to 1830AD is 1500 years, so it is simple Maths.

And I gave another example of the Inquisition when the Roman Catholic Bishop Augustine killed many in Britain for refusing to become Roman Catholic. I had said about 580AD in my post, but the date was 597AD-- I had given that date from memory.

Do see the Roman Catholic version of this in Augustine of Canterbury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which leaves out all of his Inquisition that Bede records.

One website on Augustine records:--

"Before the last meeting Augustine had with the Celtic leaders, these Celtic [Protestant] Christians sought the counsel of an old godly man who was a hermit. This man said to the Celts, "if Augustine rises from his seat when you approach him, then perhaps there is something in what he says. If he remains seated and does not rise to greet you as brethren then have nothing of him". When the Celtic believers came near to the haughty Augustine he remained seated and demanded they submit to Rome. When they refused Augustine replied, "you will either join us in evangelising the Saxon or feel their swords". This was no idle threat, for shortly afterward the Celtic Church settlement at Bangor Is Coed was destroyed and the true saints of God who lived there martyred."

It was actually an University at Bangor where they were all killed by Augustine's decree for refusing to accept Roman Catholicism.

[wrinklearthur]

Why all the fuss, is someone conspiring to sell a set of the 11th edition?

Ref; The magic of Encyclopedia Britannica's 11th edition | Books | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2012/apr/10/encyclopedia-britannica-11th-edition)

"(As the last sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica prepare to sink into obscurity, there's one edition that will always remain a collector's item: the 11th.

Published between 1910 and 1911, the 11th edition continues to inspire a religious reverence from its loyal adherents. The siren call of its 28 leather-bound volumes works a subtle magic on antiquarians, historians, booksellers, and scholars around the world.

So, why the appeal? AJ Jacobs, an American journalist, read his way through the entirety of the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica published in 2002. He wrote about his experience in the well-received book The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. I spoke with Jacobs about the lasting appeal of the 11th. He said that "compared to more modern editions, reading the 11th is like reading a Faulkner novel instead of an instruction manual.")"
.

[JohnF]

And later he broadens that date range again to the present times.

1830 was the date the last person was burnt at the stake, but the inquisition did not really finish then.

Hitler said, "As to the Jewish question, I am simply putting into practice the high ideals of the Catholic Church."

The gestapo was run by Jesuits, the SS modelled on the Inquisition. The Papal Nuncio signed a Concordant with Hitler to make Catholicism the official religion, and he was later made Pope for doing this.

No the Inquisition is not finished, it is just laying low until the political climate changes in its favor.

[Chucaro]

John are you going to start posting the "nice" work done by the Protestants
Henry VII, Henry VIII, Charles II, Queen Elizabeth I (she was "very nice" with the Irish people) among other criminals from that part of society?

[JohnF]

Ahh now your version of the "truth" comes out.
Basically your blaming every war since JC on RC and counting every death as a number in your inquisition conspiracy theory :twisted: Welcome to simplified stupidity. Have fun chasing your tail in circles:p

Not every war, but the First and Second World War-- posts on a thread-- forget its name, on the soap box talked about this, and so I do not want to rehash what was previously posted.

And the 30 year war in the 1600s that killed of half of Europe was the Roman Catholics trying to wipe out Protestantism.

Just a sideline, one Roman Catholic person who I had never met, wrote to me years ago after I published something about Catholicism-- not on the internet or this AULRO thread, and said to me "Remember the 30 year war."

See he was basically threatening that the Roman Catholic Church would repeat "the 30 year war" if us Protestants did not bow down to Catholic Wishes.

[digger]

If this isnt a religious thread, I'll go he for chasey.

[JohnF]

I think we are getting caught up in terminology. The difference between religious as an adjective and religion as a noun. You will never convince me that science isn't religious in it's own defence against religion. :) They are opposite sides though as science is based on skepticism while religion essentially denies skepticism. I'm out of here before John wakes up... :D

I was reading the last several posts thinking I would not reply as I do not want to upset Dave, who does not want religion or politics discussed. In my posts on the Inquisition I have never mentioned what my views of religion are.

I have just tried to say that the Inquisition was a lot more that Monty Python said.

[V8Ian]

If you think it is not credible, the day you do find an 11th edition if you do—and I can access one of these that is not for loan, then start doing some reading comparing those editions—yes I have only compared a couple of the articles, not all of them.

I do suggest you read what the ex-Roman Catholic priest Joseph McCabe stated, see

Joseph McCabe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCabe)

which says:--

“In about 1947, McCabe accused the Encyclopædia Britannica of bias towards the Catholic Church. He claimed that the 14th edition, which had been published in 1929, was devoid of the critical comment about the church that had been in the 11th edition.[6] McCabe similarly accused the Columbia Encyclopedia of bias towards the Catholic Church in 1951.[7] These and similar actions have made him be termed a "Catholic basher" by his Christian critics. Biographer Bill Cooke, however, disputes the allegation, citing McCabe's opinion that "Catholics are no worse, and no better, than others", and "I have not the least prejudice against the Catholic laity, which would be stupid."[”
Opinions have no place in any encyclopedia, they should be merely an assembly of facts. You John, deride the world's most trusted non-fiction volumes, then............reference Wiki. :confused: Do you see the irony?

[JohnF]

Whereas a "proclaimed "atheist will preach just as bad if not worse than a devout fundamentalist from any religion. Wasting just as much time doing nothing as any religious door knocker just looking for argument rather than discussion.

I do wonder if those devout atheists were doing their preaching on the soapbox-- it seemed that way :D:D

[JohnF]

Why all the fuss, is someone conspiring to sell a set of the 11th edition?

Ref; The magic of Encyclopedia Britannica's 11th edition | Books | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2012/apr/10/encyclopedia-britannica-11th-edition)

"(As the last sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica prepare to sink into obscurity, there's one edition that will always remain a collector's item: the 11th.

Published between 1910 and 1911, the 11th edition continues to inspire a religious reverence from its loyal adherents. The siren call of its 28 leather-bound volumes works a subtle magic on antiquarians, historians, booksellers, and scholars around the world.

So, why the appeal? AJ Jacobs, an American journalist, read his way through the entirety of the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica published in 2002. He wrote about his experience in the well-received book The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. I spoke with Jacobs about the lasting appeal of the 11th. He said that "compared to more modern editions, reading the 11th is like reading a Faulkner novel instead of an instruction manual.")"
.

Since I have not-- or at least do not remember reading a Faulkner novel I cannot comment.

But certainly the 11th is considered the standard for History, and I can access a 11th edition. I have two copies of the first edition , bought one for $10-- for the 3 volume set, and paid a massive $8 for the second set.

[JohnF]

John are you going to start posting the "nice" work done by the Protestants
Henry VII, Henry VIII, Charles II, Queen Elizabeth I (she was "very nice" with the Irish people) among other criminals from that part of society?

Anabaptists were burnt at the stake under Queen Elisabeth. Though I admire her era, she was not perfect. I do not admire those kings. Do not know History of Henry VII-- will have to read up on him. Henry VIII was bad-- wanted Tyndale burnt at the stake, for giving the common people the Bible to read, plus his history of getting rid of wives, etc. Charles II was very bad. I have mentioned his son James II in posts. And the son got it from the father. Both by the way had Roman Catholic Queens-- yes dear, I kill those Protestants :D:D:D for your Bishop.

Why I had not mentioned Charles II, is he was not as bad as his son. I had not mentioned Charles I either-- or had I. He was bad as well, and also had a Catholic queen.

I was looking to an extent at Freedom of Conscience, even if that term was not mentioned. And King Charles i & Charles II both tried to supress conscience.

Oh, and also I did not mention King James I, the one who gave us the King James Bible. He was son of Mary Queen of Scots, a devout Roman Catholic who burnt Protestants at the stake. The year the King James Bible came out, 1611AD, was the year the last person was burnt at the stake in Britain. And they were burnt under king James i. I did not go there to this sort of thing as what I have said about the Inquisition was a reply to what was said about Monty Python, and what was claimed about the extent of the Inquisition. That was what I was answering.

King James I, the one who gave the world the King James Bible, was the father of the Tyrant, King Charles I & Grandfather to Charles II. Some of his bad ideas rubbed off on these two later Kings.

The Pilgrim Fathers who went to America on the Mayflower in 1620AD were fleeing persecution by King James.

So I am aware of some History that I had not covered, and am not condoning it.

On another AULRO Soapbox thread that maybe I should not mention. I had disagreed with American "Moral Majority" Protestants who wanted forced religion re-introduced to America. Just like these kings & queen that you named I had not mentioned them either.

[JohnF]

If this isnt a religious thread, I'll go he for chasey.

though I really really wanted to quote what the Bible said about the Inquisition, I did not do that, to keep religion out of this.

Any New Member of AULRO would not have known whether or not I was a Muslim, Jew, Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant or Catholic, etc., as these all suffered under the Inquisition at some time.

[JohnF]

Opinions have no place in any encyclopedia, they should be merely an assembly of facts. You John, deride the world's most trusted non-fiction volumes, then............reference Wiki. :confused: Do you see the irony?

Sitting at my Laptop in a public Library I cannot access the 11th edition, hence use wiki. But definitely would prefer the 11th edition. By the way this public Library does not have any Encyclopedia Britannica on its shelf. I looked this morning for a post-- then forgot that post as they do not have it.

Oh I do not deride the Britannica-- the 11th edition is my standard in many things. I just disagree when facts are deliberately changed so as not to offend Catholics.

And it id someone else, in a previous post who bought up twhat the EX-Roman Catholic Priest McCabe said about the 11th edition. and that is when I googled Wikipedia to find out if he was Catholic. I will point lout that the 11th Edition did not have an article on McCabe, as McCabe was well after the 11th edition came out, as a matter of fact McCabe used and prefered the 11th edition himself according to the Wiki quote that I gave, so he could not be in that Edition.

[Ferret]

If you think it is not credible, the day you do find an 11th edition if you do—and I can access one of these that is not for loan, then start doing some reading comparing those editions—yes I have only compared a couple of the articles, not all of them.

Oh, for God sake John wake up. What I said was not credible was your assertions the 12th edition was doctored, consisted of only 12 volumes and represented a 50% reduction in content over the 11th edition. This is simply not true but I see you blissfully ignore what you said like it didn't happen.

"The day you do find an 11th edition..." :eek:. John, there are 2 independent versions of the 11th edition of the E of B online. Anyone can read them, even you.

And here is what your "standard for history" the 11th edition E of B (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40009/40009-h/40009-h.htm#ar84) says about the inquisition. You will find it just above the entry on 'Insanity'


The punishment of death by burning was much more often employed by the Spanish than by the medieval Inquisition; about 2000 persons were burnt in Torquemada’s day.


But we must accept the conclusions of H. C. Lea and Vacandard that comparatively few people suffered at the stake in the medieval Inquisition.

Getting hard to extrapolate this to 100s of millions or even 10s of millions burnt at the stake. The Jesuits must have got at things earlier than you thought.



I do suggest you read what the ex-Roman Catholic priest Joseph McCabe stated...

Thanks John. McCabe was a ex catholic who become a rabid atheist and wrote a lot of books, many of them, including the one you refer to, are online. Again, anyone can read them including you and me and I have had a look at it. He talks about words being substituted, lines and paragraphs being deleted, articles being shortened. Does he say 50% of the content has been removed. No, even he is not that dumb.

And if you hold Joseph McCabe to be someone to be quoted on matters of religious fraud then you no doubt also place great stock in what he wrote about other religious frauds.


...According to McCabe the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus contain numerous conflicts, contradictions and errors and are unreliable as they had been fabricated over the years by many different writers. McCabe came to the conclusion that Jesus was an Essenian holy man who was turned into a God over the years by hearsay and oral tradition.

[bob10]

I just had a thought, if we stop giving him oxygen, he may just go away. To whatever planet he morphed in from. The truth is out there, somewhere, but perhaps not on this forum. Bob ;)

The Galaxy Song (Monty Python) - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Z2JU4gX6rg8)

[vnx205]

You really should start reading the Old books. I wonder if you totally ignore the Roman Catholic Church's Conspiracy to cover Pedophilia in the same way.

Do you realise that around 1/5 of the worlds population is Roman Catholic, and during the last 1500 years the majority of Europe were Roman Catholic, hence a big part of the Encyclopedia has to be about Catholicism or Catholics on that basis alone.

Do you realise that around 50% of the world's population is female? According to your logic, half of EB should be about women.

Figures on this site:
Application Dispatcher (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/broker)
show that 629,332,297 are under the age of four out of a total population of 7,078,602,370.

Since almost 10% of the world's population is under four, if we apply your argument, then 10% of EB should be about infants.

A lot of the world's population is left handed. Surely you don't believe that the same proportion of EB is about left handedness!

Clearly that is not the case and nor is it the case that the number of Catholics in the world determines how much of EB is about Catholics or Catholicism.

It seems that your thinking is so narrow that you think everything is related to religion. Try looking at the broader picture instead of filtering everything through your version of religion.

[V8Ian]

Come on now Bob, John is entitled to an opinion no matter how way out it seems to us. Being rude only lowers your credibility. John has never been rude to anyone here. If you can't disagree with dignity, maybe you should withdraw.

[mikehzz]

Ok, you're going to have to provide an example of a scientist defending 'current observations as if they were gospel, often completely alienating any dissent of their view in the process'. Otherwise admit that this is nonsense.

Should be simple, since 'history is littered with examples'.

A quick quote from the first of many Google hits on the subject...(Matt Ridley from his 2011 Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh)


Like antisepsis, many scientific truths began as heresies and fought long battles for acceptance against entrenched establishment wisdom that now appears irrational: continental drift, for example. Barry Marshall* was not just ignored but vilified when he first argued that stomach ulcers are caused by a particular bacterium. Antacid drugs were very profitable for the drug industry. Eventually he won the Nobel prize.

Just this month Daniel Shechtman* won the Nobel prize for quasi crystals, having spent much of his career being vilified and exiled as a crank. “I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying.”

sorry for the delay, I have to make a living. :)

[akelly]

A quick quote from the first of many Google hits on the subject...(Matt Ridley from his 2011 Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh)



sorry for the delay, I have to make a living. :)

How were these issues resolved? Oh yeah, science.

[bobslandies]

Science is not based on skepticism. It's based on observation.

We aren't getting caught up in terminology - you're defending the indefensible. Science has no commonality with religion at all, to suggest it does is nonsense.

Science and religion aren't opposite ends of a spectrum; science is science, religion is religion. There is no 'opposite of science' - the concept doesn't even make sense.

All science starts from ignorance and works towards understanding through observation. All religion starts from ignorance and invents mysterious beings in defiance of observation.

And you are confusing science with "scientists", some of whom have all the worst traits of other professions and occupations and humanity in general - hierarchies, jealousies, fraud, pre-conceived notions, etc. The proof of this is that before any result is accepted it must be reproducible, often independently. Even that ideal is defeated occasionally for a time by fraudsters, sometimes by naysayers and sometimes by conspiracies but as you say science catches up with them - eventually. Science is about questioning and investigation of often previously dismissed anecdotal "evidence".

I think there is an opposite to science, believed in by a lot of people - mumbo-jumbo:p:p

Bob

[akelly]

And you are confusing science with "scientists", some of whom have all the worst traits of other professions and occupations and humanity in general - hierarchies, jealousies, fraud, pre-conceived notions, etc. The proof of this is that before any result is accepted it must be reproducible, often independently. Even that ideal is defeated occasionally for a time by fraudsters, sometimes by naysayers and sometimes by conspiracies but as you say science catches up with them - eventually. Science is about questioning and investigation of often previously dismissed anecdotal "evidence".

I think there is an opposite to science, believed in by a lot of people - mumbo-jumbo:p:p

Bob

I'm not confusing anything with anything. Individuals may think they are doing science, but get it wrong (deliberately or accidentally) - that's the real world. The beauty of science is that it knows it's wrong, and keeps trying.

[mikehzz]

How were these issues resolved? Oh yeah, science.

The issues were resolved???? How can you resolve something that can be unresolved at any time? After all the people who initially thought they had it resolved were unresolved. Therefore the issues can never be resolved so what exactly is science doing?

[bobslandies]

I'm not confusing anything with anything. Individuals may think they are doing science, but get it wrong (deliberately or accidentally) - that's the real world. The beauty of science is that it knows it's wrong, and keeps trying.

And you go on about John! Now you are saying that science is an entity! Science (itself) knows nothing.

The accumulated body of knowledge and the search (or alternative explanations) is a library for many scientists using the "scientific method" to contribute to, question, prove and accept. Yes, explanations change with new research. Some science is not wrong (at least on this earth anyway).

Bob

[Chris Commins]

It is pleasing to read some worthwhile discussion showing some thought about the conditions placed upon us by others for their own ends. As the suspiciousObserver says "eyes open"

[Chucaro]

I need to have 2 or 3 cup of coffee to be able to engage my brain.
Things start getting a bit heavy in the morning here, I enjoy more the posts during the happy hour :D

[akelly]

And you go on about John! Now you are saying that science is an entity! Science (itself) knows nothing.

The accumulated body of knowledge and the search (or alternative explanations) is a library for many scientists using the "scientific method" to contribute to, question, prove and accept. Yes, explanations change with new research. Some science is not wrong (at least on this earth anyway).

Bob

Science is always wrong. We can never have a perfect answer because we don't have all the puzzle pieces. If you disagree I suggest you write up your findings and book your flight to Stockholm.

Referring to science as an 'entity' is a linguistic device, but go ahead and use it as the mainstay of your counterpoint.

[akelly]

The issues were resolved???? How can you resolve something that can be unresolved at any time? After all the people who initially thought they had it resolved were unresolved. Therefore the issues can never be resolved so what exactly is science doing?

Oh, I forgot, we still think the earth is the centre of the universe, and a giant god in a flaming chariot is the sun.

Yeah, resolved. But go ahead, keep tilting at windmills, it's a great spectator sport.

[Chucaro]

I guess that we can go back to the topic even we we talk of a possible scientists conspiracy :angel:

[bobslandies]

Science is always wrong. We can never have a perfect answer because we don't have all the puzzle pieces. If you disagree I suggest you write up your findings and book your flight to Stockholm.

Referring to science as an 'entity' is a linguistic device, but go ahead and use it as the mainstay of your counterpoint.

No, I don't disagree but I'll leave it up to someone who has been to Stockholm - Richard Feynman who put it this way -"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts".

Bob

[85 county]

Oh, I forgot, we still think the earth is the centre of the universe, and a giant god in a flaming chariot is the sun.

Yeah, resolved. But go ahead, keep tilting at windmills, it's a great spectator sport.


AHH who actually knows what that means nowadays??? and the connection to a Mad drunken Negro speaking Spanish.

“Blessed be thee should i rid the world of such foul demons”

Most would think that that is religious

[bob10]

Do you realise that around 50% of the world's population is female?



Not in China. Not much religion there either, except for the Muslim s in the North West. Bob :angel:

[Chucaro]

Not in China. Not much religion there either, except for the Muslim s in the North West. Bob :angel:

There is about 30% of folk religion (ABOUT 300MILLION and 20% Buddhism (about 200 million)
Woman population is about 48%

[sheerluck]

There is about 30% of folk religion (ABOUT 300MILLION and 20% Buddhism (about 200 million)
Woman population is about 48%

And ~5% Christianity too.

[akelly]

No, I don't disagree but I'll leave it up to someone who has been to Stockholm - Richard Feynman who put it this way -"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts".

Bob

Thanks Bob - Feynman is certainly worth quoting. A great man indeed. In fact the full quote is an excellent example of my point - that science knows it's wrong but keeps trying to find the right answer.

'Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts'