Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by jimmyx


Since when have I said that??????
Geese did I dimensionally slide again?
Dang it!

I hate when that happens.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by idle_rocker

 

Someone I can't remember who.
Accused atheism of being misogynist.
Which I find to be a rather shoddy and silly stance.
And I spoke out.
At length.

i don't think atheism, by itself, is misogynist.
but the end game of the world view, and the social engineering aspect,
results in survival of the fittest. history proves that the fittest is always
the one with the most brute force, financial security, and all the other
"natural" benefits of the natural world. so naturally, as has been proven
in countless societies down threw the history of humankind, some members are of less survival importance than others. two of those are women and children.

i think the scale goes something like this, in a typical human population, with the top being the least likely to be allowed to survive and the bottom, the most likely to be allowed to survive:

1. black women
2. oriental women
3. indian women (from india)
4. american (including canada, north, central and south), european, jewish and russian women of caucasian appearance
5. black men
6. jewish men
7. arabic men
8. indian men (from india)
9. russian men and oriental men
10. european and american men

this shows, i believe, that western men got the part right about respecting life, but forgot the part about respecting ALL life. whereas the rest, well,
it's been that way for a very long time. isn't it time for you fellas
to start clamping down on an ideology that actually allows the other fifty percent (women) of the population a chance at survival?

this particular format follows almost in lock step with the ability to make your way financially.

The struggle to eradicate discrimination on the basis of race and gender has a long history in American law. Based on the widely held belief that such discrimination will occur only in markets in which racial or gender animus distorts competition, regulatory efforts have been limited to areas in which interpersonal relations are significant and ongoing, such as housing and employment. In this Article, Professor Ayres offers empirical evidence that seriously challenges faith in the ability of competitive market forces to eliminate racial and gender discrimination in other markets. His Chicago based research demonstrates that retail car dealerships systematically offered substantially better prices on identical cars to white men than they did to blacks and women.

islandia.law.yale.edu...

THAT, I'm sorry to say, IS a survival of the fittest scenario. That's all racism, sexism, misogyny is, a survival of the fittest scenario.

I'm going to toss this into the mix. It stems from an excellent point New World Over brought up in another thread:

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Jesus and God are being lumped together as a 'fairy tale' and the reality of Jesus as a historical man is being denied...

Yes, Jesus has been deified and symbolized by the Vatican, but no, he was not a fairy tale. He had real followers who actually knew him, from which we have the accounts of the Bible. This has been archeologically confirmed... get over it people. Stop trying to rewrite history.

HERE

It's not on target with rewriting history about atheistic atrocities but it is on topic with atheists rewriting history in general. In this case, it is by claiming Jesus never existed. Often times by outright lies like the Pagan Copycat myth, as one example.

Jesus' divinity will take faith, of course. But to say He never existed sounds like they're not only trying to rewrite or airbrush history: they're wanting to completely delete it.

EDIT: Oh, and before the semantics police show up to jump my neck, I want to make a disclaimer. Not all atheists deny Jesus' historicity, not only atheists accept the Christ Myth hypothesis even if they seem to be the majority, not all atheists make up lies to explain away Jesus' existence, yada, yada, yada.

[edit on 3/23/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by undo


Um no............
Wipe out all the females and you have one extinct race.
Or males for that matter.
That's not survival of the fittest at all.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Since when have I said that??????
Geese did I dimensionally slide again?
Dang it!

I hate when that happens.

I think Jimmyx is the one on the slippery slide of denial. And, since he's in denial, all he can do is tell us we're boring

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Precisely.
But not to worry! WE HAVE SCIENCE! (and old porn videos!)
And female robots! That are getting more and more realistic.
She can't get pregnant or argue with you and she'll always do
what you tell her to



here
ca.youtube.com...


[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Actually.
We can't clone anything right right now. If that is what you mean?
We have that whole copy of a copy problem to fix.
Would be premature to wipe all the females (or males) yet.

And nah I don't know about most men but I prefer a partner another human being rather than a machine that will agree with me no matter what.
I imagine I am not alone.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Guys, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

reply to post by chromatico


Actually it does if you read back.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I did, but at some point one gets so far off on tangent that what is being discussed bears no relation to the topic. Why don't you guys start a new thread?

reply to post by chromatico


What? Let's not airbrush this, too.
I think the idea is relevant since the history we are making today is
somewhat of a repeat of the past, just shaken and mixed a bit.
What came before, is an indication of what lies ahead, just on a much
larger scale and all in the name of the survival of the fittest. Animals
do that extremely well. Humans are supposed to be above that level
of problem-solving

There is NO ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS ONES who have done more to corrupt history and diminish science. Put your thinking caps on, people!

There's nothing wrong with hoping there's a Force out there into which we can all tap into when we need a boost ... there's nothing wrong with believing in spirituality. But there is something VERY wrong with allowing a puppet in a pulpit of ANY faith to bilk us out of our hard-earned wages so they don't have to go out and WORK for a living. They tell you your money goes to further GOD'S WORK. Bullcrap. GOD, if god exists, doesn't need money. It's the ones who prostitute religion to gain control of those of us who are weak enough to have to believe we need someone to LEAD us, who need money. They feed off of those of us who are stupid enough to buy into the stories, and let them scare us with stories of Hell and Fire, and Brimstone...

We need to all wise up. We need to realize that there IS a power we can tap into that enhances each and every one of us. It's the power of positive thinking, and it doesn't really matter where we THINK it comes from, as long as we don't give our power away to another, snake-oil selling human being dressed up in guru clothing or three-piece suits.

Air-brushing is such a misnomer, I hope everyone realizes that by now.

Organized religions, most of them, have been revising history, attempting to deflect science in favor of dogma, for centuries. THIS is the true crime.

Fortunately, educated people can see through most of these ruses.

Here's an interesting fact: The Human genome consists of 46 chromosomes. Our closest living ancestor, the Chimpanzee, has 48. It was a puzzle to geneticists until only recently, as they discovered some truncated genes in OUR chromosomes that have been shown to be related to two from the Chimps. Ain't science interesting???

Science is good in at least some moderation. But when it's outta control it eats up human beings (to quote from star trek) "in favor of its own matrix. "

it pollutes, it destroys, it dehumanizes.

you can't keep banging that same drum forever.
eventually, you're going to have to come to grips with the idea that
some things are just obviously wrong, even if they are "science."

it serves us, we don't serve it. my value system is not going to be based on
science. it can't be. it makes no logical sense to have it so.

Originally posted by Tweaked
There is NO ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS ONES who have done more to corrupt history and diminish science. Put your thinking caps on, people!

There's nothing wrong with hoping there's a Force out there into which we can all tap into when we need a boost ... there's nothing wrong with believing in spirituality. But there is something VERY wrong with allowing a puppet in a pulpit of ANY faith to bilk us out of our hard-earned wages so they don't have to go out and WORK for a living. They tell you your money goes to further GOD'S WORK. Bullcrap. GOD, if god exists, doesn't need money. It's the ones who prostitute religion to gain control of those of us who are weak enough to have to believe we need someone to LEAD us, who need money. They feed off of those of us who are stupid enough to buy into the stories, and let them scare us with stories of Hell and Fire, and Brimstone...

WRONG ANSWER!

Sorry bub but when I read what I have about Atheist's plans to overthrow Christianity as if it was some evil thing you start sounding absolutely insane. This is the best piece I have seen yet other then what I have seen here on ATS, I can see real clear as the writer in the link at bottom so clearly describes, just what is going on here.

I think it is time Christians end this Now,, and if that means I'm a bigot or have a brain virus or send science back to the damn stone age, if it means, Atheists get to control this Nation into another Stalinist regime or some sick fantasy where you all think life will be better without us.

Then you come out to my desert hot shot Ill even pay your airfare. Ill let anyone of them try and tell me to my face that I am abusing my kids and we'll see who it is that gets the abuse. Then you'll have your facts about life after death. Then you'll have your facts about God and you can argue with him if it's true.

Otherwise Atheists ought to put up or shut up. If they are going to make false allegations, I think it's time Christians call their bluff because I know most Christians don't stand by watching garbage like that WE DO something about it. So,, if you see Christians abusing their kids,,
Call the damn cops or keep living the lie being complicity involved in something you read in an Atheist con game using a political agenda wrapped up in science and a butt load a BS.

Atheists own convictions are either too weak to back up their bravado or they are just as guilty of the alleged child abuse as the alleged abuser.

In the mean time I wonder just how we survived all these years without Atheists to tell us how.

You guys either do something about us or quit bitching, quit moaning, quit crying, don't even think for a second Christians won't justify Atheists acrimony much less their mortality. Their opinions their jerk wad worldview, the Gullibility of Evolution the Atheists conspiracy to over throw Christianity, the stuck up asinine terminally self righteous cowards of neo atheism is now a firmly fixed opinion I have that they are the biggest enemy of the country.

Most of the crap I see in this article would get us killed and if you aren’t willing to go the distance, then they are just talking out of their butt because that's what it would take.

Your America isn't mine and I have already fought for her once and I can't imagine dying for a country without God much less some king sh_t atheist asking me to. Ill be dammed if I would let any Atheist sob tell my kids their is no God because the moment they do Ill send him right to him.

They make me sick to my stomach anymore.


READ THIS reformedfaith.wordpress.com...

- Con




[edit on 23-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

There is simply no such thing as a "radical atheist", mister. Perhaps the truth shocks YOU, but that does not make it "radical."

Those Russian crimes against humanity? You'd better do some research into the religious background of those like Lenin, Stalin, buddy. They damn sure DID have a "religious" upbringing. You wish me to name their religion??

There are just those, labeled "radical atheists" by those frightened by reality, that have "championed the truth" by simple investigation into historical truths.

Such as, the fact ALL of Judeo/Christian/Islam myth, or "religion" if you prefer, was lifted (stolen) from the myths of civilizations that preceded them.

ALL of them. So, the fact I don't believe in your mangled, repetitive and historically unprovable hand-me-down myths does not a "radical" make.

In fact, logically, one could say it is quite "radical" to believe in a religion written and edited by a pagan roman Emperor at least 350 years after the "death" of the non-historical character known as "Jesus." Or one based on a book printed 1500 years after "the fact."

Like you do.

reply to post by Conspiriology


Was there a point to your rant?

Now I know why Thomas Jefferson thought Christians to be a future problem to this Constitutional Republic, founded upon Rights, one of which is freedom from YOUR belief system, capice?????

Or did you "fight for this country" so we could be "free" to believe what YOU believe, or face violent reprisals from you?

Ignorance sure seems to be rampant it some sectors of this society, take that anyway you wish.

Bush is a "Christian" and "God talks to him." You??? Hearing "voices" buddy?

In most educated societies, Bush would be in a padded cell. Here? He gets your vote.

this is a stupid thread, because this guy is trying to CONNECT Atheists to the worst blah blah blah. The ONLY requirement to be an Atheist is to not believe in god, that it. You don't have to believe in evolution, you don't have to accept science, you just can't believe in a god-like being

Originally posted by alupang


Now I know why Thomas Jefferson thought Christians to be a future problem to this Constitutional Republic, founded upon Rights, one of which is freedom from YOUR belief system, capice?????

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.

Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.

The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

"In 1801, he wrote that "the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which [the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and freest expansion of the human mind."

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”[Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

www.geocities.com...

he just wasn't particularly fond of Paul's epistles or John's Revelation. He was a jesus freak.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by undo]