It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Losing my Religion

page: 28
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Odd, every scientist I've seen, especially the "leaders" as you say, all state that if there was empirical evidence that whatever theory they accepted turned out to be incorrect, they would instantaneously reject the old theory.

Actually, I believe both Richard Dawkins and Michio Kaku both said they had a professor in school whom was teaching a specific topic in their respective fields. They were discussing it and teaching it to the class when all of a sudden a student pointed out that the information they were teaching was actually flawed. Both those students proved it by sourcing the study which showed those theories to be incorrect. Those professors, who both taught that theory for years, instantly rejected them once they verified those studies to be accurate, thanking the students who brought it up.

No, the scientific community doesn't work as you're claiming it to. But Creationists, and religious spokespersons definitely like to claim it does. I have no doubts that some individuals have indeed pushed a specific claim in the name of self gain, But those claims are quickly defused by their reviewing peers.

Your analogies are just ridiculous.

But the great thing about science is that anyone can actually go out and prove or disprove a theory if they have discovered the evidence to do so. Even you can go out and "do science", finding out on your own how the theories that we have really do function the way they do.

Unlike Religion, science gives all this information out for everyone to see and use. Religious centers such as the Vatican, hide as much information as they can possibly get away with from their followers. A bit shady if you ask me.

As for your "real Clincher" you're free to supply a source to your claims, rather than just hearsay. It may strengthen your argument.

You clearly have a massive bias towards science and atheism. I don't really believe you even have a chance of seeing things clearly because of this. Just a few posts ago you actually refused to accept a simple definition because of your misconceptions. A definition! One where you can look anywhere to see that we are actually correct in our definition. But you refused. You are simply so ingrained in theistic thoughts and teachings that it is nearly impossible to convince you anything that doesn't abide by your world view.

It is so bad that if you were taught the sky was the ground, there would be no amount of evidence to show you how that is incorrect.

I feel incredibly sorry that you've been so mentally abused by the beliefs you follow.




posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

the enlightenment period, which was both a good thing and a bad thing, started off on a false pretense, and all of it engineered by catholic professors in catholic universities, not long after it was apparent the rcc was losing believers, not to atheism but to protestantism, when they finally got to read the bible for the first time, in english and german.

so yeah i think they engineered the enlightenment and released, thru their professors, tiny bits of real science, hoarded by all the mystery school religions, and then had their professors control how it would be released, ever since. so right now, you are, as i have mentioned elsewhere on ats, a catholic, just of the atheist variety. the papacy controls both religious and atheist knowledge dissemination.

they literally threw away 5000 years of ancient history on a false pretense. then scores of critical texts were written on the subject of their originally false pretense and subsequent textual victims. they were just fine using ancient egyptian stuff, since they got to set all the parameters, most of it was still buried under sand at that point. what we were allowed and not allowed to know, how many pharaohs ruled at the same time and so on, all decided by their squad of professors. you forget just how many there were.

oddly, enough, once the science of archaeology was created, it started to backfire on them, as more and more ancient history kept cropping up with evidence. so what happens? they have it blown up, set on fire, and torn down by the other religion they control. i'll let you guess which one that is.

the premise is exactly the same: we know it all and you don't. end.of.story.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
here, i'll give you an example:

in the mahabharata, a text written around 3000 bc in sanskrit, it describes a guy getting into a flying car (yes it was called a car) while in the middle of an aerial battle. the car is huge. it engages a cloaking device and begins to shoot its enemies without them being able to see it. meanwhile on the ground, a special weapon is set up that can seek out the cloaked ship. it launches a missile at the cloaked flying car. birds begin to cry and fly away, dust fills the air and smoke, it makes a thunderous noise as it launches.

bet you didn't know that. say thank you to rome. bow , bow to the guys in the red robes.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
probably looked something like this



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

This makes for an entertaining read.

Totally and utterly ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: undo

This makes for an entertaining read.

Totally and utterly ridiculous, but entertaining nonetheless.


it's actually in the mahabharata. i know because i did a write up about it, after having read it for myself. later, i saw a video called ancient aliens debunked, by a couple of nice christian guys, who apparently didn't go back any further in hindu texts than 100 years or so. they pulled up channeled texts and used them as a reason to claim the ancient aliens show couldn't be legit on the subject of vimanas in hindu texts. i proved that even if vimanas were in newer texts, that the oldest texts (ya know the ones everyone has been convinced don't have any pertinent info in them about our ancient history), like mahabharata, described flying cars, cloaking devices, rockets/missles/darts that could seek out a cloaked vehicle and punch a whole right thru it, for example.


edit on 26-4-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   


?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
. . . you don't need God to tell you directly that homosexual relations are unnatural.


I actually kinda liked you until this.

Ignorance from a book.

Of course, homosexual relations are natural - - - they are as God made them. It is not a choice.

Divorce however, is a choice.



Homosexual relations are a choice. Temptations, however, are not always a choice. People also feel tempted to do many other things. That doesn't mean that it is natural to do them.

It's not just about a book. It's obvious. I'm not telling people not to have homosexual relations. I'm saying that it's obviously not the way that it is supposed to be. No fruit is produced naturally from the relationship.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Homosexual relations are a choice. Temptations, however, are not always a choice. People also feel tempted to do many other things. That doesn't mean that it is natural to do them.

And this is where you are very wrong, as homosexuality is not a choice. Ask Ben Carson, now even he knows...


www.livescience.com...



originally posted by: TarzanBeta
It's not just about a book. It's obvious. I'm not telling people not to have homosexual relations. I'm saying that it's obviously not the way that it is supposed to be. No fruit is produced naturally from the relationship.

Only obvious in this post is that you show all signs of prejudice and intolerance. I already asked you, what if couple CAN'T have children. I am sure that we all have or know someone like that. Is that a choice, even there are many different reasons they can't have children.

Think about what you are proposing here, by finding 'normal' only in something your book approves...



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
. . . you don't need God to tell you directly that homosexual relations are unnatural.


I actually kinda liked you until this.

Ignorance from a book.

Of course, homosexual relations are natural - - - they are as God made them. It is not a choice.

Divorce however, is a choice.



Homosexual relations are a choice. Temptations, however, are not always a choice. People also feel tempted to do many other things. That doesn't mean that it is natural to do them.

It's not just about a book. It's obvious. I'm not telling people not to have homosexual relations. I'm saying that it's obviously not the way that it is supposed to be. No fruit is produced naturally from the relationship.


All relationships are a choice (some exceptions). Who you were wired to be sexually attracted to is not.

Science now knows sexual orientation is inherent in the body/brain makeup. Just because the extreme complexity of sexuality makes it difficult to pin point any one cause does not mean they haven't found indicators. They have.

Ignorance does not justify God. Seizures were once thought to be "possessed by the Devil". Sounds pretty stupid today. As does many things in the bible.

Yes, it is just a book created by man.

Do you call hetero couples using IVF to have children abominations too?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You're opening can of worms...


What do you call people today that can hear voice and those voice tells them to kill own son??



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I already asked you, what if couple CAN'T have children.


I'm OK with these people not having children. (25 of 100)

Reproduction is so primitive. Humanity needs far more then just a primitive act.



1 Socrates
2 Sappho
3 Oscar Wilde
4 Magnus Hirschfeld
5 The Patrons of Stonewall Inn
6 Walt Whitman
7 Gertrude Stein
8 Karl Heinrich Ulrichs
9 Edward Carpenter
10 J. A. Symonds
11 Mary Wollstonecraft
12 Susan B. Anthony
13 Virginia Woolf
14 Alexander the Great
15 Hadrian
16 St. Augustine
17 Michelangelo Buonarroti
18 Leonardo da Vinci
19 Christopher Marlowe
20 William Shakespeare
21 Johann Joachim Winckelmann
22 Harry Hay
23 Harvey Milk
24 Queen Christina of Sweden
25 Edward II

www.adherents.com...

edit on 26-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I already asked you, what if couple CAN'T have children.


I'm OK with these people not having children.

Reproduction is so primitive. Humanity needs far more then just a primitive act.

1 Socrates
2 Sappho
3 Oscar Wilde
4 Magnus Hirschfeld
5 The Patrons of Stonewall Inn
6 Walt Whitman
7 Gertrude Stein
8 Karl Heinrich Ulrichs
9 Edward Carpenter
10 J. A. Symonds
11 Mary Wollstonecraft
12 Susan B. Anthony
13 Virginia Woolf
14 Alexander the Great
15 Hadrian
16 St. Augustine
17 Michelangelo Buonarroti
18 Leonardo da Vinci
19 Christopher Marlowe
20 William Shakespeare
21 Johann Joachim Winckelmann
22 Harry Hay
23 Harvey Milk
24 Queen Christina of Sweden
25 Edward II

www.adherents.com...


I can proudly say I don't know who any of those people are.

Are all your friends this obsessed with pop culture as well? Pity.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Annee

You're opening can of worms...


What do you call people today that can hear voice and those voice tells them to kill own son??




I once had an infection in my falopian tube. Whacked out hormones. It created some very bizarre thoughts. I have a very strong mind. I called my mom and had my kids removed until I was well.

It did give me insight on how some can commit heinous acts. It was very scary.

Add something like that to mind manipulation (religion) anything can be committed in the name of God.

The body/brain is extremely complex. We are not clones. We are all a "mixed soup" with variations of ingredients.

I'm more convinced every day we are all born who we are.
edit on 26-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FaceMyBook

If it were me, claiming not to know any of those on that list.

I'd look them up so I wouldn't be ignorant next time I saw one of those names.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: FaceMyBook
I can proudly say I don't know who any of those people are.

Are all your friends this obsessed with pop culture as well? Pity.


How proud you have to be that in 2 sentences you can show how little you know about art, science, history, literature,...

I know, you might be joking and making fun, but this is not either place or time for sarcasm... sorry...

Please read TOS for this site... there are some insights what not to do...



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FaceMyBook

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I already asked you, what if couple CAN'T have children.


I'm OK with these people not having children.

Reproduction is so primitive. Humanity needs far more then just a primitive act.

1 Socrates
2 Sappho
3 Oscar Wilde
4 Magnus Hirschfeld
5 The Patrons of Stonewall Inn
6 Walt Whitman
7 Gertrude Stein
8 Karl Heinrich Ulrichs
9 Edward Carpenter
10 J. A. Symonds
11 Mary Wollstonecraft
12 Susan B. Anthony
13 Virginia Woolf
14 Alexander the Great
15 Hadrian
16 St. Augustine
17 Michelangelo Buonarroti
18 Leonardo da Vinci
19 Christopher Marlowe
20 William Shakespeare
21 Johann Joachim Winckelmann
22 Harry Hay
23 Harvey Milk
24 Queen Christina of Sweden
25 Edward II

www.adherents.com...


I can proudly say I don't know who any of those people are.

Are all your friends this obsessed with pop culture as well? Pity.


Dear god. Please tell me that you're joking. The alternative is horrifying.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Ghost147

so yeah i think they engineered the enlightenment and released, thru their professors, tiny bits of real science, hoarded by all the mystery school religions, and then had their professors control how it would be released, ever since. so right now, you are, as i have mentioned elsewhere on ats, a catholic, just of the atheist variety. the papacy controls both religious and atheist knowledge dissemination.


You know how I can prove this isn't true as a fact? Because Atheists don't have knowledge dissemination because it's not a belief system! You would know this if you opened your eyes at read what everyone in this forum, on the entire internet, and anything referencing "Atheism" (from non religious sources) is saying. The only thing that Atheism deals with is that they state there is no god. That is it.

Here I'll say it again, because for whatever reason your mind has some sort of brainwashed mental block that makes this concept invisible to you. Atheist's do not believe in god. They don't have their own scripture. It is not a belief system. Atheism says nothing about morality. All Atheists can choose to believe in anything they want so long as it doesn't involve a higher being. There is no moral set of codes an Atheist must follow. So on and so forth.

If you can manage to get this information into your head, then perhaps we can stop tiptoeing around subjects with a constant battery of insane theories that make no sense solely do to your inability to conceive one single definition.

Stop trying to couple Atheism and Science together, because they have absolutely no relation to each other. You act as if Science is the Bible for Atheists. You know why do act like this? Because you don't have the power to understand one single definition. It seems like an impossible task for you to do.
edit on 26/4/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

it was in response to your answer regarding a common view amongst atheists on topics like natural selection. i was making the case that what is disseminated amongst the population, that atheists share a common view on, is in reality being manipulated by a bunch of guys in red dresses in rome.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

I know what you were responding to. The issue is that coupling a concept generally regarded as factual within an Atheist population alongside the foundation of a religion's scripture is inappropriate. You're trying to draw similarities and claim them as being driven from the same device, yet you're missing one major issue.

Atheism doesn't have a teaching, or a specific material where Atheistic beliefs derive from. Any commonalities from one Atheist to another is pure coincidence. You're logic is flawed. The cause of this flaw is, yet again, due to your inability to understand a single definition.
edit on 26/4/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join