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.

 

Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

page: 45
10
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


The Central Intelligence Agency has better information.

Chinas government is officially atheist


Religions:
Definition Field Listing
Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%, Muslim 1%-2%
note: officially atheist (2002 est.)

www.cia.gov...


North Korea: No non government religion the govy religion is "self reliance"


Religions:
Definition Field Listing
traditionally Buddhist and Confucianist, some Christian and syncretic Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way)
note: autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom

www.cia.gov...


Russia only 37% -- almost all non practicing or atheist


Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule

www.cia.gov...




posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 
Nice post Excitable, star for you. I'm curious as to how this information will be spun around. IS Wikipedia in on the conspiracy? The Russian Embassy? Surely there must be some deception involved in these numbers. If any information comes along that doesn't support what we want it to, well gosh darn it there's your proof of a conspiracy!



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Ah the good ol CIA, that paragon of truth, as if they've never been implicated ina conspiracy lol. I see the little notes there about the people and their religion. They say what the majority of religions are , then say what the governments want the religion to be. Who cares what the government wants, I care about what the people want. I don't judge a nation by it's government, I judge a nation by it's people.(well I really dont judge, but you know what I mean.)

Also note that non-practicing doesn't rule out any believers, it just means they don't go to church religiously or march around announcing their faith.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   


Propaganda was explicitly for promoting Atheism, there's the evidence for the conspiracy, right there.



There it is: Propaganda. You think Russia and Communists are the only ones capable of propaganda? The CIA has all factual information? and no motives for propaganda?


It appears that some people on this thread and in this forum need to learn
to differentiate Communism and Atheism. It appears that the attempt to link the two and make it appear that they are the same is propaganda.

It reminds me of a thumper on here that tried to tell me that Paganism and Occultism were the same thing. People that are guilty of trying to link these two things together are also guilty of spreading propaganda.

Bringing Lenin into the discussion was also amusing. It appears Lenin was also brought in as an attempt at propaganda. Here is something interesting:



Marx, Engels and Lenin all agreed that there should be complete separation of church and state and that the state should never make laws about religious belief, either to support one religion or to ban another

source: sfr-21.org...


Even the big commies believed in separation of church and state.

Communism = a form of government
Atheism = has nothing to do with government

It was propaganda that killed 60,000 American young men in Vietnam. American political propaganda!



The Central Intelligence Agency has better information.


Really? Why is it better? Because you think it's better? Because it is better for your argument?

Truly, what makes it better??

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


Perhaps the Russians or Chinese will accept your application for citizenship then.

I have shown the conspiracy to use athesit propaganda on a population. I have also discredited your vague wikipedia statistics. You just change the goal post each time you are proven wrong. I consider it a hopeless cause.
Use this link



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 




I have also discredited your vague wikipedia statistics. You just change the goal post each time you are proven wrong. I consider it a hopeless cause.



Are you kidding? You didn't discredit my information. You provided different answers from a different source. How did that discredit anything? Seriously. You come up with ONE source that is different than mine and that discredited my post?


I haven't changed any goal posts. What are you talking about? I have no goals here at all. You are the one here with an agenda, not me.

You consider anyone a hopeless cause that does not agree with you. That is pathetic.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Not going to read 44 pages....sorry. If you don't want to answer the question, that's cool. Behoove me? I am deredging up issues? I thought I was repsonding to the poster before me. How was I dredging up anything? I doubt that anything was gone over with a fine tooth comb here. I can't even get an answer to a simple question.


Wow, just pipe down already before we're forced to ALERT the mods on you.

You've done nothing but snoot and huff around this thread making petty comments.... you just wasted a whole paragraph demonstrating that. You can't get any answers to your 'simple questions' because they've already been covered in this thread. We told you that... and yet you continue to antagonize.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Not going to read 44 pages....sorry. If you don't want to answer the question, that's cool. Behoove me? I am deredging up issues? I thought I was repsonding to the poster before me. How was I dredging up anything? I doubt that anything was gone over with a fine tooth comb here. I can't even get an answer to a simple question.


Wow, just pipe down already before we're forced to ALERT the mods on you.

You've done nothing but snoot and huff around this thread making petty comments.... you just wasted a whole paragraph demonstrating that. You can't get any answers to your 'simple questions' because they've already been covered in this thread. We told you that... and yet you continue to antagonize.
I would give the pipe down advice to some of the critics of Excitable, since I have seen personal remarks pointed at him by at least 4 different people, and at this point in time I can really only find 1 instance of him making a personal comment.

While I don't agree with everything Excitable has said, I dont't really see that his questions are that bad, most of them seem at least somewhat reasonable. You may think his question has been answered to YOUR satisfaction earlier in the thread, but that doesn't mean he can't ask for further clarification or ask a question in his own way and in his own words. And if you just can't tolerate his rhetoric and his demeanor, ignore him. All you are doing is instigating more of the behavior you apparently want less of.

Let's all take along deep breath, and go back and read the first post by the OP. Wasn't what the OP really wanted was some meaningful dialog to see if we couldnt try to co-exist peacefully? Lets get back to that message.

Edit: I did go back and filter more carefully for personal comments, and they were going both ways. I found more against him and found mroe coming from him. The point still stands though, don't be pulling the Mod card since you could easily end up shooting yourself or one of your partners in faith in the foot with it.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
I asked for the name of one Atheist organization that had enough members for it to be a concern.


Here You Go. I'll see your 'one' and raise you to two.

You might balk at the numbers in the organizations even if they consist of tens of thousands so I'll preempt it by what has also already been explained: It only takes two to conspire.

Have fun. I look forward to debating your inevitable explanation, EB.


[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy



It would probably behoove you to read the thread. The issues that you are dredging up, have been gone over with a fine tooth comb, already. Has been done to death.



Not going to read 44 pages....sorry. If you don't want to answer the question, that's cool. Behoove me? I am deredging up issues? I thought I was repsonding to the poster before me. How was I dredging up anything? I doubt that anything was gone over with a fine tooth comb here. I can't even get an answer to a simple question.

I asked for the name of one Atheist organization that had enough members for it to be a concern. No one appears to be able to answer that, so not sure how this was "done to death" or "gone over with a fine tooth comb."

Well, if you don't care enough to read the thread, then I guess you are taking shortcuts that just keeps repeating the same tired old arguments and issues.
And how would you know if anything was gone over with a fine tooth comb, if you have not read the thread.
This thread has extended into 44 pages because of redundancy.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


I do not hate anyone. And once again; for your benefit, since you refuse to read the thread...IT WAS A QUESTION! Not an accusation! This tripe should never have extended past the first page.
What does the Jewish issue have to do with it? I don't hate Jews. That is your assumption. You know about assumptions. The Jews are God's original chosen and He still has a plan for them. He is not willing that any should perish.
Please don't try to assume anything about me. You do not know me.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Not sure what I was supposed to get from that Ashley. Someone mentions 20,000 Americans but not what they are tied to and you post a couple websites. I could find 1000s of websites that spew propaganda all over every possbile subject you can think of.....websites run by Christians.

I'm not sure what 2 websites and 20,000 supposed people that are members of an un-named group are supposed to prove.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Alright. Now I'm seriously confused. A non Christian posts links to Wikipedia (let's face it: not exactly the bastion of correct information) but a joke is made concerning us Christians potentially spinning it around to then claim "Wikipedia must be in on the conspiracy" but a Christian posts actual links from the CIA only to be told, "Meh. The CIA. What do they know. They aren't reliable."

Goodness gracious.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
I asked for the name of one Atheist organization that had enough members for it to be a concern.


Here You Go. I'll see your 'one' and raise you to two.

You might balk at the numbers in the organizations even if they consist of tens of thousands so I'll preempt it by what has also already been explained: It only takes two to conspire.

Have fun. I look forward to debating your inevitable explanation, EB.


[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]
I couldn't find a page that stated how many members they had in either of those sites, could you link that particular page please? Or does it matter, since it only takes 2 to conspire?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Excitable_Boy
 


I'm trying very hard to not blow a fuse at this point. Honest.

EB. You asked me for 'one' example. I told you they had been posted. You said you didn't want to go back and look. I looked for you. I also felt especially accommodating today and provided two even when you only asked for one. You asked for big numbers. You got them. You can see the legislation one is trying to push by interfering with church business.

However, the best you can come up with is pointing the finger at the other guys saying if we look hard enough we can find other organizations doing it, too.

*Sigh*

EDIT to add: Also, Those organizations aren't only websites. At least 'American Atheists' has been around since before the days of the Internet. Since the 1960's I think. Not sure about the other one. Just because it has a website doesn't mean that's all they are. They are actual nation wide organizations.

[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Alright. Now I'm seriously confused. A non Christian posts links to Wikipedia (let's face it: not exactly the bastion of correct information) but a joke is made concerning us Christians potentially spinning it around to then claim "Wikipedia must be in on the conspiracy" but a Christian posts actual links from the CIA only to be told, "Meh. The CIA. What do they know. They aren't reliable."

Goodness gracious.

Can any person on this forum claim they haven't ONCE used a link to wikipedia? As far as the CIA goes, I just used the standard argument of what makes one source more or less infallible than another. You wanna talk about conspiracy, the musings about the CIA being involved in the JFK assassination alone could equal more posts than this whole forum. Not saying I believe in all that, just saying that using the CIA as a reliable source on a conspiracy website seems kinda backwards.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Can any person on this forum claim they haven't ONCE used a link to wikipedia?


It's not that Wiki was used. No problem there. I've used it plenty of times because it is such an easy reference for simple and 'cliff notes' info. It's the fact the Wiki entry was used to say if a Christian doesn't accept it it's because they must think Wiki is in on the conspiracy but then a link to the CIA (which does override Wiki IMO) was tossed aside as untrustworthy for being a slanted source. Yes, that seemed odd to me. No problems with EB using Wiki. It's a decent enough source.

I don't jump on the bandwagon here of people who scoff at Wiki-linkers although it has happened oodles of times to me when I link to it for Christian information. Go figure.


As far as the CIA goes, I just used the standard argument of what makes one source more or less infallible than another.


Oh, I hear you. If we fully trusted our government and weren't tin foil hatters we probably wouldn't be a member of ATS.
However, CIA seems more trustworthy than a website that anyone can edit. That's all I'm saying. It was surprising to see Wiki accepted but the CIA site scoffed at.

[edit on 3/29/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I can see that their agenda to seperate church from state bothers you. Does them wanting to get equal time, a seat at the table of democracy, that their voice gets heard with the same amount of attention paid to yours, upset you also? Yes they want these things, I do not believe they are unreasonable things to ask for. Their not advocating violence or intolerance, they seem to advocate writing letters to congressmen, getting together and discussing their views, and bringing relevant information about their cause to other Atheists attention. Doesn't sound too bad to me. It's certainly not a conspiracy, I don't see any language that suggests overthrowing anything or breaking the law.



[edit on 29-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

Well just to clarify, I didn't accept either source
I starred his post because it was on topic, had minimal editorial/ spin and presented the information very clearly. yeah I made the "wiki must be in on the conspiracy joke" mostly because I knew somebody would not accept it, and made apreemptive joke. It was just a joke, my apologies if this offended anyone.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I can see that their agenda to seperate church from state bothers you.


You assume too much of me. I am actually an advocate of church and state separation. If you look closely though at some of the website information, they are actually working on legislation concerning churches. What business is it of theirs? It isn't. Some of the things they do only ask for equal treatment and recognition. That isn't the part I am concerned with. It's their meddling in church business and taxation.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join