Continuing my conspiracy theory trend this week (not something I tried for, its just sometimes happens), I came across an esoteric analysis of the new Transformers movie.

The actual conspiracy theory aspect of the article doesn't really interest me, and quite frankly I think the author is giving Michael Bay and other Transformers creators way more credit than deserved as far as subtext to the film. However, it does illustrate how people can and do find additional meanings within media, regardless whether they were intended.

I will also say that Transformers does make use of widely held human imagery and belief: that something greater than us is out there (whether on a supernatural plane or another planet), and that often the conflicts among those greater things impacts life on earth. It also represents our seeking for what is out there, as well as the awesome power that can come with revelation. That's one of the reasons why these stories - even when written with mediocre skill - continue to be so appealing. We identify with the concept even if we don't believe in it in any sort of literal sense. Of course, giant robots beating the snot out of each other wins a lot of fans too.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, letting people spread ideas far more quickly than at any time previous to now. It also, however, gives a greater voice to conspiracy theorists who string together random facts and see grand motives behind them.

There's a whole category of conspiracy theory's linked to corporate logos. Apparently, many large corporations are part of an occult New World Order, and for some reason wish to advertise this fact through secret symbols common people can't recognize. (In which case, who are the symbols intended for? People already in on the secret?)

This particular article is dedicated toward worship of the planet Saturn and the god it represents. Does your logo even vaguely imply a ring around it? You're part of the conspiracy. As is usual in these sorts of theories, a variety of historical "facts" are presented to bolster their argument, even though I can't even begin to guess the basis of most of their claims. Things like:

• "Occult researchers affirm that Saturn ruled the kingdom of Atlantis and became the divine ancestor of all earthly patriarchs and kings." Apparently he reads different researchers than I. People who know their Plato (as many occultists do), know that Altantis is an allegorical invention of the Greek philosopher.
• "[M]any authos [sic] argue that the word Satan is derived from the word Saturn." Really, a Hebrew word (satan) is derived from a Latin one? How did that happen?
• "Saturn is the farthest planet from the sun, the latter being associated with the principle of Good...Saturn is consequently the celestial body that is the less exposed to the sun’s divine light and thus associated with the coldness of the principle of Evil." The writer is correct (finally!) in that the Sun is generally associated with good. The fact that Saturn is the farthest planet from the sun known to the ancients, however, is meaningless, because these cultures didn't believe in a heliocentric system. He is correct that Saturn has traditionally held many negative connotations in astrology, although there are positive interpretations of the planet as well.

Supposed references to Saturn aren't the only thing you can find in logos. Does your logo include wings? Sunbursts? Even a round, yellow object that might be compared with the sun? Occult. According to this article, symbols can't possibly represent any of the other myriad meanings that we commonly associate with them.

This stuff scares people, and these people run in packs. They feed off each other's websites. Find a conspiracy theory and google it, and you'll likely find it repeated many times elsewhere, giving the illusion of substance behind them. What these sites regularly do not do is cite from where they are getting their information, even though they often depend upon claimed authority such as "occult researchers affirm..." and "many authors argue...".

Discuss this topic in the forum!

Pope Benedict XVI declared today that carbon-dating of the bones of St. Paul "seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul."

While I have no specific reason to doubt that the bones are that of St. Paul, claiming that science confirms his identity simply isn't true and opens to the door to more scrutiny, not less. Carbon-dating confirmed the bones dates from the first of second century, and that is all. The test therefore gave no reason to doubt that the bones are St. Paul's, but that's not the same as confirming that they are.

People have good reason to believe in their faith, whatever faith they may hold. When science contradicts faith, I personally believe that faith should be reexamined (although that's certainly not the opinion of all believers). But to expect science to confirm faith is asking too much. One can logically and rationally have faith without being able to point to a scientific report that backs it up.

Discuss this topic in the forum!

Among the deluge of Michael Jackson articles to hit the web this week, one fact that kept hitting my news filters was the fact that his Thriller video, considered by many to be the best music video ever, starts out with a very blatant and, in my view, somewhat bizarre disclaimer: "Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that this film in no way endorses a belief in the occult."

Did anyone actually believe that it did? Apparently, yes, even though the music video was little more than a short horror movie and really didn't show anything more than a bunch of dancing monsters.

Is that what anyone really thinks about "the occult"? Werewolves and zombies?

The fact is, I find the mere word "occult" creeps people out. When you ask them what they think it means, they suddenly get very vague. "Well, it's dark stuff." What kind of dark stuff? "Well, I don't know the specifics. I don't want to know about such things." Ok, fair enough, but how do you know it's bad if you can't express a definition even in generalities? You're scared by a word rather than any concept behind the word.

The St. Petersberg Times released a three-part article on Scientology based on the testimony of several formerly high-ranking defectors. The paper's website is also offering a variety of additional materials (available at the same URL) including Scientology objections to the articles.

It's mostly more of the same: the Church of Scientology insisting yet again that all allegations against it are completely false and the invention of mean and spiteful people. There's not a religion as squeaky clean in the entire world as this Church claims to be.

But one of their tactics was particularly notable. "The church prepared binders of indexed material that included confessions the defectors wrote during their time in Scientology," in an attempt to prove the misbehavior of the Times' sources. Confessions are a standard part of Scientology training, meant to help unburden the soul. Members are told such confessions always remain secret, yet here the Church blatantly handed them over to a publisher. Excerpts can be found at the bottom of this page of the expose.

One confession of Mike Rinder goes so far to say "I know that when you [David Miscavige, current head of the Church] say something it is true and it is what has kept me going ..." I'm kind of at a loss of how Miscavige thought that would be a good line to release to the public. That sort of unquestioning loyalty of a leader sets off all sorts of cultic red flags.

UnreasonableFaith.com posted an interesting video on cult mentality by a woman who was both an ex-Moonie and an ex-deprogrammer.

While I don't agree with all of her points (including visually comparing celebrating Moonies with the Hitler Youth), I did particularly like her bit on potential cult-members seeking easy answers to hard questions: cult leaders often have direct connection with God, God is good ergo the leader is good, and leader can provide me with all the answers and solutions I need.

Quite frankly, however, I don't see this as a specifically cult mentality. There's a lot of members of more accepted religions who really approach religion the same way. I can't count the number of times a theological discussion has been stymied by a participant who can't say anything more than "because the Bible says so," and then can't actually say where the Bible says it because they haven't actually read the darn thing, they're just parroting their pastor, a website (because, you know, the Internet is always right), some guy on Christian Radio, or whatever.

Likewise I've dealt with numerous Wiccans all in a panic because they're trying to do a ritual but don't have access to a certain object such as an athame, sage, or a bell. "Why do you feel you need this object?" I ask. "Well, because the book I'm reading says so." Great. Wicca has no scriptures, so this isn't like someone is falling back on the words of a god: they're referencing what one Wiccan wrote as a possible ritual. Most often these sorts of readers don't even understand why the athame, sage or bell was even incorporated into said ritual. It's easier to just presume someone else has all the answers than to engage in critical religious thought.

As protests concerning the legitimacy of recent presidential elections in Iran continue, the complicated divide between conservatives and progressives is making itself more clear, and one of the subjects in which this is the case is the fate of the Baha'is.

Iranians are angry, with thousands upon thousands of protesters taking to the streets and occasionally setting vehicles on fire. They accuse president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of rigging the recent presidential election, and they question how that many ballots could even be counted in the short time the government claims it took.

My short answer, explained in a new article, is "no," Freemasonry is not a religion and, thus, will not get much airtime on the AltReligion site.

There are certainly those who will disagree with me, but I'm not going to categorize everything that some person calls a religion as a religion. I need a reason, and for me the reasons just aren't there.

First and foremost, Freemasons do not themselves call it a religion. I write primarily about what religious people do, and in the mind of Freemasons, what they are doing is not religious. I cover Scientology precisely because Scientologists do consider their practices religious, even though many of their critics disagree.

And what about those rumors of the very highest levels of Freemasons participating in Satanic or other overtly religious rituals? Not being a high-level Freemason, I have no access to such rituals...and neither do most people who level such accusations. Even if I did have access, it would be highly unprofessional of me to publish such things. Such supposed materials are for the eyes of a very few. Just because it might be interesting doesn't give me a right to it.

Image courtesy Scott Barbour / Getty Images

Susan Atkins, a member of Charles Manson's "Family", is up for parole for the 18th time in September.

Most people have little doubt that Manson's group can be described as a dangerous cult (although an article by Denise Noe gives an interesting challenge to the idea). Manson was a charismatic leader who exerted extreme control over members of his group, up to and including ordering the brutal murders of several people.

That may be true. That doesn't suddenly give the cult members license to behave as they did. A CNN article states that "Charles Manson used his hypnotic powers to direct Atkins and other "family" members to kill seven people."

Charles Manson is not a supervillian. He doesn't have magical powers. He might have a convincing personality, but at the end of the day, everyone still has a choice whether they're going to listen. Manson's followers quite willingly joined him, enjoyed his company, and eventually accepted that murder was a good idea. This wasn't a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Even if one argues that they surrendered control to the charismatic Manson, that was still a choice. Each of us is responsible for our own behavior. If we take drugs, we're still responsible for what we do in a drug-induced state. If we drink and drive, we're still responsible for the accident we cause while blitzed out of our mind. If we decide to blindly follow a leader, that doesn't somehow absolve us of that decision.

Image Courtesy Getty Images