The latest edition of the nutter paper has turned up.

The Ottoman Empire was an extremely aggressive empire for over half of its existence waging continued wars of expansion as well as an aggressive slave trading policy.

Did you not see the use of the word “relative”? The word relative was used in the context of other non-Muslim empires. If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.

Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn’t engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?

This only halted when the states it was attacking started to become modern states especially Russia and Austria.

That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:

whilst Europeans were in a constant state of war, either with each other or with other people across the globe, the relative peace that Islamic Empire enjoyed meant that its military fell behind that of warmongering European states

It is generally accepted that wars bring about huge technology advances.

And since you brought up Russia and Austria :

During a long period of peace from 1740 to 1768, the Ottoman military system fell behind that of their European rivals, the Habsburg and Russian Empires.

https://www.rebuildthemiddleeast.com/history-of-the-middleeast/2018/6/21/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-ottoman-empire

So whilst you might want to dispute the accuracy of the comment it is possibly not as inaccurate as claiming that Newton wasn’t a believer.

Anyway none of that provides evidence that Muslims have been “happily” slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam.

Their name isn’t Warren and I never said they were a he. ,😜

Comedic Licence. I don’t usually assume gender, but if I didn’t in this specific instance then the joke doesn’t work.

Whilst religion is often used as an excuse it rarely is the reason for wars, the quest for power and wealth is.

Horses after carts. The quest for power and wealth is why we have religion. And it’s been phenomenally successful.

The quest for power and wealth is why we have religion.

Not really. It’s the reason we have armies.

Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires, armies certainly did.

In fact successful empires are usually very tolerant of religious diversity, there really isn’t any point adding unnecessary grievances to subjected people.

The Mongols, who had the largest contiguous land empire in history, were particularly tolerant to religious diversity.

Comedic Licence. I don’t usually assume gender, but if I didn’t in this specific instance then the joke doesn’t work.

You’re normally good for that so despite your comment making me chuckle I couldn’t help but give a gently poke about it. They are a he though.

The BBC show Marianna in conspiracyland was quite good. The George Monbiot discussion at the end was probably the most troubling aspect of it for me.

The ‘do your own research’ comment which I always took as a lazy way of people closing debates they never hand the answers to came out as being a very subtle but Powerful recruitment tool.

A lot of the othering and Scapegoating reminds me of reading Jon Ronson’s book ‘Them’

Anyway, back to religion

Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires,

Hahah, this thread is great.

If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.

No it doesnt. Because the only reason it had stopped being so aggressive was it had been checked by developing powers.
At which point like many Empires which relied on permanent expansion it slowly stagnated and then declined.

Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn’t engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?

I love the dishonesty merging several different things together here.
Was the British Empire expanding the entire time. Nope. Just like the Ottoman Empire it expanded until it met opposing forces strong enough to check it, held for a time and then declined.
Now did it engage in wars most of the time then yes but so did the Ottoman Empire. Just like the Ottomans early on it was attack and then later rearguard actions trying to keep the territory it had seized.
There is a clue in word “Empire”. You dont get it by being a peaceful hippy (I guess the Habsburgs come closest to managing it with their habit of expansion through marriage but they mixed it up with plenty of violence to).

That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:

No it wasnt. As for “portraying them as the aggressor” go and look at the definitions of “Empire”. To get to be one you pretty much have to be an aggressor.

And since you brought up Russia and Austria :

Yes now go and read that quote carefully. Note that its 30 years. Doesnt really match your claim about being at peace for long. Plus you are missing the context of that period of peace.

Not really. It’s the reason we have armies.

Two cheeks of the same arse. Dressing up subjugation as a benefit to the great unwashed.

Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires, armies certainly did.

Because no-one ever sent missionaries to godless countries to educate them in the ways of the lord. Ask John Allen Chau how that worked out for him. 😁

Because no-one ever sent missionaries to godless countries to educate them in the ways of the lord.

And you think religion was the main driver behind the British Empire?

I beg to differ, power and wealth was, not religion.

**In fact wasn’t the East India Company opposed to the sending of missionaries to India as they got in their way as they tried to accumulate power and wealth? I believe that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expell missionaries from Britian.

Edit: Btw Christianity has existed in India for longer than it has existed in Great Britain.

If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.

No it doesnt. Because the only reason it had stopped being so aggressive was it had been checked by developing powers.
At which point like many Empires which relied on permanent expansion it slowly stagnated and then declined.

Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn’t engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?

I love the dishonesty merging several different things together here.
Was the British Empire expanding the entire time. Nope. Just like the Ottoman Empire it expanded until it met opposing forces strong enough to check it, held for a time and then declined.

Now did it engage in wars most of the time then yes but so did the Ottoman Empire. Just like the Ottomans early on it was attack and then later rearguard actions trying to keep the territory it had seized.
There is a clue in word “Empire”. You dont get it by being a peaceful hippy (I guess the Habsburgs come closest to managing it with their habit of expansion through marriage but they mixed it up with plenty of violence to).

That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:

No it wasnt. As for “portraying them as the aggressor” go and look at the definitions of “Empire”. To get to be one you pretty much have to be an aggressor.

And since you brought up Russia and Austria :

Yes now go and read that quote carefully. Note that its 30 years. Doesnt really match your claim about being at peace for long. Plus you are missing the context of that period of peace.

Okay, you have decided to ignore the word ‘relative’.

So where is the evidence that Muslims were “happily” slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam?

Just realised this:

I believe that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expell missionaries from Britian.

Obviously a typo – I think that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expel missionaries from India .

Edit: Nah, makes sense both ways 🤔

And you think religion was the main driver behind the British Empire?

The main driver? I’ve no idea. I expect it was probably a factor though.

I beg to differ, power and wealth was, not religion.

Differ all you like, it’s the same thing. Power, wealth and control is the entire point of most organised religions. Well known for being modest affairs, churches.

Okay, you have decided to ignore the word ‘relative’.

If by “relative” you mean “bugger all” then yes. Otherwise you are as deluded as those who claim the British Empire was all sunshine and roses. The Ottomans could be a very unpleasant bunch who ruled by violence if necessary.
Since you mention the East India company that is one interesting difference between what became the British Empire and most other empires. In most cases it was driven by the state but for the British Empire it was mostly commercial groups with some state backing. It only became the British Empire after those groups screwed up once too often.

So where is the evidence that Muslims were “happily” slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam?

I was responding to some of your other claims so I feel no need to defend other peoples positions.
Although I would have thought a cursory grasp of history would result in you knowing there has been a lot of bloodshed between the various Muslim groupings especially Shia and Sunni. Whether that counts as “happy” or not is questionable but it was certainly bloody.

Otherwise you are as deluded as those who claim the British Empire was all sunshine and roses.

Some impressive allegations there dissonance.

A month ago:

ernielynch
Full Member

Rees Mogg on tv last night arguing that the countries who were subject to Britain’s imperialism actually were better off for it.

Was he? I missed that. The reality:

“From the 1st century AD to the start of British colonisation in India in the 17th century, India’s GDP was between about 25 and 35% of the world’s total GDP, which dropped to 2% by Independence of India in 1947.”

And furthermore India has not experienced a single major famine since it gained independence in 1947, despite reoccurring famines which killed millions under the British Raj.

The reason India was considered the jewel in the crown of the British Empire was because India brought so much wealth to Britian, but India was systematically plundered and de-industrialised by Britian.

Posted 1 month ago
REPLY | REPORT

As a single man in his late 40s I’ve noticed a real increase in the amount of “woke” women my age. I was chatting to an attractive lady on Friday night until she came out as a chemtrails believer. No thank you!

but he was definitely a believer in a version of the Christian god

I’m pretty sure the 3-in-1 bit is pretty fundamental to that ? FFS Saint Dominic was sainted for genociding the Albigensians ?

The point of this is there is a world (universe) of difference between a belief the/our universe was created by some sky fairy or fairies… (aliens/gods) that may or may not give a toss and that muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?

until they get started on 5g, and controlling governments, vaccines, cashless societies.

Does “controlling governments” count as a conspiracy theory?

Cashless society? Again how is that a conspiracy theory? Assuming you mean paperless cash not some Star Trek “we did away with money centuries ago”.

The point of this is there is a world (universe) of difference between a belief the/our universe was created by some sky fairy or fairies… (aliens/gods) that may or may not give a toss and that muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?

Have you ever tried DMT or ahuayusca?

I’ve noticed a real increase in the amount of “woke” women my age. I was chatting to an attractive lady on Friday night until she came out as a chemtrails believer

you’re confusing “woke” with “nuts”

Agree, that’s not woke.

Happy to be described as woke personally if it winds up the right folk, but believing in conspiracy theories doesn’t make you woke, that’s something else entirely.

Also a single man in his late 40s, it was easier a few years back to avoid the nutters as they would bleat on about not having the vaccine.

Also a single man in his late 40s, it was easier a few years back to avoid the nutters as they would bleat on about not having the vaccine.

Probably wise to avoid women who don’t want a little prick. 😁

Cashless society? Again how is that a conspiracy theory? Assuming you mean paperless cash not some Star Trek “we did away with money centuries ago”.

In Chicago a couple of years back I got approached by a beggar (Chicago is lovely but it is awash with panhandlers for some reason). I said “I’m sorry, I’m from England, we did away with money years ago.” He was like “gosh, wow, sorry, I had no idea!”

Already a hero because of his recordings but this was an interesting perspective on it. Quite a long series of tweets, original and a threadreader version linked.

Short version is conspiracy theorists can get in the sea. Where they will be eaten by legendary Seamonsters (just thought of that and had to squeeze it in)

Thread:
I work in an arcane field where the job requires specific technical knowledge, built on a ladder of understanding and breakthroughs going back over 100 years. It's not immunology but it's not nothing.

— steve albini (@electricalWSOP) June 18, 2023

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1670505490126602242.html

That’s a good read, thanks for that.

I’m pretty sure the 3-in-1 bit is pretty fundamental to that ?

Antitrinitarianism is rare mostly because, as you say, it was so heavily persecuted but I think most of us speaking to an Arian would consider them Christian assuming we didnt know the finer parts of theology.

The “muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?”isnt held by all the different denominations. The Roman Catholics believe in a version of it as do the Orthodox but the Protestants go from agreeing with that to saying its purely spiritual or even its just a reenactment of sorts.
Newton really was a hardcore believer albeit one who would be considered by many other Christians a heretic.

Cougar

In Chicago a couple of years back I got approached by a beggar (Chicago is lovely but it is awash with panhandlers for some reason). I said “I’m sorry, I’m from England, we did away with money years ago.” He was like “gosh, wow, sorry, I had no idea!”

Amusing story but it also illustrates the difference between “doing away with money” and a “cashless society” and how people accept or can easily confuse or conflate one with the other unless you/they actually think about the differences and how that defines (or not) “conspiracy theories”.

Not knowing any other conversation that occurred I’ll just presume its an amusing anecdote.. because it doesn’t really matter if he/she believed you or just recognised he/she wasn’t getting any cash from you.

From the beggars perspective I can imagine the “that’s cool so how do you buy food or how did you pay for the airline ticket to the USA” but you can equally see someone for whom lack of money being so fundamental to their life that they could just imagine a system where people are just given what they need. If that sounds really far out then a not insignificant amount of Americans believe the same or variations of on the NHS and the evils of socialised medicine.

I guess that’s where you get a grey area between facts, mis-information and disinformation … and where that comes as to which definition of a conspiracy you take.

a secret plan agreed by many people –
to (in the direction of harm/legality)
a secret agreement made between two or more people or groups to do something bad or illegal that will harm someone else

to
a secret agreement made between two or more people or groups to do something bad or illegal that will harm everyone else

depending on what you see/define as “harm” that goes in another vector (or not) as does “what does everyone mean – as a group or as individuals”.

Take Flat earth .. on one side where is the “harm” if people choose to believe this? On the other you can argue the “harm” is in preparing people/society to accept lies above observable fact and distrust what should be authoritative sources.

We can take the “social medicine” argument as an example.
if you don’t live in the USA then the fact that many companies depend on private healthcare seems rather obvious … that they wish to continue to make profit seems obvious etc. but there is equally the fact that social medicine is not always the best for an individual and there are limits to what can be provided to everyone. (with current tech at least)

As I said earlier conspiracy theories almost always contain some truths… so in the social medicine there are always cases of someone being denied some treatment that has been determined not to be cost effective or has inconclusive benefits etc. and there is the question of edge cases “is everyone as an individual” vs is “everyone as a group” “better off”.

That the rich “conspire” to get richer and those in power “conspire” for more power I find hard to view as a conspiracy in itself. Rather I see the dis-information and mis-information as more a conspiracy and in these I see the same thing especially in the use of social media.

Not knowing any other conversation that occurred I’ll just presume its an amusing anecdote.. because it doesn’t really matter if he/she believed you or just recognised he/she wasn’t getting any cash from you.

I can’t remember the exact phrasing now, I might’ve said “cash” rather than “money,” or “we don’t carry money” or some such. I’d have taken notes if I’d known there was going to be a test. 😁

TBH, it was an off-the-cuff quip because randoms asking for money was so prevalent and I was losing patience. I counted 11 in one day. Some looked genuinely homeless, some were clearly taking the piss and a few were outright aggressive. I feigned deafness with one particularly scary individual. Another on the L (light railway, think Tube or Metro) with a literally captive audience delivering a clearly well-rehearsed “ladies and gentlemen” speech about how he needed money for insulin, I flirted with the idea of offering to take him to the nearest Walgreens but, well, they have guns in this country.

I’ve never known anything quite like it. I love the US, I loved my time in Chicago and met some fascinating and amazing people. I’d go back in a heartbeat, but my god they have a problem there.

I flirted with the idea of offering to take him to the nearest Walgreens

You might have been shocked at the cost, I think the co-pay for insulin in the US could be prohibitive for many employed people if they don’t have an “executive health package”.

And that is a real conspiracy, the way the health industry in the US conspires with the political class to deny the people the health care they need, and the media largely side with them. This corruption is sowing the seed of conspiracy theories, everyone knows the problem but the causes are ignored and instead lies are spread.

Antitrinitarianism is rare mostly because, as you say, it was so heavily persecuted but I think most of us speaking to an Arian would consider them Christian assuming we didnt know the finer parts of theology.

The “devil” is in the detail though… you don’t really need to dig too deep in pre-nicene factions for those details to be fairly big. (or from the other side if you basically include something like zorasartianism as loosly the same or mithrism – lots of pre Jesus cults share mid winter birthdays or rising again after 3 days) much of the OT is borrowed/adapted etc. from various other mid eastern religions

The “muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?”isnt held by all the different denominations. The Roman Catholics believe in a version of it as do the Orthodox but the Protestants go from agreeing with that to saying its purely spiritual or even its just a reenactment of sorts.

So even the (catholic) pope now allows gluten free host.. that seems to indicate an acceptance that perhaps its not quite a 100% thing… and that’s the example of how it’s all in the details. Something many people were burned alive for (at the direct instructions of their gods chosen pope) .. then when we have scientific methods that prove beyond any doubt its still bread it’s finally accepted.

The reason I brought it up though is to illustrate the difference between something can’t be proven or disproven and something that can.

I don’t personally believe it but I can see how it’s plausible some technically advanced alien (or aliens) could have been involved in everything from creation of our whole universe to even seeding life on earth or even playing a little game and turning up from time to time.

What is implausible is that they/it created earth some 6000 years ago AND deliberately made it look older by planting fake evidence or they told us magic words that turn bread into flesh.

This is the “today” and what goes in which box depends WHEN in (scientific) history.

Newton really was a hardcore believer albeit one who would be considered by many other Christians a heretic.

He was certainly hardcore .. though largely a what and when.
My comment on Newton was about what he said in public vs his private diaries but what he believed seems to have changed through his life.
My comment on Lemaitre was that believing in a supreme being is different to believing the literal 6 days or literal 6000 years or literal bread into flesh.

As the man himself said …

“We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character…The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”

Cougar

I’d have taken notes if I’d known there was going to be a test.

not a test… the real point is illustrated by @MSP (not just insulin)

MSP

And that is a real conspiracy, the way the health industry in the US conspires with the political class to deny the people the health care they need, and the media largely side with them. This corruption is sowing the seed of conspiracy theories, everyone knows the problem but the causes are ignored and instead lies are spread.

Except it’s deeper really… I don’t have numbers but I’d bet more people who would hugely benefit from social medicine are more rabidly against it than the “Democrat/Independent” middle classes