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.

 

Athiests vs The Religious Conspiracy... Explain to Me Why Believers Believe.

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What does your little rant have to do with the truth of my statement

The irony? As the western world is turning progressive, the road to power is to bash the Christian Church. New “religions” are being forged to manipulate to extend power. Examples are environmentalism and identity sexualism. And the world is still pledged by the evils of those in power manipulating any and every system that will gain them power.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny that politicians are the ones that free up the majority of money that eneables climate change research? Is that a false statement.

First off. Got a source that actually crunches the numbers of government backed research versus private backed research versus university backed research? I'm guessing no and you are just repeating a talking point you gleamed from right wing media.

Second off. Again all you have to do is read the scientific journal. If the research is flawed because it was tainted by money then this should be obvious to you in the research.


Can you cite any investigation that proves research that contradicts man made global warming was criminal fraudulent? Bill Nye mudt had some specific investigation in mind to make such a statement.

Again. I didn't adopt an opinion on Nye's opinion. Suggesting I did is a strawman. If you want to question this, then ask Bill Nye. Not me. This isn't my idea. It is his.
edit on 4-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What does your little rant have to do with the truth of my statement

That wasn't a rant... Furthermore the post you are responding to here that I was responding to was two questions. There is no truth in a question. Questions are designed to get information. It's like you don't know how words work.


The irony? As the western world is turning progressive, the road to power is to bash the Christian Church. New “religions” are being forged to manipulate to extend power. Examples are environmentalism and identity sexualism. And the world is still pledged by the evils of those in power manipulating any and every system that will gain them power.

You sound insecure in your beliefs. If Christianity was all that it claims to be, then why does it keep losing believers year after year? Blaming progressives just shows you don't want to identify the problems in your own religion that contribute to people leaving. I can tell you Progressivism had all of 0% to do with why I left the Christian religion. It was the behavior of the religion that started my path to disbelief; followed by researching the claims within the bible that hammered in the final nail.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: BStoltman

I agree with you, Almost none have read the whole thing.. like literally I bet only 2% have read it all.. and it is not that freaking long..

I bet a compiled copy of “game of thrones or Harry Potter” whole series would be longer.

In fact I have started a couple threads asking

“if you really believe then why has almost no one ever read the entire thing??”

Or

“Should you have to read the Bible to be considered a christian??”

They have read Harry Potter a lot of times, but the actual Devine word of god??

No need..


The logic their is just crazy, lol..



In reality, though some of the stories are decent, the Bible is just a horribly dry read..

It is written for a different age and is really a compilation of various stories, from various authors, so it contradicts itself quite a bit and doesn’t have a cohesive narrative.





Some how I think you all do not understand faith. This where you do not need proof, or even feel the need seek proof. People believe because they have faith and that is really all is needed...



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you prove that a majority of climate change research isn’t government funding.

Second, you honestly don’t think climate change is not another tool unbalanced politicians can use to grab power. Who was going to get rich off carbon credits?

Third, please cite an investigation where Bill Nye was warranted is saying research in general against man made climate change is criminally fraudulent.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you prove that a majority of climate change research isn’t government funding.

Doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you produce the evidence it is true. You don't prove negatives. That is impossible.


Second, you honestly don’t think climate change is not another tool unbalanced politicians can use to grab power. Who was going to get rich off carbon credits?

Who cares? That has nothing to do with the science research. Why are you so intent on ignoring the actual science? I mean I have an idea of why (it's easier to argue talking points than actually research your position thoroughly), but I'd prefer to hear your answer.


Third, please cite an investigation where Bill Nye was warranted is saying research in general against man made climate change is criminally fraudulent.

NO! Go look it up yourself if you are so interested.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am very secure in my beliefs. History has proven that unscrupulous men throughout the ages use any means possible to gain power. That government has caused more death and destruction than anything else throughout history. But if there is no supreme moral authority such as God/Jesus, war has the moral equivalency of a civilization wipped out by a comet crashing into the earth.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don’t care that you disagree with me. If you don’t like something I post, it is up to you to discredit that statement.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the context of this thread, and religion is a conspiracy.... the true conspiracy is men will manipulate any institution to gain and maintain power.

Again...

What does your little rants have to do with the truth of my statement

The irony? As the western world is turning progressive, the road to power is to bash the Christian Church. New “religions” are being forged to manipulate to extend power. Examples are environmentalism and identity sexualism. And the world is still pledged by the evils of those in power manipulating any and every system that will gain them power.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am very secure in my beliefs. History has proven that unscrupulous men throughout the ages use any means possible to gain power. That government has caused more death and destruction than anything else throughout history.

Yes and the Christian religion used to be linked completely with government and power. It still even retains a lot of that power and sway even to this day.


But if there is no supreme moral authority such as God/Jesus, war has the moral equivalency of a civilization wipped out by a comet crashing into the earth.

Well morals are an invention of man to help further the cohesiveness of society, so yeah. That's true. Welcome to reality.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don’t care that you disagree with me. If you don’t like something I post, it is up to you to discredit that statement.

This is a weak cop out to deflect from producing evidence for your claim.
Burden of proof (philosophy)

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Hey you have the wrong end of the stick it's not just the Christian Church ALL religion is BS does that make you happier




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

By the media that kept quite what senators or congressmen men were sexual predators for the last fifty years.


You push that with what has happened in the Roman Catholic church for a lot longer than that.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I agree that the manipulation of religious institutions for power has and will continue to occur. And is a problem.

But there is also the same forces of manipulation in any body that brings power.

To think manipulation is solely inherent to religion is a falsehood.

I would say Hilter created a religion more based on nationalism and race than deities.

And that is not even covering the manipulation of banking and financial institutions.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: neutronflux

Hey you have the wrong end of the stick it's not just the Christian Church ALL religion is BS does that make you happier



That is for you to choose. I believe in God, Jusus, and the Holy Spirit. That is faith. Not science. I hope to never bow down or warship a fellow human as in North Korea. My hope lies outside material earth. Nuff said about that.....



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Personally I'm agnostic . Like I said before, how in the world can I KNOW if God exists or not (as a truth, that is unknowable). Having said that, I also think that "being an atheist" and "being against organized religion" should be two very different things.

There are Theists (believers that a supernatural creator exists) who could conceivably be against organized religions in general, and against certain organized religions specifically. I guess what I'm saying is that a person could believe in God without belonging to any particular organized religion or following any particular religious dogma.

So I can understand atheists having an issue with organized religions with extremist views; organized religions can be dangerous and harmful to society. However, I really don't understnd why an atheist would care if a person believed that there might be a creator "out there somewhere".

Atheists should spend their energy arguing against religious extremism rather than arguing against the philosphical question of a universal creator. Religious extremism is a tangible thing; but a philosophical argument can't be won.


edit on 4/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
And if one of my professors in college was right, it doesn’t matter. He took the stance that evolution’s end result would be robots, not spiritual ascension.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
And if one of my professors in college was right, it doesn’t matter. He took the stance that evolution’s end result would be robots, not spiritual ascension.


There is no end result to evolution. Evolution just "does"; it doesn't have an aim, a goal, or a finish line.

In that respect, it could be argued that intelligence is not a goal of evolution -- nor might it even be an evolutionary advantage. There are in fact non-intelligent organisms on Earth that (as a species, if not as individual organisms) are much more successful species than humans.

So, sure -- our intelligence might one day result in humans (or our evolutionary descendants) no longer requiring biological vessels to carry around their consciousness...but then again, evolution might result in something else to rising up and causing those human descendant/machines hybrids to go extinct.

Evolution might march on long after the last branch of the human family tree is gone.


edit on 4/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
How is this for an illogical theory on the true cycle of creation....

Lesser man creates robots in mans curiosity of the physical world that makes men obsolete. Man withers into oblivion.

In time, Robots create biological creatures in robots bit for searching true creativity and reasoning. Dogmatic robots made obsolete by creative biologics.
edit on 4-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Then if it’s evolution for man to be superseded by robots for example, and wither away. Or become extinct, can you say that war helping the process along is not moral?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join