Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Foxy, you may not have seen the first thread linked to in my signature but you might want to take the time to read it before referring to Whammy as an ignorant backwoods savage.

As a former Christian, I am sure you realize what Whammy is referring to: a lack of Holy Spirit guided discernment- not 'stupidity' (the term you used) in what a previous member described as an effort on your part to misdirect and incite Jerry Springer-like drama.

'Man on a stick.' Nice bait but I'm not taking it. You chastise others for not believing what you do all the while not taking the time to notice just how condescending and hostile you sound while looking down your own nose at everyone else. I have noticed this is a pattern for you ever since first encountering you on ATS.

Who needs a conspiracy when there are people who bully and insult their debate opponents into submission? Take care.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Moderators note to Walking Fox: Please refrain from name-calling towards other ATS-members ("You ignorant savage")

reply to post by Skyfloating


Shame bigwhammy wasn't told the same thing a couple of pages ago when he called me an anti-christian biggot. Twice. I do not think it's fair for a mod to publically condemn one member and not another.

[edited as vilify was the wrong word]

[edit on 9-4-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


You´re absolutely right. I was responding to complaints received today.

But for the record: Name-calling goes for both sides and both sides have been warned often enough.

Now back on topic. May each post after this adress the topic and not the person. Otherwise staff action will commence.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by riley and post by Skyfloating


I'll respect SF's wishes but I do have a quick question, mainly for future reference and clarification that will benefit everyone. Whatever answer I receive is acceptable.

Honest question: Is the term 'bigot' considered an attack or against the T&C's? I see people called this almost daily on ATS. I've even seen you use the term, Riley. I've used it myself and have also been called it. 'Bigot' is an assessment. 'Backwoods ignorant savage' is a personal attack meant to be hurtful. Is the term 'bigot' against the T&C's? I suppose in some cases it would be used to be hurtful and in some cases it is an honest and correct observation.

I won't say anything else on this subject- just curious.

__________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Wanted to reply to this real fast in the post below me.

I had been called an anti-christian biggot...

...Thought I made that pretty clear actually.. besides which.. whats it to you? They aren't your T&C guidelines.

I see BW's comment but am confused as to why you are taking offense to it since you have called others bigots on numerous occasions and you also called him a bigot right before his response only you updated your comment as usual to look innocent. It seems you only have a problem with it when the tables are turned in your direction.

And what's it to me? Seriously, Riley? Because I'm under the T&C's by being a member here even if I did not create them. If calling someone a bigot is considered a personal attack, it would benefit me to know this so I will not use the term in the future. Pretty simple.

But please don't concern yourself with "justifying yourself to me," as you say. You are back on ignore. Take care.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

I had been called "an anti-christian biggot". I asked him not to call me that and he did it again.

Thought I made that pretty clear actually.. besides which.. whats it to you? They aren't your T&C guidelines.

Please do not ask me to justify myself to you again.

offtopic. sorry mods.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by riley]

reply to post by AshleyD


The term "bigot" can be seen as an insult or as an observation. It depends on the case, as you said.

Back to topic, thanks.

...i guess people have either started to ignore me or that they can't out-verse me

whammy, i can't believe i'm asking this question again, but could you give me books, chapter, and verse on why the holy spirit is required to understand the bible?

i mean, what's there to understand in the flood story that requires the holy spirit? sure, there are some lessons in there, but it isn't faulkner or dostoevsky, it's quite simple and straightforward.
...also, why does the holy spirit blind you to the fact that the story is either overly exaggerated or just an outright fable? i mean, the whole concept is entirely unrealistic.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


[edit on 4/7/08 by madnessinmysoul]

but con is implying that people are taking some sort of risk

They are.

or deserve some sort of shame for being born a certain way

I never said any such thing about people being born a certain way.

that is something that we like to call prejudice

Yeah well, next time you put words in my mouth to the effect that I said something about people born a certain way, then after you make the assertion, you then call it ( me ) prejudice.

it may be a "sin"
but please, show me how homosexuality inherently hurts people

It doesn't just hurt people, it overlaps into the rest of Society

when you criticize a group of people for being born a certain way or even acting a certain way without providing anything to show objective harm, you kind of deserve ridicule for displaying prejudice

Born that way? Has that been proven as a FACT? Don't waste your time doing the research on transgendered, people but for now,, just lets stick with Gay. Is their something I haven't seen that doesn't have research already showing that there is NO conclusive data for that or?

Having said that, being Born that way, if that is how you want to argue it, has nothing to do with it. You are the one saying this. This is the problem with so called born that way brain disorders and so called diseases, syndromes etc. Oh she was born a clepto maniac so you calling here a thief is prejudice. Oh she was born with the predisposition to alcoholism and when you saw her drinking and driving, you called her a Drunk, that's prejudice. I am so damn sick of this politically correct crap that people have to watch what they say because everyone is running around with a self concept one molecule away from being an eggshell.

- Con

MOD EDIT: See this post on civility

[edit on 4/9/08/09 by junglejake]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

whammy, i can't believe i'm asking this question again, but could you give me books, chapter, and verse on why the holy spirit is required to understand the bible?

I know it just sounds like a cop out to you. But it's true. I know it is from experience. I used to be like you when I was in my 20s. I thought I had it all figured out. I used to love to argue with street preachers in public. Whether you believe it or not I understand where you are.

There are many verses I found, but this one is the easiest to understand.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words

And on Paul's writings...

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Only after I humbled myself to God was I able to make a beginning at discerning what is really in the Bible. I was highly critical even as a Christian for a few years. It was a process of being led into the light; from the spiritual darkness of the world. I am still on that journey. I do not claim to understand everything today, but my attitude has a changed because I have evidence that the answers are there for one that honestly seeks with humility.




[edit on 4/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

why does the holy spirit blind you to the fact that the story is either overly exaggerated or just an outright fable? i mean, the whole concept is entirely unrealistic.

So what are you saying this time Madd?? That whammy believes fairy tales? That he can't tell the difference? That you are smarter than him because you say it is entirely unrealistic so whammy is not very realistic is he. I just would like to know,, what exactly are you trying to say?

Why are you asking him for information on a subject that by his very belief in it and your well established reputation for passive aggressive comments that are simply not asked for as we all know where you stand and no matter what proof he would bring you, you wouldn't agree anyway.

Then you wonder why you are treated with such Bigotry.

While the rest of us,,

know why

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Where did you hallucinate that Madd? I never said any such thing about people being born a certain way.

homosexuals are born a certain way. there's evidence of homosexuality in other species, not just humanity. it's not a choice, it's something that's built into a person
sure, you can choose to commit a homosexual act as a heterosexual, but that's just being dishonest to yourself.
the vast majority of homosexuals fall into the category of people born that way.

Yeah well, next time you put words in my mouth to the effect that I said something about people born a certain way, then after you make the assertion, you then call it ( me ) prejudice.

you said that people are taking a risk by calling homosexuality (a state people are born into) a sin

calling the state someone is born into sinful is prejudice

Why do you have to be so damn dishonest Madd, if you aren't constantly coming up with crap Mods didn't do about a post I made weeks ago or calling me a liar, you are painting me as something else unsavory?

i'm not being dishonest.
you said that homosexuality is sinful and that people are taking a risk by displaying their prejudice against homosexuality.

Is it just me or does anyone else hear MIMS accuse someone of "Bigotry" hate, and / or prejudice so often it has lost it's meaning.

i really don't...
in fact, i tend to only use it when it's necessary.

Then when you can't say it legitimately, you assume you know what I am saying about a comment then place your own meaning on it to suggest it is prejudice.

It doesn't just hurt people, it overlaps into the rest of Society

i asked you to show me how it hurts people
you just repeated an assertion and then made a bigger one

Born that way? Has that been proven as a FACT? Don't waste your time doing the research on transgendered, people but for now,, just lets stick with Gay. Is their something I haven't seen that doesn't have research already showing that there is NO conclusive data for that or?

gay penguins

so far as we know, penguins don't really have that much of a choice. there are exclusively gay penguins

sure, we may not have a 100% answer on the issue, but there's enough evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is a naturally occurring state that is not a simple choice

do you have any evidence to demonstrate that it's simply a choice that people make?

Having said that, being Born that way, if that is how you want to argue it, has nothing to do with it. You are the one saying this.

...so it's ok to criticize people for things they're born with

This is the problem with so called born that way brain disorders and so called diseases, syndromes etc.

oh dear noodley lord, you're actually going to compare homosexuality to a mental illness?

Oh she was born a clepto maniac so you calling here a thief is prejudice.

well, comparing her to a regular thief is a bit prejudiced. many kleptomaniacs don't even realize that they're stealing things at the time...

and you're comparing apples to oranges, because homosexuality isn't inherently harmful and stealing an item is.

Oh she was born with the predisposition to alcoholism and when you saw her drinking and driving, you called her a Drunk, that's prejudice.

...actually, it's just mean and quite possibly the worst way to deal with an alcoholic.

but again
drinking and driving is an obviously irresponsible act as it leads to a very high instance of fatalities

homosexual sex doesn't lead to fatalities (if you bring up AIDS, then heterosexual sex is just as dangerous)

Especially, when you are so bent on advertising your Teflon Double standards. Example: When I mentioned the ACLU working with Nambla (men who want to have consensual sex with young boys) was a frivolous waste of money much less thinking such disgusting garbage of a human being might even take up time in court. Your first comments were about that idiots 1st amendment rights.

the case was about their first amendment rights

the ACLU defended NAMBLA's right to distribute material, nothing more. they did not in any way condone their ideas.

everyone has a right to freedom of the press, not just the people you want to hear. that's the whole point of the case. it's about absolute freedom of the press, not selective freedom

Comment edited in original message.
(NGC2736)

but they do have the right to say it.
it's freedom of speech.
sure, it's not going to happen, but they have the right to distribute the material

Then when a few Rednecks get close enough and he gets his head bashed in,, he will call it Bigotry.

physical violence and speech are two entirely different things.
you have the freedom to say what you want, not the freedom to beat who you want

The fact is,, in most cases, I don't care one iota who calls me a Bigot, especially when it comes from someone with as much selective prejudice as you would have displayed had that Nambla member been a Catholic Pedophile Priest.

pedophile priests have the same right to freedom of speech that anyone else does

i don't condone their acts or beliefs in any way. i find it downright disgusting for anyone to exploit a child in that way.

however, i also find it disgusting that anyone would wish to erode freedom of speech or the presses in any way.

I wouldn't have heard the end of it regarding his sick disgusting religion being used to abuse children.

with the catholic church it wasn't the religion being used to abuse children, it was a position of power and trust. that trust was betrayed and children were hurt and the organization protected the molesters. it was very tragic and it's still going on

[edit on 9-4-2008 by NGC2736]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


...you're kind of taking a huge leap to say that those passages say that only people who've already accepted the bible and holy spirit can understand it

oh, and it's circular reasoning, i forgot to bring that up before.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It is worse than I thought I guess?

1 Corinthians 2:12-13

We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words

"We have not received the spirit of the world" which is your way of discernment.

"but the spirit who is from God" When you accept Jesus as your savior you recieve the spirit.

"that we may understand what God freely gave us" his word in the form of the scriptures.

The rest is probably too hard. But I hope that helps.

.you're kind of taking a huge leap to say that those passages say that only people who've already accepted the bible and holy spirit can understand it

oh, and it's circular reasoning, i forgot to bring that up before.

See Madd you are deceptive with out even meaning to be probably. Did I say "only people who've already accepted the bible and holy spirit" can understand it? It does sound circular to say you have to believe the Bible to understand it. That is not what I said though.

I said you have to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that happens by accepting Christ. I also told you I was highly critical as a new Christian over time I came to understand the Bible.

It is not circular logic to say you need the key code to decipher the code.

You simply do not have the key.


[edit on 4/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Res Ipsa


I doubt I need to read any further than the OP and the first response to it.

Christianity is a faith not a "religion"

Christianity is not responsible for a single murder nor a single act of hate.

Are there any Christians? No. At best some of us can claim that we are "practicing" Christians.

There is plenty of room to attack any and all religions but some do a better job than others.

Sorry you and a "billion" other people have been fooled by throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If nothing else....understand that Christianity is 1) not a religion but a faith and most importantly 2) many, many, many, people that claim they are a Christian wouldn't even know how to recognize one let alone know what it means to be one.

I think this a post sums up a crisp, concise, answer to just about every Atheist's barbed comments or criticism


Short, sweet, needing no further explanation. hehe Even if someone were to come up with something,, I see just posting it again gives it even more authority as being self evident.


- Con

reply to post by Bigwhammy


"what God has freely given us" can be so many, many things and yet you're going to say it's the bible?

according to christianity god gave us everything... including our lives and the physical universe.


here are some interpretations that are equally as valid as yours:

1:the holy spirit is helping us understand the gift of human reason which god so freely gave us

2:the holy spirit is helping us understand the gift of life itself, which god so freely gave us

3:the holy spirit is helping us understand the natural world, which god so freely gave us



also, you're talking about paul's letters, which are most likely the oldest parts of the new testament. the canon wasn't established yet and quite a bit of it hadn't been written.

reply to post by Conspiriology


so you're just saying that the "no true scotsman" fallacy is good?

sorry, but logical fallacies don't cut it.

christianity is a religion. those who deny this simple fact are those who wish to persist in a myth they've created themselves that their belief that they have the truth exempts their beliefs from a status equal to others who also believe they have the truth.

Skyfloating,

I was told that because I am not a member of the "right" religion I am unable to understand written words. I was told that, because I do not follow this religion, I have no beliefs. I am told I am wildlife.

I'm aware that you find these opinions, accusations, and insults to be perfectly acceptable behavior, as such statements are left in public view, no warnings, no edits, nothing. I am thus assuming that it is your policy - and thus through you the policy of the supermods and administrators above you - to accept such rhetoric. In the interest of a discussion forum environment, I am taking the liberty of assuming that if it is acceptable from one side of an argument - as it plainly is - then it is acceptable from ALL sides of the argument. Thus I will continue to respond to such rhetoric with my own.

If I am mistaken, and this is not, in fact, the stance of the ATS moderator team, then perhaps it would be in your interests to start moderating all sides of these tussles equally, rather than delivering preferential treatment to one section of the peanut gallery and not the other.

Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
If I am mistaken, and this is not, in fact, the stance of the ATS moderator team, then perhaps it would be in your interests to start moderating all sides of these tussles equally, rather than delivering preferential treatment to one section of the peanut gallery and not the other.

Thank you for your time.

You know, we get that from both sides of this equation. Atheists say we are giving preferential treatment to the religious and vice versa. The bottom line is that we've got some thin skinned individuals that LOOK for insults when there isn't any.