Secret Files of the Inquisition

Secret Files of the Inquisition

2007, Religion  -   209 Comments
Ratings: 7.56/10 from 34 users.

Secret Files of the InquisitionBased on previously unreleased secret documents from European Archives including the Vatican, Secret Files of the Inquisition unveils the incredible true story of the Catholic Church's 500-year struggle to remain the world's only true Christian religion.

Filmed in High Definition, this 4-hour series spans medieval France in Episode 1, 15th century Spain in Episode 2, Renaissance Italy in Episode 3 and mid-nineteenth century Europe in Episode 4. Historians, experts and Church authorities advise on the handling of this controversial subject matter.

At the dawn of the second millennium Europe was slowly emerging from the blackness and ignorance of the Dark Ages. There were no nations and the people were loyal only to their immediate community and to God. The keeper of God's word was the Catholic Church, the only religion in all of Christendom.

The supreme religious leader, the Pope in Rome, crowned the Kings who became rulers of the Holy Roman Empire stretching from Sicily north to Poland. The Emperor was ruler of the temporal world while the Pope and his Bishops reigned supreme over the Spiritual world.

By the 12th and 13th century, cracks began appearing in this ordered world. Emperors no longer submitted to being crowned by the Pope and across Europe Kings demanded the right to select their own Bishops. But for the Pope the most terrifying threat came from upstart Christian sects who challenged church doctrine and the absolute power of the Roman Pope.

To preserve the purity of the faith and the unquestioned authority of the Pope, the Church began to crack down on all dissenting with a new weapon: the Inquisition. For over half a millennium a system of mass terror reigned. Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment.

More great documentaries

209 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to Bran Deditems Cancel reply

  1. It amazes me how folks watch videos like this and then sit back and draw their conclusions, without actually looking at ALL THE FACTS.

    It is propaganda just like we see in politics today as used by the media to smear their political opponents. The same methods and approach are used to smear the catholic church and have been used for 2000 years.

    Sure there are sinners in the church. In fact Judas an apostle who walked with Jesus was stealing from their funds and eventually betrayed Jesus and killed himself. Peter who wrote scripture and for us catholics was the first pope and for protestants at least an apostle, betrayed Jesus as well and later even acted the part of a hypocrite.

    And yet people making videos such as this one, rely on a double standard: on the one hand they praise Jesus while not condemning him for appointing Judas, who Jesus knew would betray him, but on the other hand they condemn catholics who do not have such ability to know before hand that one of their leaders will betray Christ and His church.

    They condemn the catholic church as being from hell because some of its leaders have done sinful things while ignoring the fact that even those that Jesus appointed directly and face to face also did sinful things.

    If in Jesus own circles 2 out of 12 betrayed him, how much should we expect this number to increase exponentially over 2000 years.

    Double standard.

    1. i would argue that the entire institution itself is built on a foundation of "sin." ignoring the historical questions surrounding jesus himself or his teachings; nothing that the institution known as the catholic church has ever done to spread its power has been in line with the teachings of the aforementioned jesus. the church has not only passively sat back and watched some of the most heinous crimes in history it has actively orchestrated and supported numerous acts of genocide (south america, the different christian sects of old europe, the jewish holocaust, and the list goes on) rape (again south america, southeast asia, the many claims of child abuse world wide, and many other instances) and let me reiterate their atrocious record of child abuse from rape, castration, abduction, child slavery, forced sterilization, and for lack of a better term adoption fraud (this is where they were forcing unwed mothers or lying about baby deaths in order to place children into the adoption systems of the world, there is an international law suit against them for this). also extortion, racketering, money laundering, close ties w/ organized crime, and the nazis. all this is historical, indisputable fact. if someone believes that the catholic church is an institution of evil i think they are following "christ" closer than anyone who would continue to defend such an institution. if you believe christ is real...ok, but what does that have to do w/ an institution like the catholic church, or any church for that matter? there is no double standard, in fact i'm not even sure what you mean by that. and anyway if jesus surrounded himself w/ lowlifes, tax collectors and the like why should we be any more inclined to believe that he wasn't running a scam himself, and they were his clique of con-artists? most modern religions have been started by con-artists, charlatans, and political opportunists (i.e joseph smith of the mormons, el ron hubbard of scientology, moses, martin luther, calvin, or any other number of the ridiculous religions that exist). i'm inclined to believe that if evil exists concerted effort in the world like say "the devil" one of its most faithful adherents is the catholic church, based on a litany of undeniable historical evidence, "facts" as you say, and a track record of death and suffering that leaves absolutely no doubt of intentional malevolence towards all. the inquisition is just a nail in the cross. its not just a few leaders it is endemic in the structure of the institution just like racism and law enforcement.

    2. You desire objectivity while being so subjective? Immature

  2. "The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment."

    1. Maybe the present day attempt by the Israelis to annihilate the Palestinians is just history repeating itself.

  3. sickness oftentimes
    masquarades as righteousness...
    even to this day...

  4. Catholic church is innocent ok ? derpy derp

    1. Sweet dreams .

      have fun with your ridiculous silly pathetic tragic -hilarious ...denials .

      The devil in person is also ...innocent , then haha

    2. I have no idea what you are addressing....

      Meanwhile learn some English other than mere words (google translate is clearly fallible) and engage brain before trying to communicate with me again.

    3. You are so brilliant that you have "no idea " what i was talking about haha

      Only a "genius " like yourself can deny the obvious historic facts concerning the inquisition, so .

      Try to put some "counter -arguments " on the table, instead of this silly impotent sterile self-defeating, self-refuting ....non-sense of yours :

      Sweet dreams : have fun with your pathetic denials once again .

      Who cares : your silly attitude in that regard can never make those obvious historic facts concerning the inquisition go away , certainly not , so, keep on "barking ".

    4. Erm you seem to have deleted your reply to me so my reply to that has disappeared.

      At least this post is slightly coherent. Nowhere have I denied any historic facts concerning the inquisition. Hope that helps you.

      That about ends "our" debate matey. I won't be replying further. You can practice your English on someone else Mr Nutbar.

    5. Sorry , i was mistaken , i realise that now , i was just having a bad day yesterday , my sincere apologies .

      P.S.: Why not practice my english on ? thank you very much for helping . haha

      My english might be better than yours , who knows .

      Do not take yourself too seriously , a tiny bit of humor wouldn't hurt you, i guess

      Have a nice evening

    6. Actually the Roman Catholic Church is run by the Anti Christ prophesied in the Bible ! They changed God’s laws and forced the world to adopt pagan holidays and feasts and just slap Jesus name on it! The Bible says the whole world follows the beast and not many will enter heaven! That their eyes are blind and are arrogant thinking they know how he Bible more than God himself! Just like the pharasies 2000 years ago the teachers of the Bible could not recognize God in the flesh was was Jesus Christ! The same is happening in this age of the Holy Spirit where God will put on the flesh restore all the true feasts of God teach his people that the only way of salvation is the New Covenant Passover where God the Father and God The Mother who is Elohim sit enthroned in Holy Mount Zion! The true church that will receive salvation in heaven in the last days! It is where they are taught by God and this gospel is being preached to Samaria to the ends of the earth

  5. To say that the medieval church was not responsible for the atrocities, inhumane torture , mass killings & burning of innocent people like someone said in the above mentioned video simply a criminal distortion of the historic facts & truths in that regard & a ridiculous tragic-hilarious desperate attempt to "clear " the name of the church .

  6. Terrible .

    I wonder how is it still possible to believe in christianity after all that shameful past of the church .

    The inquisition is the forrunner of the nazi gestapo , stasi, kgb , CIA ....= religious nazism fascism at its worst = worse than that in fact .

  7. To claim that the Catholic church is Christian or the guardians of Christian teaching is to make a mockery of Christ and the bible. The Catholic church has perverted and distorted the holy scriptures in their pursuit of power and wealth. I really don't know how or why anybody with any sense would give the Catholic church any credibility or respectability in todays world after what they have done. They are guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity and continue to this day with their sexual abuse of children. Really, can anybody really see Jesus agreeing with their behavior? The reality is, the Catholic church is a cult and they shall receive their judgment in due time. If you read revelations chapter 17 it gives a description of the Roman catholic church "Women on the beast" and her eventually destruction.

    1. billion people some cult.

    2. Ohh yeah well in Revelations it says the the children of God the Mother and the true children of God fighting on the side of good so if u don’t know u even have a mother in heaven how can u be her kid?

  8. Though I do agree inpart of the genocide and torture of the inquisition, I do not agree on their description of the Cathers. The Cathers, Waldenses, Albegenes were bible believing christians that were persecuted for their unwillingness to bow to roman papcy. They believed that the scriptures were the sole authority and not the pope. This is the reason why the inquisators came to northern Italy and southern France. The reality is, there have always been bible believing christians during the time of the false Catholic church. Lastly, the reason the Catholic church didn't want people to read, posses, or translate the bible is because they knew once people read the bible it would expose the false doctrines of the Catholic cult. Does anybody really think that Jesus would sanction or give approval of systematic killing and torture(i.e inquisition)?

  9. That Rev. Joseph A. Di Noia makes me sick. Amongst other folllies he says the notion of freedom of conscience is highly defined in modern times but wasn't as clear in those times. Didn't the clergy have bibles that stated unequivocally that faith was based on individual conscience and that a man's will and actions upon his will determined his entry into the kingdom of God? This is the same type of B.S. smoke screening that allowed an ex hitler youth bishop who failed to act on proven cases of sodomising children and indeed covered up such crimes ( in both church and state law) to become a pope. The Popes and their organisation today are still more focused on their position in authority than in God's will. I suppose Di Noia didn't get to become Vatican Undersecretary by speaking sense as you or I nor indeed the Bible would have it.

    Damn him and his ilk. No surprise that the inventors of the Jewish Ghetto were in league with the Nazis up to the bitter end eh?

  10. Just a bit surprised that the USA water boarding came from there.
    For instance among a few other infos in there.
    They mentioned that historians had access to the vatican archives as late as the 60's! 1,960 years of abuses?
    Just to obtain a : -" -"We're so sorry, we deeply regret"?
    -Then, business a usual...

    Bottom line, there ain't nothing holy in any religion.
    Here again, all thse popes and their hired guns had only one thing in mind: -Steal what others have earned.
    -Hey! Up to a point where they comitted abductionS in the 20th century.

    Not one single religion is for the the good faith human kind.
    It's all hoaxes and the catholic confession sure is one ofthe worst pleague human kind ever knew.
    That review of religious crimes documentary was complete.
    Guilty as charge. Send them to the frying pool tomorow at dawn.

  11. Nothing secret in here, only a downplayed version of the real violence and oppression in the name of 'God'.

  12. is Christianity a violent religion that calls for murder, pillage and destruction of unbelievers, infidels and heathens? if so then why are the muslims asked to denounce the atrocity done in their name? who are the hypocrites?

    1. Because it's not Christianity on a whole. It is Catholicism specifically. Islam and Catholicism are the same religion, just different names. They have similar beliefs of intolerance of people who do not believe what they do.

    2. Sorry to tell you but Catholicism and Islam are not the same. Intolerance comes from people who are extreme, don't blame the umbrella that has no control on who stands below it.

    3. @ nmguyin505
      "Islam and Catholicism are the same religion,..."

      I'm with @Human9000 on this.

      I spend a lot of time at TDF and it is rare I stumble across a comment as inane as that seen above.

      Dog $hit & Cat Piss both stink. But that doesn't make them same!


    4. That's the dumbest comment I've read yet. Anyone with the lease bit of refined perspective knows there are intolerant people in every Christian denomination. Consider the hanging of witches and heretics in the early american colonies.

      That you believe Catholicism is the same as Islam means you have much learning to do; I don't feel like trying to tackle that feat, but i will say Muslims are historically very tolerant.

    5. everyone that says this comment is dumb IS DUMB and blinded and has never done research Mohammed's wife was a catholic read up on it she told him to bs about all of his visions to set up another religious system they are the same, exactly the same both huge lies. Catholicism and Islam are both evil systems. both completely refute the bible. Catholicism is a religion Christianity is NOT. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus. The bible actually condemns religion! so yes they are practically the same stop defending them you just dont want to repent thats not our problem all i no is the facts are there enough said. The crusades where all agreed to between the pope and Mohammed's successors ON PURPOSE YOU BLIND PEOPLE! this is why Mohammed says the pope is "another holy man" ISLAM IS CATHOLICISM do your research dumb religious fools. and clay the problem is christian as a hole is non denominational there for your whole comment is bust so shut you arrogant mouth :] Catholics ruined Christ's name and its sick that people dare defend such lies.

    6. During the vast majority of the inquisition, Christianity as a whole WAS Catholicism. I don't see that the majority of sects, from the Puritans to today's Evangelicals were any more tolerant of dissension than the all-powerful Holy Roman Church was. Certainly, Eastern counterparts participated in their own forms of inquisition.

    7. The Evangelicals have not killed people who didn't agree with our beliefs this is a lie evangelcals were killed enmass during the inquisition it is abserd to say that christians (that is true Christians) did the same thing as the papasy. this is not true we believe that if someone doesn't wish to convert that is their choice but they face God in the end and He judges them, not us, neither did the true church persecute during the dark ages, the bible christians were systematically exterminated where ever they were found they made up an underground church that existed during the dark ages in the wilderness all across europe and where ever they were discovered they were burned by the priests of the apostate roman catholic church. or the pope used the secular authorities to carry out their dirty work. many times they were acused of witch craft and burned as well.

    8. @ shakib45
      "is Christianity a violent religion that calls for murder, pillage and destruction of unbelievers, infidels and heathens?"

      Not anymore. Certainly not in the 21st Century.

      Islam is as brutal today as Christianity was during the Dark Ages.
      Since the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has executed
      4000 gay youths.

      And, in any case, the very idea that the atrocities of Christianity in
      some manner ameliorate the horrors of Islam is just, plain, stupid.

      A pox on both your houses!


    9. christians are! none the less in case you haven't realised that yet -christianity, islam, and judaism are all mere variations of THE SAME religion... (same time, same place, same saints, same books, same rules, different interpretations -struggle for power) the only difference is that ones brake their eggs from bottom and the others from top

  13. how different history would have been different if Napoleon or the Italian army had of dismantled the vatican a few centuries ago.

  14. I can clearly see the link now between the catholic church and Nazism.

  15. The crimes of the 'Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church' are legion.

    The Church, to date(Wed, May 11, 2011, CE), while recognizing that some of the heinous events actually did take place, has never acknowledged any single one of them as a crime when characterized as specific solely to the Church itself.

    This fact says volumes about the 'He' of whom the Catholic Church purportedly is the one and only temporal representative.

    This says(according to its very own doctrine) that it, the 'Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church, one and only Temporal Representative of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, The Christ, at One with The Father and Second Person of The Blessed Trinity', can't even say, I'm sorry.

    So much for Jesus.

  16. the catholic church is such a large piece of garbage, they persecuted john wyclf when he started to translate the bible into english, and later claimed he was a heretic after he was dead, and had his bones dug up and burnt, the are bright, aren't they. the catholic church is such a joke, and i laugh at it. and i am a dye in the wool christian

    1. @ Mike Cook

      Just listen to this one:

      Hypatia of Alexandria
      (first known female mathematician)

      Hypatia of Alexandria (died A.D. 415) was a mathematician, inventor, and neo-Platonist philosopher of the late 4th and early 5th centuries. The first known female mathematician, she was skinned to death with tiles by a Christian mob in the midst of a dispute between the Roman governor Orestes and the Christian Patriarch Cyril (who was later known as a Church Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria).

    2. @ Mike Cook

      And then there's this:

      Giordano Bruno
      (Italian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer)

      On February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy.

      Giordano was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Campo dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake.

      To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker.

      In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered.

    3. @ Mike Cook

      Giordano Bruno
      (burnt at the stake for thinking, literally!)

      A Statue of Giordano Bruno by Ettore Ferrari was erected at the cite of Giordano' burning at Campo de' Fiori in Rome, Italy, in 1889, against the wishes of the Roman Catholic Church.

      This statue of Giordano Bruno was commissioned by the supporters of the unification of Italy.

      Today, the place is the center of an annual commemoration by atheists and freethinkers.

    4. "Today, the place is the center of an annual commemoration by atheists and freethinkers. " ... Worshipers of a new order?


  17. The Jews weren't the only ones to suffer under the Inquisition and the Spanish Monarchy. Muslims followed the same fate. They were tortured, murdered, annihilated, and, finally, expelled. Though, some of them fought until the end. I would've liked to see more of the repression of Muslims at this time when the Ottomans were rising in the Mediterranean.

  18. wow... only a couple of days since the post and more than 130 people commented on this. Obviously the science vs. religion debate is pretty far from being settled...
    The catholic church at the time (bit less now) was a very powerful institution, the vatican state was often at war, and inquisition has very little to do with belief and much more with power. Giordano Bruno was burned at stake not only because he believed in an infinite universe (with the earth rotating around the sun - same time as galileo), but because he exhorted people to think and search for the truth by themselves, and the church could not allow that, nor can any institution in power, and that's why they invented propaganda.
    This has nothing to do with personal belief.
    I choose to be agnostic (verging on atheist) but I have full respect of people who want to believe that there's an unexplained dimension to our lives, as long as they think about it and question their beliefs.
    Anyway, interesting docudrama... but well cheesy!

  19. @Ozyxcba1; My comparrison between Dawkins and Bin Laddin was solely on the merrit of his Zealotry as well as his obvious belif that all men should think as he does. Also that those who do not think as he does are lesser than he and deserve scorn and hate. Fact is I agree with Dawkins on some points such as secular schools without religious interference into the carriculum. I also agree that creationism is silly and should disappear back to where it came from. I do not however support Dawkins opinion that all people of faith are idiots and trash, worthy of endles diatribes. The words you use in this post to me shows you are no different either. You come out with insults and baseless angry statements. You seek to verbally assault those who disagree with you rather than address them properly, with well thought comments and supporting facts or theory. You could learn a thing or two from others on here such as Vlatko and Epicurious. Neither of them agree with me, and both are quite decidedly against organized religion. They made arguments here that made sense and showed reason behind their opinions. You have not.
    As to how you finnished your comment; I feel about as threatened by you as my "enemy" as I would any person who grows his cyber muscles and attempts to be vauguely threatening in a comment forum, which is to say not at all. Also your assertion that I am somehow inferior in my intellect is cut and paste of the flaw in Dawkins' work. I tested at a 156 IQ level in the seventh grade. I have been a MENSA member for fifteen years, I joined the NY chapter at age eighteen. I have not tested in quite some time but I assure you I am not lacking in inteligence. You have only acted as the second person in this comment section to substatiate my points. You cannot argue that religion is all bad and that religious people are all bad based uppon the premise that they force their beliefs onto others and have agressive mentality, when in fact both of those descriptors fit you to the letter. The way you speak to those who are not of like mind to you is quite simillar to the way any agressive biggot has done throughout the ages.
    I hope that you will pardon my some what biting tone in my response. I don't intend personal insult. I only feel, quite honestly, that both you and Achems are quite capable of forming a reasonable debate without all the rhetoric and insult. Your stance against organized religion is noted and I actually agree to an extent. However I feel that you both loose a bit of credibility when you simply blurt out a hatefull comment painting everyone in a large population with broad strokes. In my mind it is no different than someone disparaging an entire race because they were mugged by one person who was part of that race.

    1. You introduce your self as:
      I tend to play the devils advocate allot. I have strong beliefs about many issues, however, I pursue others ideas in order to better know the issues and how they are perceived.

      Here...You walk the talk, you talk the walk!

    2. What is INTJ? google..."Briggs Myers personality test"

  20. @ vlatko you had it coming to you this week you just kicked someones god in the balls 3 times in a row this week Secret Files of the Inquisition, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Derren Brown: Miracles for Sale. lol Keep up the good work your doing souring the bitter sweet taste of religion.

  21. @SaintNarcissus,

    "Many of your arguments are not dealing with me and what I am addressing, but rather falling back on broad strokes about why religion is bad."

    I can't deal with you. I don't know you. I can't deal with the other 6 billion people. I don't know them. However I can deal with the image that the religion is reflecting on the society and the world as a whole, from my perspective, of course.

    "To say that they are not mutually exclusive and incompatible, is not the same as saying they are compatible and mutually inclusive."

    Am I misunderstanding something here. So what are they, if science and religion are not mutually exclusive and incompatible?

    ...the rants and arguments that you, Achems, Dawkins, and others parrot...

    Right on. More ad hominems. Just resort to name calling, if that makes you feel better.

    "To say "Religion is..." is meaningless. You must address individual traditions, or better yet individual people."

    I can, but I certainly must not address individual traditions and people. All religious traditions (if you've studied them) boil down to the same pattern. Set of doctrines, rules, rituals, techniques for reaching enlightenment, prayers, chanting, afterlife, hell, heaven, reincarnation, etc. It's all copy/paste to a certain degree. That's why to say "religion is..." is very meaningful in fact.

    However if you want so much I can address certain tradition. In which sect do you belong?

    "Religion need not always be dogmatic, so certainly religion is not itself dogma."

    Show me one religion which is not dogmatic and why?

    "For those on the attack, as you are in this case..." Hmmm... Why I thought you're on the attack?

    "I dare say, evidenced by your repetitious arguments which hold a very clear line, that your beliefs are far more dogmatic then mine, and again I assert that it is inacurate (poor logic) and unfair (poor ethics) for
    you to assume this means I am somehow a bad Christian."

    I don't have any beliefs. I don't believe in any kind of Religion/God. I tend to think rationally. Therefore there is no dogma in my life I can assure you. And I never said you're bad Christian. You're making this up.

    "Someone bound by dogma will find it impossible to accept any challenge to their rigid beliefs. This sounds more like your position than mine."

    Again I don't have beliefs, therefore that is not my position.

    "You may have been better off, in terms of looking at how the world
    works, spending time with religious people instead. That would have
    taught you far more."

    Well... guess what? I did. I've spent almost an year 24/7 working, eating, sleeping, discussing, socializing together with people from around 45 different nations from all the continents, therefore I was living with a large group of people with such a diverse cultural, traditional and religious background (almost all major religions). And believe me, that was the biggest school in my life. The world literally exploded in me.

    "I want to discuss why you feel it is intellectually tenable to make
    blanket statements about billions of people you have never met, instead
    of taking them each as they are, individuals like myself."

    I don't make blanket statements about people, but I do make statements about the religion, as an organization.

    1. Okay, I don't think I can devote much more time to devote to this circular discussion. I've been here before. I am glad you have a varied experience with real relationships. I cannot call the usefulness of that into question because I do not you.

      To answer your question - I am an Anabaptist and also draw from and identify with the early Celtic Christian movement which spread peacefully through Ireland sometime after Patrick. No wars, no inquisitions there. Basically people stopped human sacrifices and slavery as a result. That movement was sidelined by the Catholic church and essentially silenced as heretics for being iron-age hippies to oversimplify it. They venerated the natural world and considered its teachings to be on par with scripture. They lived in communities and promoted learning for all, monasteries functioning in some cases as essentially free universities and social centers. For me that story is an example of Christianity at its best and its worst (when the Roman church shut it down because it threatened the status quo). I don't identify with any particular "sect" so to speak. I just seek to understand the deepest truths, including God and to treat people well. And I have fellowship with people who feel similarly.

      So, have at it. Unveil the secret horrors of Anabaptist Celtic pacifism or whatever you'd like to classify me as. You entirely missed my point about your "dogma." What I'm getting at is that while you don't officially ascribe to any, you sure do spout arguments from a position that is well-tread and rehearsed and followed by others. Begins to sound rather dogmatic if you ask me. In fact there is something very dogma-like about anyone who engages in discussions and debates with clear prejudgements and prejudices along specific lines. Whether you concede to it or not this reflects beliefs on your part. Not in God obviously, but a set and system of belief. The thing is that instead of the energy of your belief being "in" or "for" something it is against something. The other thing that is clearly lost on you entirely is that there are plenty of organic and peaceful movements which are part of the broad spectrum of religion, but which are about and experience of spirituality rather than a "religion, as an organization." So you can feel free to assail some monolithic "religion, as an organization" but it is irrelevant to me and many others. You would do well to open your mind to this fact rather than assuming you already have enough information from your limited experience (not discrediting your experience, all human experience is of course limited) to fully understand something as nebulous and varied as "religion."

    2. stop throwing the word dogma around.

      there is dogma that can be good. if you are using it to mean an established belief then dogma about the principle of the uniformity of nature is a good one.

      or the dogma which states, that which has the most evidence should be held truer than things that have less evidence or none.

      so yes vlatko might have a dogmatic view in those respects but that is reality.

      would you call the laws of physics a dogma? would you call the laws of logic (ie. non-contradiction) dogmatic?

      you are equivocating the term and making it seem like a bad thing. dogma in a belief that has no evidence for it and refuses to budge IN SPITE of evidence against it is bad.

      my basic question to you is....Why do you believe in a god and why do you believe YOUR brand of god and say not hinduism or jainism? what evidence do you have that says your religion is the correct one? and dont you think it would just be more honest to say you dont know and remain agnostic?

  22. An Atheist Inquisition is long overdue. Good doc 8/10

    1. That was a truly evil thing to say . . . but it will happen. The bloodiest and worst days in history are still ahead for the Christians. Did you really mean that? That's sad.

    2. I appreciate you like to voice your opinions a lot and reply to virtually every comment but try and focus a bit. Why am I evil. What is evil? Why is what I said sad. Gogogogogo put some effort in Mr Troll.

    3. Yvonna: I do not comment on every thread (usually only on ones I watch) and certainly not on ever comment. With that said. Why I said your comment was "evil" is obvious, isn't it? The Inquisition was truly evil . . . . torture, murder, fear, intimidation and subjugation of the masses by the few. Now you want to do that again with atheism as the standard by which all others must be judged or they will be tortured and killed? That's a poor joke if it was a joke, and what's even more scary is the fact that I don't even think it was a joke in bad taste, but what you actually would support in real life. Is that truly what you were implying?

      Peace to you.

    4. Ok well I will elaborate. Yeah lets have an atheist inquisition. That's not to say we would torture the opponents as per the Spanish inquisition, though lets face it if the religitards could have their way there would be no limit even in today's "enlightened times"

      Lets use a more modern approach. Teach them critical thinking, logic and reasoning. Make them read books. They would be tortured in some sense but who knows they might actually become productive REAL human beings rather than slaves on their knees. Outlaw the so called priests who perpetuate the historical crime and scam that is called religion. Most importantly stop the child abuse which subsists in the form of indoctrination. The Jesus Camps, the madras's; brainwashing children. I`d be all in favour of taking children away from people I consider bad parents. Those who would mutilate their children's genitals in the name of bronze age nomad desert dwelling bandit leader's "gods." You Can't legally F3ck a child so why should it be legal to F3ck with a child's head? Or chop bits off them?

      "Peace to you" So by that sign off I assume maybe wrongly you are muslim. Right or wrong in that case the Spanish Inquisition could already be considered an atheist inquisition in some respects so my initial tongue in cheek suggestion if we are being pedantic could be said to have already have taken place. If we are going to be even more pedantic we could say that Russian / Chinese Communism attempted to eradicate religion. Whatever religious eradication or inquisition took place in the recent or more distant past could always be regarded to atheistic in some respects as it's one ideology trying to supplant or destroy another.

      Am I evil? AM I sad? Not when compared to religions. They invented the concepts. Am i wrong in wishing the religious would just hurry up and wipe out each other? Sick of them all.

      How sickening it is that most religions consider themselves the "Religion Of Peace" whereas the totally realistic mantra should be..

      Religion OR Peace

      At least Muhammed and the Spanish Inquisition were honest. Join us or die. Rather than the shifty smug self serving self appeasing pond life that now exist on the benefits of modern science whilst denouncing it and everything else that their latest version of scripture interpretation tells them to.

      Argghhh you made me type and I hate typing.

    5. (ROTFLOL) good going Yavanna, reminds me of the good old days here on TDF.

      Some times a person has to hit the religee's where they live! I agree, do hate the pious smug (we know something you don't) cat ate the canary, we are saved, beautificious type of we are the chosen ones, attitude, that some of the religee's portray. That is why confession booths are filled, sin like the devils legion, and run for forgiveness. Say the rosary 100 times and all is forgiven, and run back to sin some more.

      A lot of them fundy preachers seem to always fall from grace, long list of them. So they whine and cry, the devil made me do it, and go right back to fleece their flocks.

      Thought I would lay low for a while on commenting about the religious and their scams, but what the Hay! seems like it is my chemical makeup.

    6. As I live in England I don't often come across creationists. In fact its been so long I got sick of all the USA atheist stuff on YouTube and so on and unsubscribed to some channels. But just the other day I got on skype with a guy who happened to mention his wife had just got home from the church group. I evoked my sympathies and to cut a long story short......... he bled out just about every fail religious christian evangocrap argument as found on IT websites. The conversation ended several hours later with a discussion on Noahs ark!

      I literally couldn't believe my ears. Here was a guy who I had presumed reasonably intelligent defending every bit of scripture with stuff straight off the same creationist websites I`ve seen the likes on Venomfangx and Nephilemfree using........... and the worse thing was: despite every reasoned argument his attitude was clearly that I was being incredibly stupid not to have religious faith. Not to believe in a book put together by a rag tag crew 2000 years ago. His smugness was overwhelming. Whatever I said was countered with scripture and my lack of "understanding." Science is a religion and my reliance was a faith based dogma apparently. His greatest satisfaction was during a discussion about evolution. "OK so what came before the apes if we came from apes." I was stuck for the moment despite watching many docs and reading several books as it was by then late and I`d been hitting the beer and said something about lower evolved mammals. "Haha you dont know do you!"

      So basically in his eyes I had lost the argument. It reminded me of a Futurama episode where the professor was being asked what fossil preceded which and having stated several dozen lost track (season 6 episode 9). I tried to suggest that perhaps fossil history and bio evolution wasnt exactly my speciality and there are books he could read but oh no. He had announced victory and was glowing with smugness.

      You poor poor Americans. I got a glimpse into what you have to deal with all the time.

    7. Let's hope you never rule the world. Sounds like a terrible world to live in for me at least!

      I'm actually Christian. When I say "peace to you" I was actually thinking of Jesus' instructions to bless the house you stay at with peace, and if it is worthy, then God's peace would indeed rest there. If it's not, then it would return to you.


    8. Yes, a common misconception of creationists is that they think Humans came from apes, they do not realize humans, chimps, apes, all share a common ancestor.

      I myself delved into religion many years back to see what all the hoofla' was about, did some major work on an antique Anglican church in my area. The preacher was a nice chap, he invited me to join his church. I joined his church and was baptized an Anglican.

      No matter what, just could not be swayed to believe all that, that was portrayed to me, in our long talks, instead on religion, filled the preacher in all the science I knew at the time. Left the church post haste, was not my bag.

      Went to some fundamentalist meetings to see what that was like, in between all the "praise the lord" every 2 seconds, and the speaking in tongues, that literally sent shivers down my spine, and long talks with "Fundy" preachers, who went on tirades that seemed to me right out of "Marvel Comics" left that post haste also.

      And this was all in Canada, am Canadian, can't even imagine of what it is like in USA, it would be exponentially worse, especially in the bible belts.

    9. I did say that we ARE apes / primates. I was just shortening the story for typing. Seriously he brought up about every single fallacy I could think of. Free will for instance which I countered with the free will Vs omnipotence logic counter argument. I couldn't make a dent.
      BTW i found the futurama episode on megavideo after posting last night. - It's called "A clockwork origin." First 10 minutes or so are so on the mark regarding evolution. Very funny.

  23. I know the pieces fit...

  24. Richard Dawkins wrote that religion is a disease, a sickness, a virus of the mind, says that religious beliefs are mind parasites. I completely agree! And my take, it always strives to be contagious!!

    Imagine a beautiful child, say 6 years old, she believes that "Thomas the Tank Engine" really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you.

    If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell, she will have nightmares. A human child by evolution is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. A lot of, if not most religious parents will even by default ingrain their religious beliefs on the poor unsuspecting children.
    Instill the fear of "HELL" and the fear of "DEATH" at a very early age, an age when that should be the farthest things from their forming minds!!

    Is "Dawkins a candidate for "all in the family" too Hmmm?

    1. @Achems Razor

      ; You are not going to draw me in to your antagonistic dispute. If what I stated before has prickled you a bit I am sorry. And yet do you not see yourself prooving my points? By the way Quoting Dawkins to refute religion is tantamount to quoting Bin Ladin to support Islam. Both are boisterous zealots who would rather incite and destroy than just make their point and agree to disagree. Truly Achems you are your worst enemy with posts like that.
      I will not respond to you again on this or any other blatant attempt to start an argument.

    2. What antagonistic dispute? Why are you getting bent out of shape for, I am just relaying info. Prove your points? you do not have any points for me to prove! Good try on your Ad hominem attacks, I'm my worst enemy? right!

      personally I think you are a religee, coming through the back door as some are wont to do.

    3. Tonight it is Bella Fleck and fishing with my WiFi next to me so yea. My shape is far from bent. As I said, to the neutral observer all is clear. I am not attacking you, point of fact my first post. the one you assumed was addressed to you was more directed toward other posters on this doc. Funny you should read what I said and assume my description was of you. And yet again I have absolutely no religious affiliations what so ever. And have also stated clearly that I do not believe in any divinity or in any afterlife. Honestly just stop. You are at this point little more to this debate than a typical web troll and I know you are better than that.

    4. Okay, and in that regard why did you assume that my first top post was directed to you? is your name mentioned?

    5. Which post would that be? I only directed my attention to you directly when you commented on my post which you obviously assumed was directed at you. My original post was a general observation of the aggressiveness and hate within some of the comments that had been made. Yours were not even close to the most outstandingly slanted of them.

    6. Lets stop with this charade, you know which post, when I talked about Richard Dawkins! and you vehemently refuted.

    7. what the one just up here? In that case it was not a far reaching assumption on my part that I was the target of that

      comment as you specifically reference a prior comment that I made with your last line. That coupled with the fact that the comment was entirely of the type I commented to before and that it popped on screen a couple of minutes after i posted a reply to someone else on this thread.

    8. In reply to @StillRV:

      @ StillRV,

      Richard Dawkins refuting religion is nothing less than a human being pointing out the well-documented and indisputable historical facts surrounding religion's past and continuing attempt at obstructing open inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge.

      Osama bin Laden in his support of religion was nothing more than a human being in support of an utterly baseless system of beliefs.

      Richard Dawkins supporting research in the field of evolutionary biology is nothing less than a human being professing a method of discovery dependent on observation, objective, falsifiable claims based upon predictive, theoretic argument, subject to repeatable experimental verification and peer review.

      Osama bin Laden was nothing but a conspiratorial murderer.

      Bin Laden was never boisterous, and neither is Richard Dawkins.

      Whether Richard Dawkins is a 'zealot', I leave to debate.
      Bin Laden served to define the word!

      Bin Laden was a terrorist who financed an entire organization of zealots to incite and destroy all those who opposed his religion, whereas Richard Dawkins is a gentleman who often agrees to disagree after having made his point in discourse of civil, logical debate.

      Your blatant attempt to provoke an argument by means of sullying Richard Dawkins good name and reputation is as tasteless and stupid as it is disgraceful. You owe Richard Dawkins an open and immediate apology, an apology I hardly expect from the lips of a person like you.

      Achems Razor is not his own enemy, worst, or otherwise(though he may be yours?I know I am).

      You, StillRV, for your part, are no one's enemy.

      You're not bright enough.

    9. Children are not exactly just "a piece of wet clay", they are capable of critical thinking earlier than we would expect and they can even have better logical capabilities than many grown-ups.
      But still, unfortunately, many of those 'fierce believers' had their logic totally twisted at the 'crossroad' periods of their life, when the influence on them is the most effective. As Heidegger said "a man is born as many men and dies as a single one", there is not much that can be done about them.... although I'm still struggling to comprehend their logic and get an idea of HOW can they even think they way they do......

    10. In my opinion children are much closer to being clay than you think. We are dough nuts or even better we are clay to ourself, we are the potter of our own being and it starts with the first touch. We are born to a hand and from there we learn to touch, to feel, to think, to speak our truth... an influenced truth.
      We chissel our own being one tap, one second at a time.

    11. @Azilda, well, by observing children's reactions at certain
      questions, you might get to notice that they can be quite surprising. However, there is one more problem - they might happen to be scared of doing the wrong thing. That is another thing to tie them to convictions "embedded" by their parents. Defying them would seem as doing something wrong (distinguishing right from wrong is hard for us, as well, simply because those are relative terms).

      I understand your position ("Nothing was in the mind what was previously not in senses"). But I am not sure about it. I think it was Leibniz who added "Nothing was in mind what previously was not in senses, apart from the mind itself". I believe that, even though we are "clay", that clay has already got some (though versatile) shape formed by our predispositions. Unfortunately, it does not help when extreme influence of the masses takes over (as it is the case with religion).

    12. by predisposition you mean past life?

    13. @azilda,

      No, I'm actually referring to natural "talents" (if you can say so) and intelligence. And, yes, I know that intelligence is flexible and that it functions on the "use it or loose it" principle, but still, it at a part comes naturally. Directing it to a wrong way degenerates it. I know a number of people who used to find some really serious matters interesting when they were, I can say, quite young and they were even making some impressive conclusions. They didn't take for granted any random conviction. The society changed them in a very bad way.

    14. and where would these natural talents come from?
      I am not saying you are wrong, i am trying to understand your thread of thought.

    15. @azilda,

      Or maybe you are?
      Genetics, perhaps? Our intellectual capabilities really do vary, although I think each one of us should be able to develop them to a certain point.

    16. I take the position that I come from a dimension that is not accepted, identified, or really explored.
      I have come to agree with the thought that within the chromosones there was a mean and within within there was a dot.
      At the moment this dot, as finite or infinite it is possible to be, it represents GOD and it is me.
      Now back to our conversation,
      I do think as a physical being i may very well carry within a memory of sort. But the instant i lay my energy on earth, i start beying molded by my surrounding and by my actions and reactions towards it. I become the sand being shaped by the wave of life and i displace myself like a dune of the Sahara. I am self observant and as i live the change i feel, see, hear, smell and touch the consequences of that flow, I am auto created and i spring from an auto created "2 tines fork".
      I am a dough nut with a belly button.

    17. To add: therefore i am shaped by my actions and reactions to my environment. As i realize that i am autocreated i become obsessed with using the right reaction to each action coming my way. It is a game i play with life. I am a potter shaping my magnum opus, my dead mind for whatever comes after.

    18. azilda

      Should I consider you a Pantheist?

      "I do think as a physical being i may very well carry within a memory of sort. But the instant i lay my energy on earth, i start beying molded by my surrounding and by my actions and reactions" I wouldn't exactly name it 'memory', but I agree with this statement.

      "Maturing means changing, not in sense of the age or physical appearance, but in the way of thinking. If we had a chance to meet various types of personalities, if we have gained enough knowledge about people and were, one way or another, influenced by a real variety of them, we have a gift of choice. Standing on the crossroads of multiple choices is hard, but the path we choose will determine our direction. The ability of “choice” shows that we are not entirely formed only by the world around us. Our nature, character and the extent of our intellect will decide whether we are able to perform self-formatting
      or we will always remain shadows of (many) others, capable of influencing us. That is what might support another claim, saying that “nothing was in mind that was previously not in senses, except the mind itself”."

    19. I don't agree to any existing name for my thoughts on spirituality because the descriptions fitting a name are set and mine aren't. At any moment I could experience something that suddenly would make me change my view.
      I would like to say more but the words are not forming and instead of saying something that does not fit, i will wait.
      (i have done enough of that today already here)

    20. Welcome to the 400 year, violent legacy of Northern Ireland where children are still religiously segregated and taught to repeat the mistakes of history from birth. When they're not persecuting each other they're tormenting Muslims. Where are their spiritual leaders?

    21. Imagine a beautiful child, say 6 years old. She believes that Santa Claus really exists; and that the tooth fairy always brings her money. She wants a Barbie Dream House for Christmas. And when she grows up, her ambition is to be Miss America. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about princesses becoming movie stars, she will believe you.

      If you tell her that bad children are lazy, and refuse to do any work, she will hate those in poverty. A human child by evolution is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. A lot of, if not most politically-correct parents will even by default ingrain their politically-correct beliefs on the poor unsuspecting children.

      Seems we've come a long way since the inquisition.

  25. @SaintNarcissus,

    "I would add that neither are they incompatible or mutually exclusive."

    When giving such a statements, you should probably explain why do you think science and religion are compatible and mutually inclusive.

    "Secondly, you have severely oversimplified religion. To simply equate religion with dogma is inaccurate and misleading."

    Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers. (Wikipedia).

    For you maybe the religion is something else, but in a broader sense religion IS dogma.

    "I don't mind being accused of cherry-picking, but what on earth gives you authority to declare it "not ok?"

    I don't have that authority, I never said I have. It just looks quite "unprofessional" when religious people cherry-pick.

    "I am not going to wade into the theology of God the Father and the old testament unless you are a theology scholar... Unless you know more than a broad overview, and have truly studied, I am going to assume that conversation would be a fruitless one..."

    Buy saying this you clearly want to put yourself in a kind of "superimposed" mode. Being a theologian doesn't give you any authority over the interpretation of the Bible. It will be just one more interpretation (yours). There is a saying: "If you want to create an Atheist, just make him read the Bible."

    And yes I have read the OT, NT (twice), Dhammapada, Mahabharata, Ramayana, lot's of books on Buddhism, Zen, Jainism, lot's of stuff written by the famous philosophers, new age gurus, etc. Practically I've self studied almost all major religions. And finally I've read lot of scientific books and watched tons of documentaries. So what do you want to discuss about? What is your specialty? I believe I have a broad view on things, since I've skimmed all that. Would you agree?

    "Really, do you know what my creed is? Do you really presume you are so wise and learned that you can boil down THE creed of global Christianity (hint there isn't one) and therefore impugn it?"

    I don't know what your creed is. And honestly I don't care. And there is no global Christianity, since there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations, who would probably "kill each other" on sight. You know why there are so much Christian sects? Because everyone is interpreting the Bible differently, and therefore it's establishing different doctrines (dogma).

    "If you were to open yourself enough to someone else's view, you would discover that for some of us we feel it is part of our moral imperative, derived from our spiritual practice and belief, to remove any and all such divisions."

    Yes, you might want to remove the divisions, but it want happen since there are 19 major religions in the world, and "God" knows how many of their variations. All that is DIVISION.

    1. Various Christian denominations that "Kill each other on sight" is a gross exageration, otherwise there would be hundreds of thousands of "Christian murders" daily, Vlatko.

      I've worked well with many denomination that were not my own with no conflict at all. I even headed a city-wide meeting of Christian pastors and workers called CLIT "see light" (Christian Leaders in Touch) that had many leaders coming together monthly for prayer and fellowship, including the Catholics. But, when I moved away, the meetings also stopped.

      A true child of God should also be a child of peace, if at all possible, and when appropriate. And yes, God DOES know those that truly belong to him, and those that don't.

      Peace to you as always.

    2. @C_and_N,

      "Kill each other on sight" was a metaphor.

      "And yes, God DOES know those that truly belong to him, and those that don't." - Here we go, another division (discrimination) interwoven in your comments.

    3. We all "discriminate" in some way or in some form, Vlatko. It's a universal human characteristic, and not always bad. Why try to make me feel guilty about my sincerely held faith system? Even God is "selective" (my opinion of course).

      As always,

      Peace to you!

      P.S. I answered this from my e-mail. Not sure why it came all the way to the top here. Cheers!

    4. @Vlatko

      Okay. Thanks for replying relatively carefully. However your replies, though specific, are still full of assumptions. Many of your arguments are not dealing with me and what I am addressing, but rather falling back on broad strokes about why religion is bad. We'll both get more out of this if you allow for more nuance. Every time I get into these discussions I am amazed at the assumptions people make without even realizing they are doing so. Okay, point by point, here we go.

      "When giving such a statements, you should probably explain why do you think science and religion are compatible and mutually inclusive."

      You are using semantics to alter the actual meaning of what I have said. To say that they are not mutually exclusive and incompatible, is not the same as saying they are compatible and mutually inclusive. One of the key problems with the rants and arguments that you, Achems, Dawkins, and others parrot is the simplification that makes a monolithic entity out of religion. To say "Religion is..." is meaningless. You must address individual traditions, or better yet individual people. But I find that again and again you and others lack the patience to do so. It is much easier for you to assure yourself that you have an adequate understanding of my belief system, enough to accuse me of being "unproffessional" in my belief which is the height of arrogance and ignorance. I live my life by a very active spirituality which is part of a tradition, which is indeed interpretive. For you to essentially suggest that I am doing a poor job of participating rigorously in a tradition which you think is despicable, though we have never met, is absolute foolishness. You'll note, as long-winded as our conversations get, I will not once presume that I know anything about what you believe, what you teach or don't teach your children, how you live, etc. Take an honest look at how you conduct this conversation and you'll see you give yourself wide berth to make assumptions...all based on the idea that you have an adequate understanding of what "religion is..." therefore you have license to suggest all these things about me and my system of belief. So, my point relating to your point? Reversing my statement does not work logically. As I said before to begin a statement with "religion is..." is meaningless and that is what reversing my statement does. However, I'll concede that my statement would be more accurate if I began with "religion is not always mutually exclusive etc. etc."

      "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers. (Wikipedia)."

      Thank you Wikipedia for a fine definition of dogma. Religion need not always be dogmatic, so certainly religion is not itself dogma. Equating the two is incorrect and is one of your key problematic underlying assumptions. For those on the attack, as you are in this case, you often misunderstand that for some of us dogma plays little or no role in our religious life - rather spiritual experience and searching for the truth lie at the heart of it. I dare say, evidenced by your repetitious arguments which hold a very clear line, that your beliefs are far more dogmatic then mine, and again I assert that it is inacurate (poor logic) and unfair (poor ethics) for you to assume this means I am somehow a bad Christian. Someone bound by dogma will find it impossible to accept any challenge to their rigid beliefs. This sounds more like your position than mine.

      "Practically I've self studied almost all major religions. And finally I've read lot of scientific books and watched tons of documentaries. So what do you want to discuss about? What is your specialty? I believe I have a broad view on things, since I've skimmed all that. Would you agree?"

      It sounds that we have a similar intellectual groundwork. You may have been better off, in terms of looking at how the world works, spending time with religious people instead. That would have taught you far more. For me my broad reading, learning, and relationships have instilled a passion to know more, to understand more, to broaden my worldview. What do I want to discuss about? I want to discuss why you feel it is intellectually tenable to make blanket statements about billions of people you have never met, instead of taking them each as they are, individuals like myself. I do not have a specialty so to speak, I also have a broad view on things. When it comes to religion, I am much more concerned with my experience than with dogma.

      Next. Not sure what you mean by putting myself in "superimposed" mode. So I'll leave that one alone. I'm not a theologian, I'm not claiming any special dispensation. I'm merely saying that I have full license to be the author of my own faith and experience as do you. I still don't get how you think that reading the Bible qualifies you to critique the orthodoxy of what I believe. I'm glad you are so well read, but it's sad that you have apparently seen your reading, rather than broadening your perspective, as building up ammunition for online arguments. But here's the thing - this is the biggest assumption that taints your reasoning. Christian tradition need not be "whole bible" centered to stand. The early Christians kept it pretty simple - they thought Jesus taught the truth and they sought to live a peaceful communal life based on this truth. A few hundred years later Constantine hires a bunch of guys to put the canon together to consolidate power. A few thousand years later you have a strain of Christianity that sees the beginning and end of their belief system in those 66 books. Also, completely legitimate is another varied strain which sees value in some of those books, but by no means feels bound to venerate every word, and rather seeks to emulate the radical and transforming lifestyle based upon the teaching and model of Christ. So, I am not taking a shortcut and I am not in any way intellectually required to defend the Old Testament, or for that matter the epistles of Paul in order to defend the notion that religion in my case is not divisive. Again I'm going to propose the possibility that my life and practice of belief is less divisive in fact than yours. If you and I are divided, it is not because of my beliefs. It is because of yours. Nothing in my belief system prevents me from fully embracing you or anyone and living a life in harmony with them. This is clearly not the case for you.

      Finally, I make this challenge. I can honestly say that if you show me to be wrong in some aspect, guilty of some lapse of logic or unfair reasoning I will acknowledge it. This is a great part of growing as a human being. If you have never, when intellectually challenged in a conversation like this, been able to simply be self-reflective and self-critical enough to see an area that could benefit from revision, then you are a on a limited intellectual path in life.

    5. SaintNarcissus: I am an atheist. I search for moral and ethical guidance through human compassion, empathy, and to some extent, logic. I also have a keen interest in religion and have read a few holy books, including the Bible, The Book of Mormon, some of the Koran (I could not get through all of it) and have learned as much as I can about Scientology. This, I realize, in no way qualifies me as an expert in any of these practices. The reason I remain an atheist is because I find no compelling evidence of the existence of any higher power in these teachings and even less need to follow their directives in ethics or morality
      From your reasoned and measured responses in this forum I believe you are a very logical and ethical person, with a love for all of humanity, and a strong moral compass. I know we could have a fine conversation with each other, put our differences aside, and perhaps even be real friends.

      What does mystify me though, is your belief in Christianity. Of all the belief systems in the world, why this particular saviour and god.It may be that it is what you were raised to believe, but I wouldn't presume to know the reason. My questioning stems only from my curiosity; not at all from wanting to argue or change your belief, which I truly respect. I ask how you came to your belief (faith?) because you are an intelligent, articulate person whose understanding runs counter to mine.

      This forum may be an inappropriate place for "baring one's soul" in this fashion. Perhaps there is another way to further a conversation, but I don't know what it would be. I hope this questioning is not too personal. If you reply, that it is not something to discuss in an open forum, no one, with a trace of empathy should dare question this right.

    6. @Tomregit Thank you sincerely for respecting me as a thinking fellow human being. I would be happy to have a more indepth discussion via email. To avoid placing my email in text ripe for plucking you can simply add @gmail to my "name" on here and that's it.

      I will say in short that the answer to your question is simply it is my experience. That is to say, I have experienced things so important specifically within the Christian tradition and narrative. For most human beings, experience trumps knowledge even when this is only borne out in the subconscious. Once upon a time I attempted to reason the tenets of my faith much the way any smart agnostic would do in disproving it. As a teenager, the apologetics as it were, were adequate and because I wanted to believe all the evidence for a perfect synchronicity between the biblical account and historical evidence, etc. etc. etc. but as the years went on I realized things were much more murky where the facts were concerned. I slowly become unconvinced of all the facts. That is to say, I can't sit here and argue apologetics about precisely who Jesus was and what he did. That doesn't matter for me anymore. What matters is that I have experienced God profoundly. That experience does not need the facts to be all in order. It is fluid. I believe in the truths of my faith, but always with doubt and skepticism interplaying with that belief. More important that my level of belief in things unprovable is my experience and my belief that Christian faith at its best engenders a change which can lead to human beings treating one another with humility and respect, and a communities built around these ideals are capable of great things.

      All that to say, I have found a peace and a persistent sense of wonder in my Christian experience that does not exclude a constant fascination with science, a constant desire to know more about the natural order of things in the universe, no matter how much these things may challenge what I was pretty sure I believed yesterday. So you can see I have no interest in proving anyone wrong about the existence of God or their need for a belief in Christ. I may happen to think it would change their lives for the better, just as you might understandably believe that setting aside my beliefs and practices would change mine for the better, but as I imagine we've both learned, people are not usually won over to something so dramatic by mere reasoning. Whether or not we like to admit it, in my opinion the most empirical materialist out there is still subject to his or her subconscious leanings based on their own experience. No one can simply change that through didactic argument. So why do I bother writing on a forum like this? Because I do feel its a worthy thing to do - questioning the unhelpful and often wildly innacurate and emotionally driven anti-religious vitriol. There is so much anger and so much pre-judgement. I don't mind it coming my way because I understand that it isn't about me, its about something deeper and most likely deeply personal for each person who chooses to direct their anger toward me or some blanket group of individuals who are religious in some sense. I want to help increase understanding that while many are rightly frustrated with dogmatic fundamentalist religious belief, there are many out there who are also religious but in no way intolerant or backward etc. I think the sharp tongues would be put to better use in debating those people instead of simply sending anger into the ether toward anyone in the line of fire. So I persist.

      Feel free to email me. I am at a place in life where being transparent is useful. So, I'm happy to answer any curiosity you have.


  26. first of all good doc. Now to go off topic (a little). I just want to try to clear up a few things. Atheism is a lack of belief in god nothing more. We are not a group or organization. Comments like "all Atheists" or "you atheists" just shows a lack of understanding of what an Atheist is. I do not get my morals or guide for life from my lack of belief. also Atheism doesn't = evolution or any other scientific fact or theory. I have in the past and probably will in the future argue with religious people on this site, not because i wish to take your beliefs away. I argue when religion is at odds with history or when people try to inject religion where it doesn't belong. religion has NO place in science period. i bet if the religious types stopped trying to force religion into science,politics and stop trying to convert those who do not want religion in their lives the animosity from atheists will sharply diminish. if your beliefs give you the tools to be a better person why would i want to take that away ? but the popularity of creationist /id organizations coupled with the assault on non religious organizations by large religious groups shows that not all but many religious types are trying to hijack areas of society that they simply don't belong

    1. I couldn't have said that better @over the edge.

    2. I also fully agree that religion should not push its way into science or into the non believers mind. I find no reason to dispute anything you say in this post.

    3. i agree also
      I think science should push it's way into spirituality and define what a GOD could be if it was.
      If the science world won't agree with what it is and what it has ever been then make it be something else.
      But search good because it has to be huge or very fcken small
      or both at the same time.


    4. @azilda Haha. It would be trippy if science could find god on a substantive form. However no I don't think science should be poking into faith any more than faith into science. Faith is a personal and existential self discovery not a lab experiment. Although in a book i read (yes it was fiction) the one character proved the existence of a "soul" by allowing someone to die in a vacuum chamber and measuring a minute drop in the weight. As if some thing of substance had left the body.

    5. God does not have to equal religion in any way.
      But i do think science would do a lot better to try to prove the existence than the non existence, as in everything science has always reach for that in the end.

    6. Perhaps Az. If don't to try to prove rather than disprove that could be interesting. However I don't believe that there is any

      quantifiable God to find. Just a metaphor to encompass an ideal and in no way substantive.

    7. One strategy of Science is to prove something by disproving it first and then by proving what it does in existence.
      God is in line waiting.
      What are you afraid of? That they find that God has always been right there in a form humanity couldn't yet conceived.

      Not sure what exactly you are saying: "if don't to try to prove rather than disprove that could be interesting."
      I would myself say: if we don't try to disprove but try to prove instead that could be interesting.

    8. @az
      science by definition tries to explain the natural world using natural phenomena. god is by definition supernatural and therefore outside the scope of science. science cannot prove or disprove god. god has no place in science.

    9. @azilda

      That was a spell check typo lol. Substitute done for don't and it reads better. I am not afraid that they would find god. Or that they would not. I just feel that it is the quest that enlightens us and not the answer in the matter of god or faith.

    10. Do you realize what you are doing here? You are asking for civility and asking not to be treated as a monolithic and homogenous group, and then a few sentences later you do exactly that by saying "religious types." I'll gladly offer the respect you are requesting and would only ask for the same in return. Fair?

    11. thought i was being respectful. by "religious types" i didn't single out a certain faith or denomination. no disrespect was intended. i never used slang or attacked religion itself.

  27. @StillRV, @brianbga, @SaintNarcissus,

    It is clear that both science and religion can be abused and misused when fall in hands capable of committing such things. Also it's true that they have their own merits.

    However the main point is that science and religion are incomparable. The first one is a tool and the second one is dogma.

    The tool is creative, ever changing, upgrading, reinventing itself etc. It can bring harmony or horror. Depends on how you use it. If a man is clever enough, he can do miracles with it. If not, the self-distraction waits around the corner.

    The dogma is static, never changing, non creative, indoctrination. It is a system created for mass control from the bronze age. It's an inevitable part of the "social evolution" of the man if you will. You can discard the OT and use the NT exclusively, but you also have to acknowledge that Christ is a son of a God who called upon wars, murder, slavery etc. No mater how lovely seem to be the messages of Christ, he always refers to his father.

    The phenomenon is called "cherry picking". I'll choose which messages I like from the Bible and I'll use them. The "bad ones" I'll ignore and if asked about them I'll defend my self that those were written long time ago and are not applicable today. That is simply not OK.

    The problem arises when the tool (science) with its experiments, observations, mathematics etc., done by thousands of people throughout the last 200 years, confronts the religion. When science says that we were not made by some "creator", but we are just a product of evolution, as every living being on this planet, then the religious people become fundamentalist. They will defend their God with every means possible.

    The proof is here on this site. On every single scientific documentary there are vigorous religious "fundamentalist" people, commenting about hell, heaven, creator, etc. It is the the same thing from the bronze age, all over again. The same display of behavior you're trying to cover up.

    The last thing is that no matter to which religion you belong, you create division. You belong to a creed which thinks that knows the truth and in that sense thinks is somewhat better than the rest. As I've already said, religions, nations, borders are all creating division among human beings.

    1. @Vlatko, firstly I agree with you that religion and science are not comparable, but I would add that neither are they incompatible or mutually exclusive.

      Secondly, you have severely oversimplified religion. To simply equate religion with dogma is inaccurate and misleading. For me, religion is an experiental practice that derives from a...wait for it....evolving tradition! I don't mind being accused of cherry-picking, but what on earth gives you authority to declare it "not ok?" You Vlatko are part of a tradition too, whatever that might be. As humans we are part of some traditions we cannot choose and some we can. And in between we have to make choices about what to leave behind and what is beneficial. I am not going to wade into the theology of God the Father and the old testament unless you are a theology scholar. I find it insulting to have presumptuous folks on here constantly informing me of the weak standing I have in my own faith or my own tradition. Unless you know more than a broad overview, and have truly studied, I am going to assume that conversation would be a fruitless one, not least because you clearly do not have an open mind. I am quite open to being challenged, but I'd like to be challenged for what I say and do, not for what someone perceives about a broad an heterogenous organism such as Christianity.

      The proof on this site? The discussions prove that there are looneys and religious fundamentalists out there, and also that there are intolerant atheists as well who are incapable of having a two way dialogue in which each party remains open to the idea that once in a while they may be wrong, and that to discover that error and refine one's position, despite the unpleasantness of feeling humbled, is a good thing for personal growth.

      Finally, your assertions "You belong to a creed which thinks that knows the truth and in that sense thinks is somewhat better than the rest" Really, do you know what my creed is? Do you really presume you are so wise and learned that you can boil down THE creed of global Christianity (hint there isn't one) and therefore impugn it?

      ....If you were to open yourself enough to someone else's view, you would discover that for some of us we feel it is part of our moral imperative, derived from our spiritual practice and belief, to remove any and all such divisions. You would discover that in my life, day to day, this is borne out. From where you sit, do you seek to remove the divisions you deplore by writing comments about them online? Or do you also seek to open yourself to others with humility, to seek to understand other perspectives - even religious ones - for the mere sake of understanding? This would do far more toward the goal of removing harmful divisions than attacking in broad blanket fashion any and all religions.

    2. @Vlatko; I disagree on many points of your comment here and would just like to present my reasoning for doing so. As always no offense intended as I have much respect for you.
      Separation of Science and religion into tool and dogma respectively. It is my belief that both are equally capable of manifesting themselves in either role. One cannot deny that religion has been and continues to this day to be used as a tool. In the case of many organized faiths the generation of money, power and influence are the result of the implementation of aspects of faith as tools. Conversely science can be dogmatic. Much of science is in theorizing (not unlike a form of philosophy). It is true that the goal is to eventually prove out ones theory for most scientific branches, however many accepted theories hold much sway without having been proven. Theory withing quantum physics and the study of the universe are not proven and some may never be proven. For instance the multi-dimensional theories such as string. The existence of subatomic particles we have never seen nor measured. Etc Etc. I am not arguing their validity here I love those new ever reaching ideas.
      I am just saying that without that proof it is just theory which is sciences equivalent to dogma.
      One could easily argue that religion, or should I say faith, was never intended to be a static creation but to evolve and mature and better its self much in the same way as science. The only people who devoutly say religion must be stagnant and unwavering are the very zealot and extremist that destroy the faith and use it as a tool. Why should their interpretation be the one we put up as the truth? Many Eastern religions state matter of factly that the truth is unknowable, and that it is mans duty to himself to always look to refine themselves and to evolve spiritually. And in the cases of Christianity, Hebrew, and Islam the fact is that none of their holey books were created as static. Quite the contrary they are collections of book by different "prophets" ever evolving and changing the overall text. . Right up until they were politicized and warped into the tool you see today.
      As to the cherry picking; Again it is only the zealots who would agree with you that religion and all of its writings are essential to the faith. Science is not different. At times a theory gains popularity and dominates, it is accepted by science as valid. Then later it is dissolved and debunked as the understanding of its practitioners evolve and grow. For example Phrenology, Alchemy, and many many others. What you call cherry picking is religions way of saying "we were young and knew little, The world is not flat." If you held anything to those strict regulations that all that is written or said is law everything including science would be irredeemably flawed.
      The early Greeks are widely held as the fathers of modern science. They too were philosophers.
      In summation Science is at its roots an applied philosophical modality, wherein on seeks to resolve questions through thought and study. Religion is a science of the consciousness wherein the individual seeks to better know himself through thought and study.
      You depict religion as an unmoving stone, which is the same way the perverting religious zealots view it. I view religion as a stone that can and should be chiseled and sanded and shaped until it becomes ones personal master piece, the realization of ones self. Those zealots have and continue to put down such ideas as mine. After all one can not steer the herd with wind they must use an iron rod. My thoughts as well as the core principals beneath most faiths is more like the wind. Ever present ever changing and experienced by each man in his own unique way.

    3. "Religion is a science of the consciousness wherein the individual seeks to better know himself through thought and study." What a load of crap, Religion masks our ability to know our true selves. What is fact is that religion has killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone. I view religion as an outdated social building construct which has gone terribly wrong. Science has a future, religion has no place at the table - that's not closed minded, that is fact, religion kills

    4. many phrases hit the mark on my bull's eye.

    5. Ahh @StillRV, what can I say.

      The example of tool and dogma was to illustrate the following:

      1. Science can make you a computer and can connect you to an Internet. (Using them you can tell online to people how science can be sometimes dogmatic).

      2. Religion can't make you anything, physically at least. It can just give you set of rules which you have to obey if you want to go to heaven. If not you'll burn in hell.

      That is why I think they're incomparable.

    6. In that regard you are absolutely correct. Our dialogue here would have probably been more pats on the back and nods of agreement in person. Science is physical and substantive. Religion is philosophical and ethereal. In those regards they are not alike in any way. My contention is only that while we continue to scientifically delve into the tangible questions in our lives can we not also philosophically delve into the intangible mysteries as well?

    7. correction, the Islamic holy book is not a collection of books.

    8. @ Human9000
      "...the Islamic holy book is not a collection of books."

      You are absolutely correct.
      It's the recorded ravings of a madman.


    9. @Human9000
      Does not the Islamic text also contain the words of the early prophets such as Moses, Abraham etc? If so it most certainly is a collection of texts. Even if your assertion is that it was written in it's entirety by one author it is still a compilation study that should have citations to external sources.
      Also when referring to a number of subjects at once the plural form is the accepted one.

    10. @Vlatko In regards to your statements about the inherent divisions caused by religion among other sources. You are quite correct however when or where has there ever not been division between men? Men are individuals and will always with or without those divicive structures disagree and subsequently divide themselves. If you have a specific type of music you like you will spend time with people who like the same. All personal preferences will naturally lead to division between people. There is no nor could there be one unified world of man without the absolute control and subjugation of opposition by one ideal.

    11. There is a way to justify everything. Isn't it @StillRV. Classic straw men argument.

      Two people fond of different music can and will stay together. Do you ever see two large organizations of musicians antagonistically opposed to each other? Or two universities bombing each others buildings? Or two poets fighting to death over their poems?

      Personal preferences are fine as long as you don't impose them over the others by deceptive or aggressive means. Every man is a different. Every man is a whole new world.

      However religion sects are creating antagonism, hate, intolerance, which was proven over the ages, and it's still happening. Keep in mind I'm not speaking about you, or anyone else here personally.

    12. I absolutely agree with you @Vlatko

      . I was not attempting to make a straw man to refute you there. Sorry for coming off that way. I fully agree that religion in its current organized states for many people is and has been a tool of division and dominance. I don't pretend to stick up for those types of actions and hate that some of my statements may be construed to that effect. My intent is to validate faith and the core, untainted, philosophies of many religions. To show that it was not the seed that blocked out the sun but the massive tree it has become. I thank you for your civility in this discussion and more likely than not our beliefs are probably quite similar.

    13. I guess that a more accurate way to say what I meant is. It is my belief that it exists within the nature of man a desire to divide from the pack. As you said Every man is a whole new world. And to add to that every man wants to believe that their own little world is not a bunch of BS. That they are more. By finding like minded people they validate themselves and gain a small fraction of that reassurance they seek. On the opposite side of that coin, they draw away from those who disagree as those people cause self doubt.. I believe that if religion did not exist in any form, nor race, nor nationalism, nor political affiliation. Man would find something to continue to do the same thing. Maybe we would be more like wolves and fight over the smell of each others backsides.

  28. “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg.

    discuss! lol

    1. I have also seen religion facilitate a change in people whereby formerly evil people doing evil things, become full of a loving desire to become good and do good things. Is religion required for either the change you refer to or the one I refer to? Maybe. Maybe not. But both are true.

  29. This is in reply to Ozyxcba1 (since I don't seem to be able to reply at his comment):

    I didn't state that the "straight" pedophilia didn't occur, it CERTAINLY DID, but you might have misunderstood my comment.
    It was a reply to Mr.Vitanovi?'s emphasis on the 'other' case and I get his point, because, for some reason, it was more expressed (at least what we know of). It is hard to even argue the crimes of the Catholic Church, since they still keep a big part of them in secrecy. After all, this is what the documentary is about, their centuries-old secrets!

  30. @ StillRV: Good points all.

    The life of James Watson (of the structure of DNA fame) and Edward Teller are also excellent examples of men of science who were unethical or at least had unethical ideas. For Watson, it was eugenics and for Teller it was his ferver for the advancement and use of atomic weapons. Say what you will, but they used science as a prop for their ideas. Does that mean that science is bad? No, of course not. It's what you do with it that counts. The same holds for religion.

    I think it's interesting that some here have difficulty separating the actions of people versus basic philosophical principles. It's one thing to say, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth" and adopting that in your daily life, but persecuting or killing those who disagree with you. By the same cloth, it is an ethical contradiction for a scientist to say he/she is pursuing science for the advancement of humankind, and then he/she champions or studies a cause that is detrimental or lethal to all life (i.e. atomic weapons). People of good faith don't go out bashing people over the head because they're not this or that religion. Likewise, scientists with a conscience don't go around plotting how to purify the human species or eventing weapons of mass destruction. But, they're out there on both sides of that great divide that exists between reason and faith.

    Albert Einstein said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

    1. I almost mentioned Watson! He has made some frightening statements about minorities (primarily of African descent) But should we abolish the study of genetics because of that or any of the people who apply the science as some rational toward eugenics? No never. Religion is no different. Many good things have been done and are done daily by religious people of all faiths.

    2. Einstein believed that during the course of his long and illustrious career he had made one big "blunder" when, in fact, he made TWO:

      1. Einstein thought it would be wrong to add a cosmological constant to his equations when we now know that his assessment was almost certainly wrong.

      2. Then subsequent to having added it, after all, Einstein incorrectly labeled his decision the "biggest blunder" of his career, when in fact it may prove to have been his greatest triumph.

      In any case, Einstein couldn't have been right on both counts.

      If the greatest physicist of the Twentieth Century can make such errors of judgment concerning critical matters within his very own discipline of expertise, then maybe he might also have made errors of judgment in other areas wherein he had no expertise, at all.

      Einstein's statement about the relationship between science and religion was either metaphorical(and is probably frequently taken out of context), or Einstein was flat out WRONG.

      Science without religion, far from being "lame," is, by definition, the only kind of science there is. Imagine going to a synagogue for revelation on the Higgs boson!

      And religion is "blind" even with science(imagine a creationist consulting Richard Dawkins on evolution!).

  31. So many posters on here condemning all religion based on incidents like this. Many saying "All religions are bad" and "many religious groups still doing these things today". Really? The only religious groups I can think of doing anything closely resembling this, in todays world, are the Muslim jihadis and the Zionists. Are those the groups you are referring to? If so where is your spunk to confront them? To actively protest or even fight against their actions? You say that the contemporary Christians during the inquisition were either complicit or cowards for not speaking out. Well why are you not outside of some hate spewing imams mosque or some Zionists real estate office screaming and raging? Just maybe those Christians who lived at that time were afraid to have their families murdered by that corrupt regime? Perhaps you judge those Christians too harshly or perhaps you are full of piss and wind. Are you prepared to make such bold hate filled rants in the face of the active religious zealot oppressors? No? I didn't think so. Just more immature bigoted whining about a soft target long in the past, while the world burns around you in the face of contemporary REAL threats.
    Honestly for all the respect I have for many of you and your intelligence, I could simply take old episodes of All In The Family edit out every time Archie says a derogatory term and sub in "Religees", and I would end up with a random comment generator to match these threads verbatim.

    1. my concern is that belief in spiritual and superstitious claims make THIS kind of behaviour not only likely but ACCEPTABLE.

      its not the religion in particular but the nature of the adherents who are told to accept all claims on face value and any doubt will lead to punishment.

      and why do you think that the same people here dont make these accusations about the religions in the world that are doing this today? of course they do. hell just go look at youtube and all the videos made about israel and muslims.

      (i do agree with you though, the term religees is kind of immature and unnecessary)

      and the all in the family line made me lulz. that was a win.

    2. TY Epic, And know my words were not really directed toward you. Nor you Vlatko. You guys have your beliefs, or lack there of, and I respect them and your right to them. As I said below, what you say is true. Many religious texts can be used to make this type of behavior acceptable by warped standards. My point is that so obviously can the writings of Marx, or of Jefferson, or Neitche. And even L Ron. Politics and religion are not so far afield. Both are ideas often inspired by well meaning authors, that can be twisted and mutated by malevolent men to suit them as tools. Even Darwins work was sited by the Nazis to justify ethic cleansing. Shall we purge the world of all words that can inspire passion? Truly evil can come from any such work, religious or secular in nature. And yet good can also come of it. It is for us to guide not to abolish.

      As to my comments on speaking up. In the context of some of the below comments about the Christians not stopping the inquisition. I have little doubt that many did speak out in the safety of their homes or a local pub etc. The safe equivalent to the you tube comment threads only with fewer trolls. The implication is in the STOP the inquisition. Those youtubers are hardly stopping jihad.

    3. TY again. Not sure if we may have crossed paths elsewhere. Maybe but then I am not vain enough to believe my points are mine alone or some wiled personal epiphany. I don't know what Torqamatas history was prior to his ascension as Master inquisitor. But in all of the European countries the younger sons of the royals and the other ruling class were typically sent into the church to become priests and later bishops etc. I Can't absolutely say that the church was innocent nor would I. Just that in those times the head of the church was often the brother of the king etc. That commingling of power could easily lend its self to corruption in many forms. The history of politics and religion is a hard one to disentangle from the earliest days of Pharonic god kings to modern Shria laws. Some may feel that it is religion that perverts politics but the opposite is just as likely. Power corrupts. I have read religious texts and while it is true that the OT is quite stark and cruel the NT is not. And since the earliest Christians were mostly gentile converts with little to no Old T influence I do believe that the core beliefs of that pre-Roman church were quite good and well intentioned. Then because it became so popular you have Roman emperors adopting and twisting it followed by Europeans using and further twisting. Heck Voodoo is a Christian evolution. Each man of power and each society has twisted and mutated the text to suit their own goals. But is that the faith or the man. I say it is the man.

    4. Well then, I suppose that you were directing your comments to me.
      I do not class the inquisition as an incident, it was an act of abject terror for its time.

      I can't really blame the people of the bronze ages in thinking that there was no other alternatives but their bronze age myths, they just did not know any better.

      That does not present any excuses for the continuing beliefs for the bronze age myths though, now religee's should know better! Period!
      How does that sound like your Archie Bunker??

      You say that most "religee's" only worship the NT. That the OT is disregarded. How can someone only worship part of a whole? and make it an encompassing religion?

      I realize that you live in "Christian America" and maybe the term "religee" offends you, to me just a word, if it makes you feel any better, you can call me an "Evil-utionist"!! kind of like it anyway.

    5. Achems; You just rage. That is all you do. Every statement is tainted by your dislike and thus it becomes illogical. So very similar to the bile spewed by the likes of Torquemada (I looked up the spelling). And Archie Bunker. Archie quote "sticks and stones may break my bones but you are one dumb pollack" Achems quote just sub in religee for pollack. I don't live in Christian America, I live in New York with my Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan, agnostic, and atheist friends. Yes I have friends in all of those and more and respect them all equally. I personally believe in the wisdom of ancient as well as modern philosophies, and see it as absolutely acceptable to exclude the chaff from the grain as it were.
      Quite flatly you are not acting as some champion of modern thought, fighting the good fight against religious oppression. You more and more come of as a petulant and immature pseudo-revolutionary. I expect as much from college freshmen eager to "fight the man" but not from true thinkers. As I said before. If you want to actually fight religious oppression in a real and active form, catch a flight to Saudi and ban the burqa. Or go camp in the path of one of the Zionist division walls. You are simply railing against a soft target that doesn't fight back.
      Ask your everyday Christian what they believe from their faith and you will get "love thy neighbor" "cast not the first stone" or something of that ilk. If you find one in 100,000 who say "suffer not a witch to live" without actively seeking that one I would be patently amazed.
      I don't know what some "religious" person or persons did to you personally to inspire your errant crusade but it shows in your every word on these threads. Perhaps it would be more productive for you to confront the individuals rather than the tool they used. If someone swings a knife at me I don't punch the knife I punch the man swinging it.
      On a side note thank you for all of you posts about science and quantum theory etc. You are a bright fellow under all that angst.

    6. Also just a side note about me. You can hardly say that I am some church fanatic Christian. I'll have you know that it was the intent of my family to raise me Christian as that is their preferred belief system. However they gave up that cause when in the third grade I refused to donate my quarter I had brought to buy a chocolate milk at lunch to charity. When I was asked by the principal of the Catholic school I was attending why I refused I said. Why doesn't the pope sell a Michelangelo or melt down a golden pillar and feed them all for a year. I later gave my quarter because the priest/principal bought me a chocolate milk. That was the last year I attended a parochial school and my family never insisted on my following their faith afterward. They are just proud that I live by morals and codes inspired by kindness and decency.

    7. @StillRV:

      WOW! I rage you say? your verbage does not sound very calm to me. I do not have any "angst" am always calm.

      You "DO" live in Christian America, that is the predominate religion. You ask what some religious person did to me? no religious person did anything. I do not dislike religious people, as long as they keep their religion to themselves, or even as some religious people I do converse and argue with, but I still like and have respect for them.

      I still say in general all religion ever did, and all religion will ever do is cause strife and discontent, wars, mass genocide and the subjugation of the masses.

      If there was no religion, think where the human race may be by now, instead the religions held the world back by their strive for absolute power.

      All religion is, is a waste of time, resources and money!

      It seems to me that under all that brovado in your speech there lurks maybe an inkling of religious fervour, Yes? If so, why not come clean?

    8. Because there is none. As I have said I have no religious faith in any organized way. I don't believe in an all knowing god or in heaven and hell. My verbiage is in text form and therefore has no sound calm or otherwise. So believe me all I have written here has been written while lounging placidly in my favorite chair watching old episodes of Dr. Who and hearing the soft chirps of the peeper frogs coming out for some spring time lovin. Pretty mellow scene here. I garner my opinion as to your angst and rage from the simple and easily referenced fact, that in the comment section for every doc on this site with any religious context whatsoever, one can find an off base vehement dismissal of all faiths, written by you within the first page of replies. More often than not occurring without context to any statements made by anyone else or even the film in question. It is an immediate and visceral response that you have to attack religion at every turn. Feel free to go back and have a look for yourself. As I said no hard feelings on my part. I have nothing to protect or to loose here. I just tend to call a duck a duck when it is quacking on every page. I do respect you and you intellect, especially in regards to the more modern sciences and theories. But on this score you really do cut down your own image with the endless abuse you heap onto people who don't agree with you. Anyway I have work in the AM and 20 minutes left in the TARDIS because that spunky little blond Britt is quite engrossing in some unorthodox way. Good night sir.

    9. Achem, in previous discussions I have found you to eventually - after many requests for civility and more sound reasoning - to be a person capable of such virtues. You may not be guilty of being a random Archie Bunker comment generator, but you do have a nack for sounding like a random comment generator of another kind. You post the same needling arguments. I'm not going to revisit them all, as we are still the same people we were a few months ago when we had long conversations. I find it a bit disappointing that within the confines of a protracted discussion you are capable of seasoning your vitriol with a bit of broader understanding, a willingness to accept that the accusations and condescension you sling may not be quite so universally applicable...and that later you simply press the reset button and jump in with the same rhetoric in hopes of ensaring an intellectually easy target.

      I don't live in Christian America and I don't believe in biblical literalism or that evolution is evil or untrue. And I am a religee. I don't take offense, but I do find your small-mindedness disappointing. Based on previous conversations, you are smarter than that.

    10. In reply to @SaintNarcissus:

      Actually do not really care what any "religee's" or for that matter people that might be a little fearful of the wrath of any invisible gods, (pascals wager) think of me. There are some religious people on some threads, that presented a polite response and believe it or not I replied in the same.

      Yes, probably sound repetitious in my arguments, suppose it is because the bibles told me so circular logic from the religee's is repetitious, nothing new at all, same old, same old from their mostly quote mining!

      But you are right in a way, am getting tired, bored, to refute any more ridiculous religious beliefs from the "religee's" does not represent any challenge anymore!!

      So, will probably? only "attack" them if they have enough nerve to appear on the "science Docs". Spouting their nonsense!!

    11. You will find religious people in ALL documentaries including the science ones, religious people are also interested in hearing what science has to say about the cosmos and other fields of discovery, i agree many put all their eggs in Jesus's basket but what is that to you.
      Most people seem to say that they appreciate your knowledge and opinions about science, i know i am part of them.
      Your have a much better impact on this site when you jump in with your wit and many of us benefit from such writings, but frankly your arpoon on religion is getting dull.
      My suggestion is instead of preparing yourself to attack with a sharpened one, play an unexpected trick, let it slide, even your ride will be more fun!

    12. Reading your comment directed to me, I'm not sure how it really interacts or replies in any way to what I was saying. In any case, I still find it disappointing that you espouse ignorance in referring to "religees" but not acknowledging that the things which you think are so foolish represent really only a certain portion of religious people. The several insults you laced into your last comment for example do not apply to me though I am religious. For example...fear plays no role in my spirituality.

      So, while the people you refer to may not present a challenge to you anymore, and while you may call those people "religees" there are plenty of us who are capable of challenging you plenty who are in fact religious.

    13. In reply to @SaintNarcissus:

      Really? you say..."there are plenty of us who are capable of challenging you plenty who are in fact religious"...I say, go ahead, knock yourself out!

  32. "For over half a millennium a system of mass terror reigned. Thousands were subject to secret courts, torture and punishment."

    so we are experiencing the inquisition now. the inbreds do like to make movies about their activities.

    1. Hi, Peggy!

      I do not understand:
      "the inbreds do like to make movies about their activities."

      However, I think I do understand your statement:
      "so we are experiencing the inquisition now."

      If I read you correctly, it has the ring of truth here in the United states:
      legal torture;
      search-&-seizure(without a warrant);
      being held(indefinitely) without being charged of any crime;
      being held(indefinitely) with no right to an attorney;
      secret trials;...
      and all this, and more(MUCH more) being authorized, either directly, or indirectly, by secret executive order(Papal bull?).

      In the United States, more citizens than in any other country on earth will spend a portion of their life in some lock-down facility(sometimes, for 'crimes' no more serious than smoking a joint), with such injustice only compounded by LIFE-LONG injunctions against ever voting or holding public office or ever serving on a jury...

      Today's America harbors an ethos of 'Inquisition' which is:

      "inhuman...dull and curiously technocratic."
      (from Marat-Sade, by Peter Weiss)

  33. Yes, it does make the religious institutions bad by default, since it says in 19 different bibles, will use KG version..."thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live"... nowadays they are called Wiccans"

  34. The church was hijacked from sincere men of faith by ruthless men looking for money and power. This happens in all institutions. Government, business, the military, charities and any other group that you could name. It doesn't make the institution bad, just those who try to exploit them.

    1. That was my sentiment exactly in my earlier post. Many of the anti religious people are very pro-science, And yet they do not feel that the acts of Mengela or any of the others who tortured murdered and maimed in the name of science cast a similarity. It is not worth arguing with them. All they know is hate and bigotry, making their rants on these matters the peak of hypocrisy.

    2. OK @StillRV,

      You're making one big misinterpretation here. It is very unlikely that Mengele tortured murdered and maimed in the name of science. He was not torturing people because they didn't "believe" in science. He was performing inhuman experiments on humans, because of a very weird racist and nationalistic reasons. That's it. Science was misused as a tool, not as a reason.

      On the other hand, during the inquisition, the religion (dogma) was the reason for the mass killing, torture, etc. As @Achems pointed out, you have a book that on some occasions calls for terror, murder, slavery, torture etc, and those passages are just waiting to be abused. They were many times so far, they still are and they will be.

    3. @Vlatko; In a sense you are correct, however it is all based on perspective. It was Mengeles belief in his cause that guided him just as it was Tokamatas belief in his own. (pardon spelling of T. don't feel like looking it up). Here in the states we had people such as Willowbrook who similarly use the banner of "furthering scientific knowledge" to pardon his inhuman actions. I am not trying to defend the inquisition. It was a travesty and cannot be defended. I am only pointing out that religion in the hands of bad men is a tool just as is science or any powerful knowledge or belief. We can only assume that the persecutors in the inquisition were religious zealots. We can not say that if fact beyond question. Both the Spanish royalty as well as the corrupt church figure heads benefited financially from the inquisition. Many of those tried were wealthy merchants (a lot of them Jews) and their assets were turned over to the church and the crown. So faith as a motive was not exclusive. I also think that there is some convoluted writing in the OT as well as other esoteric texts. The modern day Christian take very little from the OT and base their faith upon the NT almost exclusively. And few can argue that the "words of Christ" can be interpreted as anything but peaceful and positive. I am not a religious person, yet I see it for what it is to most. A faith that gives them solace in a turbulent world. You may find your reassurance in science, some others in faith, even others in dieting or exercise. For example if you knew someone who took daily a placebo, which through the workings of their own mind, gave then a sense of peace and tranquility, enabling them to cope in the world. Would you so vehemently slap that pill from their hand? I too would take arms if necessary to prevent a religious zealot from harming someone I know (or anyone in my immediate area for that matter). But for the vast majority of the faithful of all religions it is just that little sugar pill that makes the foul taste of the world go down easier. And at the end of the day what harm is it doing to you?

      Vlatko if I take one thing from all that you have written on here, along with the simple fact that you choose to create and maintain a site with this purpose, it is that you are a thinking man. One who thirsts for knowledge and experience and understanding. Truly you can see past the rage at what has been done by the few before condemning the whole. Believe or don't believe. That is your right and your privilege.

    4. @StillRV and Vlatko

      Thanks RV for your sober reasoning amid the, shall we say, less than careful arguments and reasoning on TDF.

      @Vlatko, your statement about passages in the Bible waiting to be misused is true. However, the thing that you an Achem's and others continually refuse to acknowledge or are ignorant of (though this isn't entirely true because I have mentioned in numerous times) is that while there are fundamentalists and they are a noisy bunch, as StillRV mentioned there are many of us who do not see the Bible as a literal book or even as the center of our faith tradition. Many many Christians today look at the Old Testament as an important document that is part of our history, and indeed includes beautiful poetry and rich worthwhile insight about God and human beings. However, many of us stop there and find it perfectly acceptable to allow for the temporal context and use sound reason and common sense to leave the violent suggestions where they are - in the past - and to center our traditions and mandates on Christ's core teachings. When asked what is most important for the faithful by someone versed in all the violent minutia of the Old Testament Jesus essentially says to love God and love other people so much that put their needs and lives above your own...all other people. He then says all the law and prophets hang on this. I stress again, that while the fundamentalists may be the noisy ones and the rest of us are certainly irritated by this disservice (as I'm sure tolerant and open-minded atheists are irritated by Achem's and others' disservice), many of us believe that this is the adjudicator of OT material. If love and respect and esteem for every other human being seems to be transgressed by a random OT passage, then set it aside...go back to love your neighbor.

      So yes, there are passages in scripture that if followed can and have led to violence, but to assume that Christians in general are likely to move in a direction of obsession with a bronze age historical document is incorrect. And irritating. You are free to believe what you like, with all of your vitriol toward anyone religious intact, but it does not make it any more accurate an understanding of the real world we share.

    5. @ SaintNarcissus

      Not all slave owners were bad guys.
      Thomas Jefferson was not a bad guy.
      Some slaves even loved their masters.

      The institution of slavery WAS horrific!

      Not all Jew are bad guys.
      Not all Christians are bad guys.
      Not all Muslims are bad guys

      The Abrahamic scriptures ARE horrific!

    6. By whom "the church was hijacked" is of no concern to me as I fail to discern one spot of difference between "ruthless men looking for money and power" and your, so-called, "sincere men of faith."

      It almost sounds as though you are trying to defend 'faith'.

      Are you?

    7. Do you not have faith in the things that you believe in? Or are you so anti religious that you believe that there could never be someone of religious faith that is well intentioned and sincere? That is the essence of bigotry. Oh, I,m an atheist. Don't hate me for it.

    8. @ Jack1952

      Things I believe require no faith.

      While I do not reject being labeled "anti religious," I think ant-religion would be much more to the point(anti-religions would be even more accurate!).

      The way you slap onto me the brand name "anti religious"(instead of ant-religions) is quite slippery of you, literally: you slip from 'anti-religious' directly to me opposing sincere, well-meaning people. And from there it's a fun slide to accusations of bigotry.

      That's not fair, Jack, and you know it.

      Whether you are right, or wrong, is not the point. This concerns the manner in which you express your views: equivocal, dishonest, illogical, sarcastic, and sneaky. One would hope such behavior would be unworthy of you(apparently not).

      I hate all religions(no exceptions), but that does necessarily mean that I hate their flocks of sheep, or even some of their pastors(excluding, of course, Fred Phelps).

      Look, Jack, hating religions does not automatically translate into hating their victims. And, yes, of course I believe those of faith to be not wholly incapable of harboring sincerely well-meant intentions. I hasten to add, however, that sincerely well-meant intentions are not necessarily good intentions:

      Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 4,000 lesbians and gays have been executed by people of religious faith who hold sincerely well-meant intentions, namely, fulfilling the will of Allah. What could be more sincerely well-meant than that!?

      Methods of execution include: beheading; chopping in two; stoning to death; burning alive; and being thrown alive from a high building.*[see below]*

      How could otherwise good, normal people do such things TODAY?
      Simple: Allah tells them to.

      How do they know this?
      Simple: The Qur'an tells them so.

      How do they know the Holy Qur'an is the word of Allah?
      Simple: FAITH!

      Good people do good things.
      Bad people do bad things.
      But only religion can make good people do bad things.

      This is why my last post to you concluded with the words:
      "It almost sounds as though you are trying to defend 'faith'."

      Well, are you?

      "Oh, I,m an atheist."
      Are you being sarcastic, or are you actually, literally, an atheist, like me?

      "Don't hate me for it."
      Again, are you characterizing yourself, or is this a follow-up satire of me?

      Jack, it really doesn't matter.

      If you mean to imply that I go around tugging at people's heartstrings not to hate me because I am an atheist, then you mean to imply something that is simply not true. I am too proud for that and, anyhow, I live in San Francisco.

      On the other hand, if you are actually, really, and truly, referring to yourself, then you ain't got nuttin' to worry 'bout cuz I can't hate people I don't even know.

      [Public figures form a special case. While I know no public figure personally, I do know each public figure's projected persona, and the deeds associated with those personæ(that's how I know enough to hate Fred Phelps)!]

      *[about links]*
      If I include the link to document my claim, you won't see this post for several days. So I'm going to post the kink for you in a post immediately to following this. You won't see it right away, but keep checking. If you never see it, it will be because it has been deleted by the moderator due to the controversial nature of the subject(mustn't upset Muslims' FAITH).

      Meanwhile, you can Google 'Persecution of Homosexuals' under 'wikiislam' and or do research of your own.

  35. Of the approximately 125,000 cases tried by the Spanish Inquisition, 1 percent resulted in the death penalty.
    Of the so-called witch hunts, secular courts executed 50,000 (not all of whom were women); less than 100 were killed by the Inquisition.
    Solzhenitsyn once compared the killings that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937 and 1938 to the killings that took place during the Spanish Inquisition and found that 20,000 were killed per month in the U.S.S.R. and 10 were killed per month during the Inquisition.

    1. I would be interested to know where you got your figures fron Dan. You seem to be claiming that only 1250 people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition.

    2. @Dan L Kennedy,

      And your point is?

      Atheists killed more people than the religious zealots.

      Is this the "Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot" argument again.

    3. IN reality the cases mention are also excellent examples of 'religious' type fervor only for nationalism or political idealism (or God) it is all the same isn't it? (Certainly to the victims. But also in the ability to make 'good men' commit evil acts. It is any fanaticism that puts any ideal or belief in a higher value than that of human suffering that we can call it religious extremism and fanaticism.

    4. 1% of 125,000 is still 1250 people... (actually the number is more like 1.8% which makes 2,250 human beings killed) killed in terrible ways for things that ought not deserve death......the main thing here is WHY they were killed.

      the people who killed them did so BECAUSE they thought it was what GOD wanted. that is terrible.

      the Soviet Union killed people not because atheism instructed them to, but because their political ideals told them to. the comparison you made is pointless and a non-sequitor.

      also IF the inquisition had as many detractors AND the technology to kill the way the USSR did, im pretty sure they would have done it. and done it because they believed god wanted them to.

    5. Epic. All that you say here is or may well have been true except. Just because they said it was in the name of god does not mean they even believed that at all. The wealth and power gained by the Spanish monarchy as well as the corrupt church from the inquisitions was very great indeed. Similarly, at the same time great fortune was being extracted from the indigenous people of the new world for "god gold and country". But really it was just for the gold and country. Remember that at that time in history the church, as it was then was just as much a political arm as were the soviets in Stalinist Russia. You assume it was about faith when really it was about power. The high priests of the inquisition were honored members of the royal court as were the conquistadors. It was a tool. A perfect tool to absolve themselves of their greed and avarice as well as to control the masses. But the priests are not the faith, nor is the church. The believers, the frightened and cowed masses are the faith. You pity them their suffering in one line and condemn them in the next. Just read and know the time period Religion became an arm of the government as far back as ancient Rome and was very much active in the politics of Spain in this time. Not preachers of peace and spiritualism. But power crazed toadies of the monarchies.

    6. @sStillRV

      first off, do i know you from another forum? CC?

      now i must concede that you have a great point, it is very possible that they never believed it was actually for or from god and could be motivated by many other factors. however their ability to justify their actions USING verses from the bible leads me to believe they actually did think it was ordained from their god.

      but of course i could be wrong and there is no way of knowing their true opinions.

    7. Your implication that exaggerated claims have been made, concerning the indisputable suffering and death which occurred as a direct result of religion's Spanish Inquisition, is without merit.

      Your implication that a standard has been created, specifically, to single out, and to judge, atrocities perpetrated by religion's Spanish Inquisition, is without merit.

      Your implication that religion's Spanish Inquisition has been otherwise unfairly judged, by a standard mute on atrocities perpetrated before, and since, is without merit.

      But pretend you are right.

      Are you hitting us with the tasteless joke that Religion ain't all that bad?

      Exactly, Sir, what are you failing to say?

  36. Re-watched doc. Waiting for the religious apologetics to say that's not what was meant! even though the atrocities committed in the name of religion is staring them in the face!

    1. You didn't have to wait long.

  37. This is too heartbreaking to even watch for very long. I'm quite sure they would have burned me at the stake too. Truly a shameful period of "Christian" history. Well-done documentary however.

  38. after the persecution under the roman empire , there is no more apostles to guide the church . the catholic church is nothing more than a superstitious , pagan religon lead by people who cant even read.

    1. Mr. Ho, God has always had at least some people that loved Him and remained uncompromised in all ages. And what does literacy have to do with anything? Love of God is a matter of the heart.

    2. too bad the some people did not speak up against the evil of their time. and if those people can read they would have put off those superstition and truely follow the bible. The christian blood they shed is still crying out.

    3. Wow! That was a good reply. I agree. Rarely do I have nothing to add to someone's reply. Well done.

  39. I don't normally write long comments cause i'm sure noone reads them. but here goes.

    How come the devil always turns out to be right in the end? dissecting bodies is evil, yet its how we understand and make modern medicine, heliocentric view of the solar system is evil, yet right. condoms are evil, looking into the origin of the universe through physics is evil.
    but the works of god are always acts of bastardry, burning people, arguing over pointless theology as though it actually mattered, papal authority, celibacy, etc.
    it seems whenever there is step forward in humanity there's always some idiot with an opinion, and his opinion is so terrible that rather than claim responsibility for it himself he makes it gods opinion, a kind of depersonalisation of himself which allows him to act like a complete a$$hole and still feel good inside.

    when they find a cure for cancer, or discover how to do interstellar space flight you can rest assured it will be evil.

    1. In reply to @OccultAlien:

      @ OccultAlien, I know you don't normally write long comments, but I like reading the ones you do write!

      "How come the devil always turns out to be right in the end?"

      Whenever I think about it, I have to take my blood pressure medication(probably evil, too!), so I'm not going through the list.

      "...when they find a cure for can rest assured it will be evil."

      And that ain't the half of it!
      Just wait till they find a cure for RELIGION!
      Watch: Science - #78 God on the Brain

  40. xtianity is spiritual slavery.

    1. Any religion (or non-religion), including Christianity, if you don't know Christ personally as Lord and Savior is spiritual slavery.

  41. Im so glad im Christian Orthodox. catholics will never understand that the reason why the whole world hates christianity is because of them. And dont even get me started on pope john paul II or all the alter boy rapings.

    1. That's very interesting.

    2. As you said, we should better not even start on their gay pedophilia, or all the political influence they currently have.

      As for the Orthodox Christianity, well, it is true that they didn't have witch-hunts, massive inquisition and so on, but they had their 'moments' too (e.g. expulsion of Manicheans and Bogumils etc). I respect and like the culture expressed in their traditions, holidays, customs, but, myself, I'm an Agnostic and therefore disagree with their believes.

    3. Why do you single out "gay pedophilia," as though the other kind(of which the clergy is also guilty), somehow didn't count?

      Let's rewrite that sentence, okay? Let's write:

      'As you said, we should better not even start on their 'straight', heterosexual, pedophilia,...'

      Sound better?!

    4. I didn't state that the "straight" pedophilia didn't occur, it CERTAINLY DID, but you might have misunderstood my comment.
      It was a reply to Mr.Vitanovi?'s emphasis on the 'other' case and I get his point, because, for some reason, it was more expressed (at least what we know of). It is hard to even argue the crimes of the Catholic Church, since they still keep a big part of them in secrecy. After all, this is what the documentary is about, their centuries-old secrets!

      (Thanks to the mod for whatever he did, now if you would please delete my repeated comment it would be nice, thank you)

    5. @ JustMe___1

      I do appreciate your having clued me in regarding context.
      I am reassured to know that any grief your 'awkwardly worded' sentence may have precipitated(as it did in me) must surely have been wholly unintentional.

      There are hundreds and hundreds of postings here through which people browse in hope of snagging something of interest. When someone sees that, they can have no idea as to context.

      Write what you like, any way you like. I would lay down my life to defend freedom of speech, and that includes yours, AND mine.

      My comment stays as is unless, and until, you might choose to alter yours.

    6. And what do you suggest?My intention was clear - a simple reply to that person, which means that I have to follow the context of his comment.
      But then again, what's the point in arguing linguistics over here? Don't get me wrong, please, but your sentences may seem somewhat incoherent, too.

    7. @ JustMe___1

      "And what do you suggest?"

      'As you said, we should better not even start on all their alter boy rapings,...'

      Your wording in response to Petar's posting is a billboard equating a particular sexual orientation to a particular brand of sexual crime.

      You do not say it.
      You do not mean it.
      And you don't imply it.

      But that's how it looks!

      My comment stays.

    8. @0zyxcba1

      Well, OK, it might be so, but it depends on the way you observe it.
      They don't seem to be 'peaky' about gender, but, the thing is, they allegedly hate homosexuals and other types of 'different' forms of sexuality, yet, they practice these 'forms' themselves.

      Yeah, your comment will stay, one way or another.

    9. @0zyxcba1

      Oh, and just one more thing in regards of "My comment stays as is unless, and until, you might choose to alter yours."

      I never accept any "ultimatum", but I don't want to argue about that with you. We should be on the same "sides" (relative term) here.

    10. @0zyxcba1

      It is, 0zyxcba1, because nobody was addressing to you nor there was any intention to attack or insult anyone directly or indirectly.
      You made a strong-tone comment based upon your (obviously incorrect) personal assumption. You said yourself, 'you didn't mean that, but it seemed.....' (paraphrasing). There is nothing I can do about that, it is a fundamental part of human nature to see what they want to see or what in some ways 'touches' them, one way or another. Therefore, I don't find myself obliged to apologize or rephrase anything.
      As for the video, don't worry about my health, I've dealt with some gross stuff before.

    11. In 325 CE, at the Council of Nicene, Emperor Constantine decreed into existence the first ever, and only, Roman Empire's state religion, proclaimed, thenceforward, and forever, as the 'Holy Roman and Apostolic Catholic Church', in immediate consequence to which arose a spiritual and political tyranny the likes of which the world has yet to see, and the best argument to date advocating separation of church and state(as well as a tantalizing rationale for supplanting, once and for all, religion with education and thereby throwing out the bastard with the bath water!).

  42. Always beware of any who read only one book, or if many, only the "officially approved" books. The story here presented, in the first, second, and third episodes, is heavily slanted to justify what the church has done by saying "that was the acceptable practice at the time." Not only is this a twist of accepted ethics, but a travesty in the history of humankind. The priest Di Noia voices makes several statement to this effect, but in the third episode proclaims an outright lie, stating that because "the church did not feel it could execute anyone, the state felt the responsibilility to do so." The republics within the Italian Pennisula refused, but the monarchies, prevailed upon by the church, feared a Rome-led attack, and so obliged the Vatican.

  43. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and do many mighty works in Your Name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.'" (Matthew 7:15-23 RSV)

    1. @ Ivan Hoe

      Matthew 7:15-23 RSV is not one of my favorites. Still, it did bring back some peasant grade school memories; so, thank you for the cut-'n'-paste.

      Not to change the subject entirely, but many here might wish to know what you think.

    2. Whatever your say dildo. Keep your "holy" fairytales to yourself.

    3. Wow, classy and educated response. I bet the religion detractors are glad to have you to back them up.

    4. @ StillRV :-)

      Your comment about danielmcd3's posting is, of course, well taken(I gave you a 'thumbs up'!).

      I must confess, however, Daniel's post did make me smile. Well, decidedly that! ? His 'remark'(together with your dry response) left me laughing my guts out!

      I am thoroughly ashamed of myself. (lol)

    5. Thank you sir. @Ozycba1. At the very least we can agree on some matters. And a good laugh is one of the best things in this world. I hope that you and Achem will not be personally insulted by my commentary in regards this subject matter. I just feel strongly that broad stroke coments undermine your message and that is what I disagree on. Those who commit these attrocities and the institutions who promote them are the enemy, not the simple parrishioners, believers, political adhearants, or countrymen.

    6. I hold no grudges against anyone on TDF, that I consider childish, if I don't like what someone said, I just tell them so point blank! Probably because of my INTJ personality.

      My point blank response to you is that someone who is a "mensa" member with a 156 IQ should stay on an even keel and not bounce back and forth on his responses, and then always ask to be forgiven for such. And my opinion is anyone who says they have a high IQ and a mensa member should be open to ridicule.

      By the way IQ test does not mean zilch! I never took any IQ test because I hardly went to school, I guess that means I am not bright.

    7. To whom were you replying to? I can't find the link. I've known MENSA members that were boarderline . . . . something. Manic depressent at least. Eyes can't take this cruddy screen any more! Good night.

    8. same here, i see comments in the Recent comments list but can't find them under the doc.
      edit: Ok found it on page 7

    9. can i ask what is INTJ personnality...excuse my french.

      You sure read like a book educated person, it is beautiful to see young intelligent self searching people.

      I got to think, with you wits, we rarely read about them. Don't take me wrong we do...but i would say at least 85% of your involvment here is to debate on religion even in the science doc. I read every word you write when the case is different.
      Quantum sciences are very interesting to me but i don't have your easiness in discussing them.

    10. Why are you replying to me? I don't remember commenting on your profile? Why
      are you thanking me? My message is simple: all religions are superstitions
      and all their leaders are false prophets and conmen. All religions are the
      enemy because they fundamentally propose a celestial totalitarian philosophy
      which enslaves and impedes human enlightenment; a vicious enity who punishes
      all who defy him/it/arse. "simple parrishioners (sic), believers, political
      adhearants (sic), or countrymen" as you put it are as much to blame as they
      support the pillars of religion which in turn, inevitably leads to branches
      of fundamentalism or total fundamentalism. If the ordinary folk turned
      around and said we've had enough of this s***, enough of the hated tribal
      propaganda that religions spout, the base would fall away exposing the upper
      hierarchy for what they are: self-interested power hungry bigots. By the
      way, I could not give a flying f*** what anyone's IQ is or their
      qualifications. Members of Mensa can kiss my a** (a touch of the vernacular
      to ground all you brainy intellectuals)

    11. @Achems; I don't hold my IQ or my enrolement into mensa as credentials. You are correct that neither in and of themselves mean bubkiss. I too had many problems in school, that is why I was tested for IQ along with tests for other learning disabilities. I quite simply was bull headed as well as bored senseless with school. I did not take well to rotely parroting back to my instructors as I often did not agree with them. As to the even keel thing, that is yet another generality by you. Do you predetermine someones entire persona based on unrelated personal attributes at all times? Hey guess what I also suck at chess and I prefer to go camping with some friends and a case of beer to sitting in a stuffy library and discussing the finer points of Dickenzian literary philosophy and quarks. As C_and_N implied. Many people with elevated IQs are far from even keeled. For (Imaginary figurehead from a bronze age fairy tales) sake Einstein was a total cook. When a persons mental synapses are firing like the final throws of a pyrotechnic display put on by a man on meth, Even keel may be the last thing you can expect.
      Yes C_and_N in my late teen to early twenties I hit a bought of depression. I have not suffered any such issues in about ten years now though. Funny how one can actually ballance the little tiny molecules in the brain with healthy diet, lots of outdoor exercise, good friends, and a positive attitude.
      And finally Achems will you please stop taking every single statement as some personal affront to you? The mention of my IQ etc. was not even directed toward you, has nothing to do with you whatsoever, and was no indication of my thoughts in regards your own personal intellect. I have on may separate occasions on this web site stated that I considder you to be quite sharp and a personal respect for your persual of knowledge. I also have not flipflopped in what I have been saying at all. The way you have presented your side of these issues has been far below the level of what I would expect from you. That is all. Take it or leave it.
      On a side note I only joined mensa as a means of networking with people. I also joined a local hunting club the same year. For a man who likes to read Dostoyevski in a tree stand I found it to be a great way to meet and get to know similar people.

    12. @StillRV:

      All right, that works with me, and if we agree to disagree from time to time, that also works with me.

    13. So true; Christ rebelled against the church and it's preachers because they were being hypocrite. They said one thing like God....and then did something else. No wonder they nailed him to a cross.

  44. The centuries of harm caused by the catholic church can not be understated. They are a completely morally bankrupt political organization who's latest crime is giving safe haven to pedophiles.

    1. and they just beatified John Paul II... one miracle away from sainthood. While he presided over the church children were molested and injured. he could have forced the offenders out but chose to hide them.

      and yet people still believe... i just don't understand. :/

    2. I don't like the idea of hiding criminals either and these should go to jail and put in the public for all to see. Yet I still believe in God. Those pedophiles though don't believe they are frauds or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing; most likely joined the clergy for the money. They don't respect God because they are violating and raping his creation. Maybe the church should screen it's candidates better.

  45. The centuries of terror sanctioned by God's religious thugs is not dead.Violent misguided zealots today wage wars ,intafada,jihad.and Fundamentalist paranoia,Indoctrination threaten our lives with persecution and death today.All in the name of a God.A disguise for Power and wealth,as it has always been.Ignorance,greed,brutal inhumanity,indoctrination and vicious genocide justified as Holy and righteous.This makes acts of hate and horror into sacred sublime and heroic.We are living this Grand Delusion today on an enormously tragic scale.The Apocalyptic Paradigms now are hurtling us (willingly ) toward more apathy,ignorance, as world slavemasters own our destinies.Organized religion has made God its' whore.Painted and for sale to the highest bidder.I spit on it and reject this man made mendacity

    1. @ misterwong

      MisterWong, in my view, you should edit your post to read:

      "The centuries of terror sanctioned by God's religious thugs is not dead.Violent misguided zealots today wage wars ,intafada,jihad.and Fundamentalist paranoia,Indoctrination threaten our lives with persecution and death today.All in the name of a God.A disguise for Power and wealth,as it has always been.Ignorance,greed,brutal inhumanity,indoctrination and vicious genocide justified as Holy and righteous.This makes acts of hate and horror into sacred sublime and heroic.We are living this Grand Delusion today on an enormously tragic scale.The Apocalyptic Paradigms now are hurtling us (willingly ) toward more apathy,ignorance, as world slavemasters own our destinies."

      Organized religion is redundant.
      All religion is organized!

      Good people do good things.
      Bad people do bad things.
      Only religion can make good people do bad things.

  46. I can not imagine a more restrictive device than a belief system formed and maintained by deceit and manipulation. Purely for the purpose of subjugation of the weak, gullible and frightened...thereby, the masses.

    1. So you are imagining every single religion, political affiliation, racial pride, national pride, self help book, and any other collective of human beings who believe in something. Because at the top of all of them is a man or men who are making some sort of profit from it.

    2. It's not imagination, it's Reality.

    3. @ StillRV

      The phrase,
      "...any...collective of human beings who believe in something,"
      is so general in scope and so ambiguous that it has no meaning.

      However, of the other identifiable elements in your post, namely,
      "...every single religion,
      "political affiliation,
      "racial pride,
      "national pride,
      "self help book,..."

      one, and only one stands out from all the others as faith-based.

      That one is RELIGION.

      Every single religion is faith-based, and faith-based epistemologies invariably result in restrictive social devices which are deceitful in nature and manipulative and subjugating in character, manipulative and subjugating of the masses, the masses of the weak, of the gullible, and of frightened innocents.

      Religion has had thousands of years to make its case and it has failed. It has failed, miserably, leaving in its wake nothing save misery, ignorance, death and destruction.

      And religion is at it again!

    4. Ozyxcba1; The phrase was deliberately broad in scope. If you even half understand what it is I was saying you would know that.
      As to your second statement. Nationalism, Political affiliation, and all those other examples are just as faith based. You believe your nation is good, You have faith in your chosen political party etc. etc.
      I hate that I actually have to explain logic to reactionary haters all the time. Just hate it's what you do best.