Interesting thoughts on Masons

reply to post by Universal Light


What exactly is the goal of "expanding our minds" on things for which there absolutely no evidence? This seems to be the default response for the more "far out" conspiracy theories - were just "opening our mind" - what good is opening your mind when you've opened it so wide your no longer interested in seeing what is true or not?

And google is a pretty good tool for BASIC fact checking. The facts suggest - this "book" is fantasy.

Peoples bodies move in all sorts of odd ways. When someone is following you around with a camera, as the press does in Hollywood, the chance of you being caught in an odd pose is extraordinarily high because your being caught in between gestures. If you had someone following you around with a camera, you'd be making these exact same gestures - would that too make you a mason?

All of this talk about whether or not these poses are masonic also represent yet another leap to the end of the logic train. Before anyone should even care what sort of gestures people are making, we would need to actually see if these so called masonic gestures are in-fact masonic. And when you look up the evidence, out of the few ACTUAL signs of the blue lodge, this doesn't look like any of them.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by Road Warrior 31


Well OP here is a good example of what NOT to even bother reading.

By the way, road, I could have sworn another member on ATS used to post that same stupid picture all over the place.. hmm .. what was his name........

Anyways, I believe Light said it best, most conspiracy theorist rely on completely illogical sources or thought processes.

We don't argue with the likes of Road anymore.... just shake our head and give him a sad lil smile.

Originally posted by Road Warrior 31
Like Scientology they try to recrut important person, politician and
ACTORS FROM HOLLYWOOD to manipulate the mass opinion on
their '' CULT '' to gain power on the society.

Of course, the problem with this is that masonry does not recruit. Its kind of hard to recruit people for world domination when you must in fact ask to be one. A simple search of the facts would show you this.

I would strongly recommend you do some research on what constitutes a "cult" - the widely accepted academic definition requires that there be some charismatic leader. You have Hubbard in Scientology and....wait, thats right, you don't have such figure in masonry. Not to mention the fact that a cult is centered around a religion, and masonry is a fraternity.

Originally posted by Road Warrior 31
Man,...I am sory to contradict you but, a friend of mine, whose father is a
freemason, introduce me to 3 former freemason, ex friends of my father's friend

They all told me man, that, they got in freemasonery because, being all in
buseness, they have been told, that lobying opportunity are great for
freemason members, so they got involve get even ritcher, and then, one
of them, wakeup the other two, on the brainwashing going on on lodges
everything, are reliate to freemasonry teaching, and activities and
friendship are promote to be between freemason and to be mistrustful of
profanes ( like they call us )

Not a problem, your not contradicting me at all. This is a excellent example of a hasty generalization logical fallacy. People join all groups for wrong the wrong reasons - it is the nature of groups - but just because you know of a few people who joined masonry for the wrong reason is not evidence that the majority of members do this.

The rest of what you said is - to be truthful - anti-mason propaganda for which you have offered no proof. As such, until you do, it appears to be a rant.

Originally posted by Road Warrior 31
All of them told me that he lost a lot of buseness when they left, , but
all of them does not regret it at all, because, they realized that Freemason
is indeed a religious '' CULT ''

This would be a excellent example of another logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc Because someone leaves the fraternity and bad things happen to them - assuming you are telling the truth - does not mean those bad things happened due to leaving. It means A happened after B, not that A caused B.

You have yet to offer any evidence for anything you've claimed. What you have done is opined on your agreement with anti-masonic propaganda, and of course, any good anti-masonic propaganda is simply not complete without a youtube video with eerie music. Unfortunately, proof is not a youtube video. I'm thinking about making a youtube video proclaiming all the anti-masons to be a international cabal out for world domination. How could then you disagree with me? ITS ON YOUTUBE!

Originally posted by Road Warrior 31
NOW, Take a look at Freemason reactions to this thread, read carefully their
*** Propaganda and Rhetoric ***, you will realised their will to HIDE, the
light of truth over their heads, to keep you all into the darkness of ignorance.

Actually, I find it more fascinating to watch the Anti-Masons react to this thread. They throw out insults, baseless accusations, and then hide. When confronted for proof, they completely ignore you and continue with absolutely baseless accusations.

Are you the guy that keeps showing that same anti-mason propaganda banner? Its a shame, I think it really discredits you - anyone who might even be slightly swayed by what your saying will be convinced your incorrect after doing 5 minutes of research and knowing there is no, and never has been, a friendly relationship between the fraternity and the Vatican...as your banned suggests.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by Rockpuck


I'm a glutton for punishment. I know I won't get anywhere with some of the anti-masons because they are interested in preaching instead of talking, but sometimes I play along anyways.

Originally posted by Road Warrior 31
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

 

NOW, Take a look at Freemason reactions to this thread, read carefully their
*** Propaganda and Rhetoric ***, you will realised their will to HIDE, the
light of truth over their heads, to keep you all into the darkness of ignorance.

*** freemasonry is a religious '' CULT ''. *** PERIOD..!

Do you understand what i mean, man.....! *** Propaganda and Rhetoric ***,


try to read it all back from page one....

Peace

reply to post by Road Warrior 31


Whats that? Your not going to address anything I said because you know it would show what your up to? You prefer to insult me?

Another day, another anti-mason.

People, people, people.

Calm down. Nobody is dragging off your children and branding them with "G" to make them masonic slaves, nor are those on the other side burning down lodges while you all are having a meeting.

There's no need to take on so.

This is a public request for both sides here to cool down and not take any more pot shots at one another.

reply to post by NGC2736


Fine no pot shots. Hows about spit wads, kicks to the shins, hair pulling, scratching, biting, slapping and of course, the occasional wet willie?

reply to post by NGC2736



Well said NGC2736,

you are perfecly right, we are gentlemen, so we
can Deny Ignorance in a respecful way.

If we listen to each other, insteed of fighting each other, we will
help us all, to get closer to the truth.

First of all, I have tried to make this conversation, not war. I have been civil the entire time and have not deviated from that. Thank you NGC.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness

Relativism is popular among masonic conspiracies because its about the only way the people who propose them can make them work - by completely changing any reasonable standard for what constitutes proof.

Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy. In order for "proof to not exist" all things would have to be relative, and if all things were relative your statement that "everything is initially derived from someone's imagination" is also relative (ie, not a logical tautology.) The entire fallacy then blows up.

Not everything revolves around the masonic conspiracy. I was replying to my personal beliefs that were initially being purported by another poster who apologized for putting words in my mouth (thank you for that).

You do see why I don't believe in proof. It's so abstract and subjective that the fallacy does blow up. I don't see the arguement. We're saying the same thing.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Universal Light

 

What exactly is the goal of "expanding our minds" on things for which there absolutely no evidence? This seems to be the default response for the more "far out" conspiracy theories - were just "opening our mind" - what good is opening your mind when you've opened it so wide your no longer interested in seeing what is true or not?

The world of possibility is endless. And that means everything, not just revolving around Masons. I've already discussed how I feel about evidence. Everyone needs to form their own opinion. So if I was to go about forming my own opinion, wouldn't I want to see the light from every possible angle?

It's the classic Bud Light vs Miller Lite thinking. You only have two options, which one do you chose? What if I want Coors Light or the other thousands of beers out there. There's always more than two sides to the story. I said earlier, please refute anything mentioned and let's have a discussion. If you can post something up to look at, that would be appreciated as well. I am pro-differing points of view. Why is that so hard to see? Any question that starts with 'what good is opening your mind when...' doesn't resonate with me.

In terms of google, you still can't speak in absolutes and only in opinion. The reason my opinion is of google is because of the whack results they post on random searches. They will point you quickly in the right direction on some searches and give you the run around on another. It 's bogus imo, but that's it, just in my opinion.

Originally posted by Universal Light
I said earlier, please refute anything mentioned and let's have a discussion. If you can post something up to look at, that would be appreciated as well. I am pro-differing points of view.

Well, I'm not going to start debating Dubay's text until the issue of the images is settled. You seem to think it's more than coincidence that people hold their hands certain ways. I've offered physiology and choice image selection as a counter to Dubay's take on things. What can you offer to support his claims?

(Edit to add...) And since I'm offering experiments as my proof, ask any of your friends, coworkers or family members to put their hands on their hips and note the position of their fingers... Let us know the results!

[edit on 6/10/2008 by JoshNorton]

I'm afraid I agree with the Masons here.

The "book" you linked to - more like a pdf produced on a computer and uploaded to a server - is complete BS. There's so many things wrong with it, that I don't know where to start. But JoshNorton's assertions about the randomness and innocence of regular everyday hand-gestures is a start.

Page 5 from Famous Freemasons Exposed: "Pay Attention to their Fingers! Do you see a pattern developing?" Yes. The pattern is insanity. And the end result is hospitalization. They are paintings. Nothing more. And nothing is happening with their fingers.

His accumulation of the devil horns pics - once again ripping off the m.o. of Texe Marrs - has only a modicum more substance. Most of the people in the pics did indeed intend to make the gesture, but alas that does not mean they are out-and-out devil worshipers - and especially not that they are involved with Masonry. However, the ones that can be ruled out as being an "I love you sign" or a texas longhorn salute or just aping the coolness factor that has been mainstreamed, stemming from heavy metal's documented historical use of said gesture; those ones are indeed suspicious instances, and I wonder about them myself.

Well since some of the anti-masons went off in the sunset embracing ignorance, I'll go ahead and answer the rest of this...

Not everything revolves around the masonic conspiracy. I was replying to my personal beliefs that were initially being purported by another poster who apologized for putting words in my mouth (thank you for that).

You do see why I don't believe in proof. It's so abstract and subjective that the fallacy does blow up. I don't see the arguement. We're saying the same thing.

No one says anything revolves around masonic conspiracy, but scholars who study conspiracy know that relativism is a key component of maintaining conspiracy theory.

I think you misunderstood me. Your whole "nothing is evidence of a masonic conspiracy because its subjective" is the relativist fallacy. The only way you can support this kind of statement is by purposing that all things are subjective (ie, relative). The problem with this is that the statement that something is abstract is in and of itself not a tautology if you truly believe all things are subjective, as such it cannot de facto simply be true, because the logic underlying this is that all things - including your definition of evidence - is relative. Its a relativist fallacy, and as such the argument does not hold. Evidence is not abstract, it is not subjective.

These are real, solitary standards of evidence that are not abstract. The problem is those who are making up masonic conspiracies are not interested in observing reasonable standards of evidence, because if they did they would have no conspiracy. Its pretty simple - evidence in favor of your argument requires an authoritative primary source, or a peer reviewed secondary source. The problem is anti-masons cannot come up with either of these things.

Any question that starts with 'what good is opening your mind when...' doesn't resonate with me.

Any statement that contains "open your mind" doesn't resonate with me. Its used when someone proposes something for which there is absolutely no evidence - of any level.

In terms of google, you still can't speak in absolutes and only in opinion. The reason my opinion is of google is because of the whack results they post on random searches. They will point you quickly in the right direction on some searches and give you the run around on another. It 's bogus imo, but that's it, just in my opinion.

Actually I can speak in absolute terms, that you don't like that doesn't really impact me - its just the relativist fallacy again (the refusal to accept the absolute). It is quite true google is a good starting place and a good place to find out basic facts. Since masons have always shown off famous masons, and there has never been a famous mason I am aware of that hid his membership unless it was a time of war where they were going to be killed for it (like World War II), why in the world would all of these so called masons be hiding their membership?

Again, this book as leap to the end of the logic train. Before taking pictures of celebrity hand motions and proclaiming them to be masonic, we must first find out if these hand gestures are masonic. No evidence says they are. Unless someone has any, this entire "book" - and I use the term lightly - is nothing but a very long rant.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Ya know, earlier in the day, I went in the mirror and just flashed my hands in random positions to see what the outcome would look like. Between randomly shaking my hands and putting them on my hips, I got about a 1 to 5 ratio of what could be passed for these signs. Then I thought, my opinion could have already been swayed to allow or disallow this. So my own poses are moot and I decided to take 20 pictures of people I know without telling them why, each with two poses of exposing their hands to find the results. I'll let you know, should only take a couple days.

I can give you physiology and choice image selection as fair points. Like I said before, both of these things came to mind when I read the book. The counter that came to me is that some of the images seem relatively obvious. Not all, but a few really stick out.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Well I priorly answered Josh's question and I will come back with results of that.

I find this part extremely drastic:

Page 5 from Famous Freemasons Exposed: "Pay Attention to their Fingers! Do you see a pattern developing?" Yes. The pattern is insanity. And the end result is hospitalization. They are paintings. Nothing more. And nothing is happening with their fingers.

Wow man. So a picture doesn't paint a thousand words? A pattern of insanity and a result of hospitalization? I'm sorry but all I can say is that I came to discuss. This just seems like slander and angst. What's to be mad about? I'm not attacking anything, just here to keep an open mind.

I read your last paragraph five times and I apologize but I don't understand. And this isn't being rude, I'm clearly missing the point. Are you saying that the instances of I love you, Texas Longhorns, and death metal are suspicious or can those be ruled out and the others are up for suspicious question?

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


You're right, I totally missed what you were saying in the first place. Your logic is correct but let me tell you where I come from on that.

I believe that there is only one true reality that exists. In that, there is an infinity of filters/perceptions to see that one reality. Generally speaking, everyone's filters are different. Let's say we see the same color. You might call it gray and I might call it silver. Is there objective evidence on that? I don't know how the answer is yes considering the objective evidence still comes from humans who see things through different filters. This is how I cannot see evidence to not be abstract. A relativist fallacy is still only seen through the distorted filter of the individual human.

The problem is those who are making up masonic conspiracies are not interested in observing reasonable standards of evidence, because if they did they would have no conspiracy. Its pretty simple - evidence in favor of your argument requires an authoritative primary source, or a peer reviewed secondary source. The problem is anti-masons cannot come up with either of these things.

And I'm not trying to be redundant but how can you legitimately claim what is reasonable standards of evidence? What is an authoritative primary source or a peer reviewed secondary source? Again, this is my opinion and I'm only stating that but the only distorted filters to see these through are human. Who can say what's authoritative? It's no wonder anti-masons can't come up with these things because neither can full-fledged masons. We are one in the same because all is one.

Any statement that contains "open your mind" doesn't resonate with me. Its used when someone proposes something for which there is absolutely no evidence - of any level.

And I accept your opinion. I could sit here and tell you that keeping a closed mind is the worst thing you can do for growth. That shaping yourself to be a better individual to promote the growth and service to others is the only way to be but I don't. I gotta tell you imo that opening your mind to anything in this existence is healthy but nonetheless it is still the distortion of the opinion I choose to live in. I cannot make you feel another way.

As far as the rest of your post in regards to absolutes, I cannot say anything to that I haven't said already. It's very possible that I'm misinterpreting your tone but it seems like your trying to hang your head high to where I cannot meet you when I'm just trying to discuss. I know Masons do good things. To my core I can tell you that I do. But the hositlity you bring is not of an area that I exist in. Any further talkings that are not forthright of any positive discussion, I will ignore as I'm not orientated in discussions of this manner. Much love and light to you my firend.

reply to post by Universal Light


Well your certainly entitled to your theory, but its a well known logical fallacy. It doesn't hold under any sort of analysis, which is why using it to declare all evidence relative won't hold to those of us who are familiar with the fallacy. Its is prima facie simply wrong, because your declaring something relative in a statement that by its nature cannot be relative. You can't have it both ways. If even one statement is a tautology this sort of relativist viewpoint you promote falls flat - and since at least one statement like that is required to commit the relativist fallacy (namely that all things are relative/subject/whatever), the entire thing crumbles.

And I'm not trying to be redundant but how can you legitimately claim what is reasonable standards of evidence? What is an authoritative primary source or a peer reviewed secondary source? Again, this is my opinion and I'm only stating that but the only distorted filters to see these through are human. Who can say what's authoritative? It's no wonder anti-masons can't come up with these things because neither can full-fledged masons. We are one in the same because all is one.

The same way I can claim that I know we breath oxygen, and that I know the world is round. I know some things are true, even though those who are under the fallacy of relativism will try their hardest to deny it.

An authoritative primary source is the actual primary document for whatever your studying. For it to be authoritative, in masonry it would have to be documents which have full binding influence on its members and be viewed as having legitimate authority. Within masonry, those primary sources are 1) the constitutions of the jurisdiction, and 2) the ritual of the jurisdiction. Those are primary sources for the jurisdiction they reside in.

A secondary peer reviewed source is someone else's research that examined the primary sources or secondary peer reviewed sources and had their research vetted through other scholars who are experts in their field. This commonly takes the appearance of journal articles or academically edited books. In masonry, this would include any large number of peer reviewed journal articles about the fraternities history, among other things.

The problem is when you look at these sources you find no evidence of a conspiracy. Which is why anti-masons ignore them, and instead use vanity press book publishers and websites to promote their theories. You cant use the relativist fallacy to try to get out of recognizing that there are commonly accepted rules of evidence to be observed when trying to propose a theory.

As far as the rest of your post in regards to absolutes, I cannot say anything to that I haven't said already. It's very possible that I'm misinterpreting your tone but it seems like your trying to hang your head high to where I cannot meet you when I'm just trying to discuss. I know Masons do good things. To my core I can tell you that I do. But the hositlity you bring is not of an area that I exist in. Any further talkings that are not forthright of any positive discussion, I will ignore as I'm not orientated in discussions of this manner. Much love and light to you my firend.

No one is being hostile, but your making sure to proclaim everyone hostile who you perceive to have an argument for which you cannot easily dismiss using the relativist fallacy. And since I pointed out its a fallacy, that would be me. If a "high tone" is means applying logic to arguments, then I'm not quite sure what to say. They still taught logic in high school as of a few years ago last I looked, so its not like I'm using PhD dissertation terms here.

You can ignore me or not, it doesn't change the fact that there are common rules of evidence when proposing a theory - and the "book" in this OP doesn't meet any of them. Nor does any other anti-mason theory I've seen so far. However...if your familiar with any of them that do...I'd love to read them!

I have a question. At what stage in the Masonic Conspiracy are "regular" masons privy to the "World Domination"plan? I am curious as most of the masons in my lodge are OLD. They have been masons for a long time. If they are in on the big picture, they are not very active with the NWO. I would like to see if there is any evidence tying the Masons to the Vatican. There have been rumors but no proof. I enjoy finding out new history about Masonry. I have heard some masons talk of the Knights Templar and a possible tie to Masonry, but as far as I know at this time, no proof. I keep hearing rumors of higher degrees than the 33rd. But no mason I ask knows anything about it. Is there any information out there concerning that? Other than the Memphis chapter.
To the OP, I don't claim to have any knowlege other than personal expirience. Proof to some is just a preception of reality.
I am glad you are trying to prove/disprove the hand theory. ( I personally thing it is BS.) Nobody ever showed me that sign.

Originally posted by Universal Light
So a picture doesn't paint a thousand words?

I'll sidetrack, take off my (funny) Masonic hat and put on my professional photographer's cap and take this one:
At the dawn of photography in the late 1830's the common belief was that photography was objective rather than subjective. Clearly what showed up on film had to have been in front of the lens at the time the shutter was clicked. Today that is less and less true, particularly with Photoshop and digital photography. (Though to be fair, Gustav Le Gray was doing sandwiched negative prints in the 1870s which were complete fabrications of reality...)

The fact is, photography can be co-opted to make the image say whatever the photographer wants it to say (or, quite often, whatever the viewer wants to believe it says...) Camera height relative to subject can make someone look imposing or minuscule; the OJ Simpson mugshot on two different magazine covers with two different brightnesses gave two different reads; a long lens can spatially compress, while a short lens can spatially distort; there are any number of variables that the photographer has at his disposal that can alter the feeling, mood or intent of a photo. And that's all in camera. The additional work that can be done in post-production is almost unlimited..

So a picture may be worth 1000 words, but how reliable is the narrator?