Does Anyone Actually hate Christians??

a reply to: Annee

ah so he's not quoting actual history, he's just an anti-catholic? i scanned one of the links you posted. i haven't read much about him, only tried to listen to him and he shoots the info so fast, it's hard to keep up. also, someone in the thread i read said bush wasn't a mason. no? skull and bones is a secret society, but doesn't have masonic connections? not that i'm worried about masons, per sey.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: undo
two guys, one created humans, the other was in charge of planet, owns it like real estate.

I can't help but notice that these two guys don't seem to fit the description of the creator of the universe.

They fit the Terra Papers.

they're in the sumerian texts, the bible and the terra papers, torah, book of giants, book of enoch, and in various forms under different names in other ancient histories, such as the writings of egypt, greece, rome, the druids of britain and norse writings. but i've only found reference to one character from the bible and sumerian texts, in chinese texts: cush. i haven't been able to work out which is which in the hindu texts

Did you search cush on ATS?

I haven't a clue, but . . .

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: undo

I will only speak for myself here.

The bold claims made by religions should have no problem standing up to scrutiny. Especially the ones who claim to have divine truths handed down to them from above, stored in texts indirectly written by the creator of all things.

There are really only a hand full of humans that have made claims like this that are really necessary to consider. These periodic folks that come along, say they know when the worlds going to end, always a dead giveaway that they don't know ect. Just clear away the table and take a look at people like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah ect.

And don't get hung up on texts. Your are reading text now from folks you don't even know. Why wouldn't people write things down? Its like talking, communicating on paper with symbols ect, ect.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: grandmakdw

Sorry, but you missed the point. Your own analogies don't work either. Let's not get into the Obamacare angle - you said that no-one wanted it, but I disagree massively. It certainly seems to be increasingly popular,

Hardly the point, since Obamacare is not what people voted for when they voted for Obama in 2008. The "plan" (I just love that word!) that Obama sold them was a plan that did not include an individual mandate. He specifically pointed out several times that was a key difference between himself and Hitlary. She was for an individual mandate and he wasn't. He correctly pointed out that it was analogous to trying to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house. But of course he was intentionally lying because he knew the mandate was an unpopular idea and he knew once he was elected he could just do whatever he wanted and no one could stop him.

Doesn't really matter if people are so intimidated by the mandate that they're buying their mandatory insurance now years after Obama lied to them and told them there wasn't going to be a mandate and did a 180 within months of being (S)elected.

It's not really important because everyone knows he lied and the only people who are getting really screwed in the deal are young, healthy people who didn't already have health insurance because they didn't want it. Those people were a minority and they're getting screwed royally in this deal because they don't need what they're being forced to pay for. There's nothing they can do about it because that's how mob rule (Democracy) works. If you don't have the numbers to effectively vote against it when it matters, you're just plain SOL. The adversarial system of the US government is supposed to guard against this kind of thing but you see how that went when the one vote the liberals needed had to come from a conservative and magically appeared.

Yeah. The whole thing stinks worse than a hooker's crotch and I can't imagine why that might be.

a reply to: grandmakdw
I disagree. Believing in "god" is one thing. Believing that any religion or faith on earth is representative of that "god" is something else altogether.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

Im an agnostic anti theist.
I hate religion, I really do.
But I think there is a possibility that there could well be a "creator".
But when I see children suffering from AIDS, or things like the Thai tsunami tragedy on Boxing day 2004, I know he doesnt get involved in the lives of men.
If there was a god that loved and cared for us then there would be no poverty, disease and less than 100 people holding half the wealth of the earth.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: grandmakdw
I disagree. Believing in "god" is one thing. Believing that any religion or faith on earth is representative of that "god" is something else altogether.

That's exactly how I feel. I always call myself a "hopeful agnostic", meaning I don't know for certain, but I like the idea of some kind of higher power out there. What I don't believe is that this higher power would care whether we wear tattoos or eat shellfish or whether we are gay/straight or whatever. It is the dogma of organized (man-made) religion that I don't believe in.

a reply to: kaylaluv

That's exactly how I feel. I always call myself a "hopeful agnostic", meaning I don't know for certain, but I like the idea of some kind of higher power out there.

I like this. I think I'll join you in that terminology.
That's exactly how I feel, too!!

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

Im an agnosic anti theist.
I hate religion, I really do.
But I think there is a possibility that there could well be a "creator".
But when I see children suffering from aids, or things like the Thai tsunami tragedy on Boxing day 2004, I know he doesnt get involved in the lives of men.
If there was a god that loved and cared for us then there would be no poverty, disease and less than 100 people holding half the wealth of the earth.

I personally am open to the possibility that we are on a journey of self-discovery, and that journey is sometimes filled with pain and suffering - but at the end of the journey we learn so much more than if we hadn't experienced any of it. It might be possible that after the journey, we see the suffering as nothing but a blip, to be forgotten immediately- kind of how it is like when a pregnant woman has a difficult delivery. Once you hold that baby in your arms, you forget all about the pain you just went through - and you realize it was all worth it, because look what you got in the end.

But, I am also open to the possibility that there was a "creator" who just went on to other things once he/it set things in motion in this universe. It's not as warm and fuzzy, but it IS possible.

Near death experiences are the only thing that make me lean towards the first possibility. I've read about many amazing life-changing experiences that make me wonder...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

Im an agnosic anti theist.
I hate religion, I really do.
But I think there is a possibility that there could well be a "creator".
But when I see children suffering from aids, or things like the Thai tsunami tragedy on Boxing day 2004, I know he doesnt get involved in the lives of men.
If there was a god that loved and cared for us then there would be no poverty, disease and less than 100 people holding half the wealth of the earth.

I personally am open to the possibility that we are on a journey of self-discovery, and that journey is sometimes filled with pain and suffering - but at the end of the journey we learn so much more than if we hadn't experienced any of it. It might be possible that after the journey, we see the suffering as nothing but a blip, to be forgotten immediately- kind of how it is like when a pregnant woman has a difficult delivery. Once you hold that baby in your arms, you forget all about the pain you just went through - and you realize it was all worth it, because look what you got in the end.

But, I am also open to the possibility that there was a "creator" who just went on to other things once he/it set things in motion in this universe. It's not as warm and fuzzy, but it IS possible.

Near death experiences are the only thing that make me lean towards the first possibility. I've read about many amazing life-changing experiences that make me wonder...

I believe that without pain and suffering we dont gain empathy for the suffering of others.
Our struggles make us appreciate our successes much more IMO.
I think we are on the same page.

My question is "Why?" or "What does it all mean?"
I know there is more than meets the eye and our 5 senses, and not everything can be proven currently.
But that doesnt validate the existence of an all loving god that will throw us into the pits of hell for eternity for using our "god given" free will.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

I take my definition(s) direct from American Atheists.

Dictionaries are still catching up. Some still say it means Devil Worshiping.

Guess what, I know more about being atheist then you do.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

atheists.org...

Actual definition of agnostic by the guy who wrote it.

It means God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. —Thomas Henry Huxley

originally posted by: Annee
Actual definition of agnostic by the guy who wrote it.

It means God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. —Thomas Henry Huxley

I think most religions define atheist and agnostic according to their own bias. For the Christian...
"...whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Annee
Actual definition of agnostic by the guy who wrote it.

It means God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. —Thomas Henry Huxley

I think most religions define atheist and agnostic according to their own bias. For the Christian...
"...whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

From American Atheists

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

atheists.org...

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

it's not that i actually think atheists are omniscient and i know atheists don't think they're omniscient. i was just stating that claiming you know god(s) don't exist, is not possible to know unless you attach the proviso of omniscience,

Atheist does NOT state or mean God does not exist.

That might be the personal philosophy of an individual who lacks belief in a God - - - but it is NOT what atheist means.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.




ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



What you are describing is an agnostic rather than an atheist, or anti-theist

Anti-theist's are what is abounding in the thread, people who stand against theism or a belief in god.

Im an agnosic anti theist.
I hate religion, I really do.
But I think there is a possibility that there could well be a "creator".
But when I see children suffering from aids, or things like the Thai tsunami tragedy on Boxing day 2004, I know he doesnt get involved in the lives of men.
If there was a god that loved and cared for us then there would be no poverty, disease and less than 100 people holding half the wealth of the earth.

I personally am open to the possibility that we are on a journey of self-discovery, and that journey is sometimes filled with pain and suffering - but at the end of the journey we learn so much more than if we hadn't experienced any of it. It might be possible that after the journey, we see the suffering as nothing but a blip, to be forgotten immediately- kind of how it is like when a pregnant woman has a difficult delivery. Once you hold that baby in your arms, you forget all about the pain you just went through - and you realize it was all worth it, because look what you got in the end.

But, I am also open to the possibility that there was a "creator" who just went on to other things once he/it set things in motion in this universe. It's not as warm and fuzzy, but it IS possible.

Near death experiences are the only thing that make me lean towards the first possibility. I've read about many amazing life-changing experiences that make me wonder...

It's pretty common knowledge amongst medical types that NDE's are caused by blood loss to the brain. A lot of pilots have them when experiencing high g forces. It is and has been recreated in labs without any chance of death being involved. With basically the same result.

Those that tout NDE's as proof of Christianity know that as well but still put them up as proof.



The divine experience has been recreated as well by beaming alpha waves into a specific part of the brain. Even works on nuns. No god needed.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Annee
Actual definition of agnostic by the guy who wrote it.

It means God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. —Thomas Henry Huxley

I think most religions define atheist and agnostic according to their own bias. For the Christian...
"...whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

From American Atheists

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

atheists.org...

You mean a atheists opinion.... I have yet to fill out the survey, I'm sure they did, in question....

a reply to: Entreri06

Those that tout NDE's as proof of Christianity know that as well but still put them up as proof.

I think NDEs are an important current subject of study, and they really have nothing to do with "Christianity". A person can be perfectly non-Christian and still find NDEs fascinating. Hence the "spiritual" perspective that refuses "Christian" dogma.


It's more about the study of consciousness and the mind being a separate but just as powerful and real 'thing' as "the brain."

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Annee
Actual definition of agnostic by the guy who wrote it.

It means God can not be proven or dis-proven.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. —Thomas Henry Huxley

I think most religions define atheist and agnostic according to their own bias. For the Christian...
"...whatever is not from faith is sin." Romans 14:23

From American Atheists

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

atheists.org...

You mean a atheists opinion.... I have yet to fill out the survey, I'm sure they did, in question....

I have been both Christian and Atheist.

Have you?

a reply to: Entreri06
Excellent post. Starred.

But here are my questions: Does the fact that we can replicate a natural phenomena, mean that it happens by the same means we use to replicate it?

Additionally: Does the fact that we can replicate a natural phenomena, negate the phenomena. Or does it just prove that we can replicate it?