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.

 

Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 17
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





So what? And the Nazis are forever linked with the bible because de Gobineau used it to justify his idea of divine Aryan supremacy, which Hitler then used.


But the teachings of Jesus Christ do not advocate naturally selecting the weak members of society and killing them. In fact they are diametrically opposed to that. Darwinist thought is what fueled Hitlers eugenics program.




I do. We do. You might think someone having an abortion is evil. I don't. I might think scaring kids with concepts like hell is evil, you don't.


Morality is not relative to the observer as you would like to pretend. There is absolute truth. We don’t always have it. But not because of my opinion. Because of God. God left us a book full of it. You just reject it.

I know, I know, "put where the sun don’t shine Whammy."

Let's forget about Stalin... you opened the door on abortion.

It is evil to take a human life. Exodus 20:13 "You Shall Not Murder"

How about 46 MILLION Babies murdered per YEAR.












[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
No matter how much you try to get around it.

Atheism is a religion.
Pure and simple.

It answers a spiritual question.
I can't answer a biology question with geology now can I?

That is not the same as refusing to answer the question.

And as I have said multiple times, science cannot say much on spiritual matters as it deals PURELY with the physical.
So saying science supports you is right out.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
But the teachings of Jesus Christ do not advocate naturally selecting the weak members of society and killing them. In fact they are diametrically opposed to that. Darwinist thought is what fueled Hitlers eugenics program.


What of the Great Flood? Was that not a form of eugenics? Did Jesus say the Old Testament was wrong?


Morality is not relative to the observer as you would like to pretend. There is absolute truth. We don’t always have it. But not because of my opinion. Because of God. God left us a book full of it. You just reject it.


The majority of people in the world do not subscribe to this book you speak of, yet the majority of the world have similar morals. Morals are not the sole property of Bible-believing folk. Period.

So now that you understand that my statement about killing the other guy on the island was sarcastic, how do you justify your claim that atheists have no morals? (And even if I had said it literally, I don't represent the whole of atheism, now do I?)



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by an3rkist
 


Not gonna answer my post eh?
It's kewl.

Have fun storming the castle.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 


Jimmy!!! HA HA I ain't mad man I'm just in one of them cantankerous moods lol. Your post was awesome by the way

- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Without reason to deal with women in a moral and loving fashion, they are killed, raped, murdered, beaten, and aborted out of existence. We've exchanged death by stoning, for death by penis, laboratory and in the name of survival of the fittest. Jesus said to love the people in your lives, not bump them off before they're born or after they're here because it's convenient to do so.

I developed breast cancer.
The doctor told me it was pretty bad and that he recommended a radical masectomy (this meant removal of the entire breast and the lymph nodes in the armpit).
I took his advice. As soon as it was done and a couple months had passed, the Air Force demanded that my husband be sent to Korea.
I wasn't fully healed yet, was trying to care for my elderly mother with advanced alzheimers and home school three kids.
But they said he had to go. We went to the surgeon who had removed the breast to get a letter stating that I was in no condition for him to be sent away. Instead, he said everything was fine and they sent my husband off to Korea.

They NEVER leave a woman without chemo or radiation treatment after breast cancer surgery of that magnitude. Never. But the doctor lied and said I was fine and nothing else would be needed. It took my sister hearing about it to realize they planned on denying me proper medical care.

2 weeks pass and I get a phone call from the same doctor's office telling me I have to come in for chemotherapy. Now get this: I'm still recovering from the surgery (was diabetic and didn't know it, so healing was painfully slow), hubby is in Korea, mom is getting sicker by the day and is totally dependent on me for her care (so that's a grand total of three women's lives they were negatively effecting, as I have a daughter as well), and they wanted me to come in for chemotherapy and go threw it by myself.

What's wrong with this picture?

LOVE IS MISSING IN ACTION. It's been sent off to war and is held captive in a prison called survival of the fittest man.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

For example, many people saw Blondin walk across the gorge below Niagara Falls on a tightrope, and believed (on the basis of the evidence of their own eyes) that he was capable of carrying a man on his back safely across. But only his manager Harry Colcord had enough faith to allow himself to be carried.

Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
To have faith that one's spouse promise or commitment.
To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful.
To have faith that a person will pay you back.
To have faith that you will be alright despite adversity.
To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities.
To have faith you will see someone again.
A means to obtain something.
To have faith in a process. (Faith in the Law)
To have faith in a source or resource. (Faith your pay check or employment)
To have faith in a method to obtain. (work hard, lie, cheat, buy, trade, be attractive, etc.)

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In other words, faith is the "evidence" of what Christians "know" to be true within their own hearts that has revealed to them by God

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


What of the Great Flood? Was that not a form of eugenics? Did Jesus say the Old Testament was wrong?


They weren't humans. Ask undo about it sometime. Basically fallen angels corrupted the gene pool. Noah was perfect in his generations.




The majority of people in the world do not subscribe to this book you speak of, yet the majority of the world have similar morals. Morals are not the sole property of Bible-believing folk. Period.

So now that you understand that my statement about killing the other guy on the island was sarcastic, how do you justify your claim that atheists have no morals? (And even if I had said it literally, I don't represent the whole of atheism, now do I?)


I did not say Atheists have no morals. In fact I am not surprised in the least that they do have morals. They were created in the image of God after all.

What I did say was with out religion, without belief in God, there is no basis or underpinning for morality. It becomes to each his own. Survival of the fittest etc. And then you get crap like what Stalin did- every time.

Hey and I apologize again for misunderstanding your (non) answer. I am sick today so struggling to keep up. I did go back and edit that out. OK?

Bed....... soon



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



...honestly, i keep seeing the same stuff rehashed over and over. stuff that i've refuted through argument on here being repeated by the same people
...where's the denial of ignorance here?


Well, it couldn't be that the WRONG people are denying their own ignorance...or could it be? HA, I think I've touched on something there!



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by an3rkist
 



What of the Great Flood? Was that not a form of eugenics? Did Jesus say the Old Testament was wrong? [/quote]

The Bible reference is not a good one. God brought the flood to wipe out the fallen angels who had created a race of their own through reproduction with earthly wives. Read it, its' there.


[edit on 3/22/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
[








[edit on 3/22/2008 by Bigwhammy]



Thats why I changed it to this = )

- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



What's wrong with this picture?

LOVE IS MISSING IN ACTION. It's been sent off to war and is held captive in a prison called survival of the fittest man.


Thank you for sharing that. All I can say is AMEN



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I swear, they hate women.
And the damnable thing is contagious.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Not gonna answer my post eh?
It's kewl.

Have fun storming the castle.


I didn't realize that post was directed at me. Apparently you haven't read my previous posts...

And you say that science only deals with the physical, but I would say that it only deals with the natural. If you look at my signature there's a quote by Agent Scully from "The X-Files". (Maybe not a credible source, but I think the quote is perfectly relevant.) "Nothing can defy the laws of Nature, only what we know of them."

In other words, I don't think religion and science have to be opposing forces. I think there will come a day when religion and science meld and become one. Science will be able to verify the existence of "God", (whatever God may be, see my previous posts for my personal definition), and religion will have a set of beliefs based on scientific evidence. I think science and religion can work together, but only if both are open-minded.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
They weren't humans. Ask undo about it sometime. Basically fallen angels corrupted the gene pool. Noah was perfect in his generations.


Oh, they weren't human, so it was okay to kill them en masse. All I would need to justify genocide is say, "Well, blacks aren't really human." (I use that example because it was once believed by some people, but the same could be used for others such as Jews or Atheists or Christians or any minority.) Justification? "God created man in his own image. I am white, and I'm a man of God, so any men who have a completely different skin color must not be men." You see what I'm saying?

[edit on 22/3/08 by an3rkist]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You know.
This may lose me some friends.
And will probly piss a few of you off.

But how in the HECK can you logically say that atheists are misogynists and still claim your ANY better than they are? Any number of religions treat women like DIRT. But I don't apply that as a universal religious view.

Homosexuality is misogynistic.
Hell alot of gay men seem to WANT TO BE a woman.

Simple basis of what I am trying to say is this those two issues homosexuality and abortion isn't a part of their argument. Your doing the same damn thing they do.

Your using a false rallying cry.

Case in point.
I am against abortion in general principles.
Abortions to save the mother I think is fine.
Not because someone can't take responsibility for their actions.

Doesn't make me a theist and doesn't have any bearing on my views of a higher power/prime mover/god.

I don't agree with homosexuality and quite frankly it's alien to me.
BUT I agree that they have a right to do whatever the heck they want without me and my opinions as long as they do not MAKE it my business or hurt anyone.

Doesn't make me an atheist now does it?

I mean COME ON.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
They were separate sentences. I never meant to imply that the definition of Atheism makes claims of belief in God being delusional. What I did do was say- the definition of Atheism is A. Richard Dawkins is an A who goes way beyond A. So he is a radical A. …hole


All atheists do. We have other positions on a variety of concepts and phenomena. And I don't buy what you are doing here. It was based on a big misunderstanding of the words you were using, a quote-mine essentially. OP:



The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist.


Notice how the author walks on eggshells to not take a position on anything else in particular....Dawkins has taken this quite a ways further in advocating the abolition of faith in God. He calls parents teaching their children about God “child abuse”.... If true atheists make no claims or denials, then Dawkins is an atheist extremist, or perhaps a radical atheist.


Your misuse is self-evident.


“Science has clearly shown religious superstitions to be false.”

But he doesn’t define what “religious superstitions” are. At least I offered a definition!


I can't really comment, I'd need to know where it came from.


Dawkins say this, “because extremist religion hides in the fringes of moderate religion we must also eliminate moderate religion.”

Is that from the video or where?


Pragmatic? more like tricky Dicky… “I want to show how faith acts like a virus that infects the young…”


Yes, like a meme. You pass it on to your kids, they pass it on to theirs. The fact that people of faith tend to hold that of their parents is clear enough.


Well Dawkins does not acknowledge it. And who gets to be the mind police for our children Athiesstic scientists? The same ones that say it’s OK to slaughter the unborn ones? Sorry we say NO!


No, he does. He just says that the good they do needn't be a consequence of their faith. Much like the evil of communists need not be due to their atheism.

Heh, my son was brought up with no direction, he even went to a CoE primary school, and he has weekly RE classes. We never even talked about religion. When he moaned about prayers, I just told him to close eyes and think of tea-time if he wanted to.

Again, now you mix pro-choicers with atheism. Your sophistry is transparent.


The Bible teaches that we are all made in the image of God. Even Atheists
So for that reason alone there is value in human life as image bearers of God.


Amazing that as a conservative country based on teh bible, you so ready to put people in electric chairs and stuff. Maybe the value of life is fairly relative, and less than absolute.


Yeah and faith is a virus. And Bible study is child abuse. Belief in God is delusional.


One of those is false, unless threats and fear is required bible study. In which case, yeah, lets get rid. Harry Potter will be more use.

The goalposts have now left the field!


But if you’re wife goes out of town and you trust that she is not cheating on you. That is belief in things unseen Mel… That is faith. So is faith still BS as you put it. Or is it necessary for a healthy relationship with anyone?


I think an3rchist (?) answered it well enough. My trust would be based on evidence and experience.


You’re using the airbrush again. The strategy I see is to make it so foggy no one can see the connections. You won’t face the absolute truth of the unholy trinity of Atheism, Darwinism, and Marxism.


Yes, and you won't face the unholy trinity of jesus, anti-semitism, and nazis. It's clear. Jesus to hitler through Luther and de Gobineau.

You can 'airbrush' as much as you like, but Hitler's own love for their works betrays your denial.


No it just looks like he wasn’t very clear himself. It really doesn’t matter, he’s dead now.


Of course it doesn't. It was just another of your misrepresentations. He clearly says he was never atheist.


There’s still time for you though. His influence is what really matters. Stalin believed in God until he read Darwin. Reading Darwin influenced him to become an Atheist.


Lots of time. Tommorow I worship at the alter of climate change and chocolate.

So what? Reading Luther probably made Hitler an anti-semite.


*marx blah*


It doesn't matter what Marx thought. Darwin's theory suggested that variation and natural selection can account for the origin of species. Says nothing about communism and socialism.

Marx developed a political and economic theory around classless society and workers paradise etc. Just because marx seen some link does not mean darwin's theory suggests marxism. Even a superficial look can see it was a fallacy.


Prove it.


I did. The letter had nothing to do with Marx. I have lots more references for that if you want. Proper academic stuff, rather than google level research from creationist BS sites. You might need to get off the net and hit a library. I gave one full reference you can easily find, quoting a large tract of it.



That doesn’t prove it’s false. Just that you want an excuse not to address it.


It clearly shows the letter was a myth.


But Marx and Darwin influenced their thinking in ways that made killing acceptable. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, Dialectics, eugenics . All share this idea of conflict.


You really don't know what you are on about here. Nothing in Darwin's theory says killing is acceptable in society. Nothing in marxism says killing is acceptable in society.

The idea of survivial of the fittest is a complete contrast to the idea of marxism and communism. The fact you can't see this is stunning example of your lack of understand of evolutionary theory and marxism.


Why do you have those values? Where did your internal moral compass...


I was born with the biological systems that allowed me to develop empathy and sympathy for other people. I learned some of my values from my family, some from friends, some from society, some from experience.

As I said, if you need a set of easy rules for reference, fine. I don't.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Wraoth,

china has no women. they've been aborted or killed after birth, all in the name of survival of the fittest.
that's why john and jim are going to be married because there will be no women. they've killed an entire generation of females. same thing is going on in india and several places in africa. the crap is about to hit the fan.

RIP Jane and Jill.
Long live the penis and the ego behind it.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You completely missed what I am saying didn't you?

NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!

That is human stupidity.
Your blaming the concept.
Just this time unlike them your not blaming religion.
Blame humanity.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


You're right... unless you are useful. If you are not particularly useful then you are a prime candidate for natutal selection.

undo you were naturally selected as obsolete... sorry.


(looks up) Get me off this rock already would ya?

The evidence of conspiracy is these science type Atheists will not even admit any connection between Darwinism and Marxism. Which is a joke as they were practically sleeping together, they were so in love.

Marxism to communism is a no brainer. Did you like the way I said Stalin proceeded to "naturally select" 20 million to die.

They hate that.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
the way i see it, with that much testosterone overload,
it's a perfect scenario for the end times. lots of men,
no reason to survive after they've gone to so much trouble
to be survivors, and so, they blow up the whole place.

RIP John and Jim
Long live Darwin.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join