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: 37
24
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


What about kids who were raised in a pretty bad home, with little moral leadership? Do you not think some people can learn their own morals? From others, by reason, from the social milieu?


They can absolutely rise above it. Most carry deep wounds though.



Conversely, do you agree that some people can express immoral behaviour due to innate or physiological deficits even when raised in a good xian home (e.g., psychopaths)?


Absolutely. I think the world went into a state of decay right after the garden of eden... sin death and disease came into the world. Just like disease some people are born defective: serial killers and pedophiles and the like. Sociopaths. They are incapable of feeling compassion.

I feel like some of them are not really at fault, they were born defective. But we still have to protect ourselves against them. That means at a minimum taking away there freedom. If I am protecting myself or my family I may have to kill them in defense.




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
reply to post by idle_rocker
 



Bigwhammy was suggesting that atheists do not have morals
Actually I think his logic is a little more along the lines of, god created us in his own image, therefore we're born with his morals, but abandon them when we choose Atheism, resulting in us not having any. So not only are we so foolish that we don't have morals, we had them at one point and discarded them. Talk about a double whammy!

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by an3rkist
 



It makes sense, but as I said, I abandoned many of the morals I was taught. So if the morals are the work of my parents alone, then how come I abandoned some of them?


Yes, you abandoned the ones that didn't make sense to you. But you kept the ones that did. Most of us do that. We change as we grow, finding new avenues of belief (as I did), and yes, Gig is correct in that our environment does have a lot to do with it.

But you still had some morals that you kept that were taught to you. The point here is, there are people, and I won't call them all atheists because there are so-called extremists Christians who do the same, that don't teach their children anything but their own way of thinking, and don't allow children to learn for themselves. And if the parent is atheist, how will the child know anything different? The shoe fits on both feet, so to speak.

But the point of the thread is that there are extremist atheists who would like to see all of the Christian faith wiped off the face of the earth. And this is the evil perpetuated by the atheists in question. Whether they advocate it now, is not important. As any movement grows, it becomes more extremist, and the call for killing will not be far behind. This, we saw in Hitler.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 
Yep, and I would go a. and call those extremist athiests evil. But not because they're athiests, but because they're ignorant



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by idle_rocker
That morals either come to you by parents who raise you that way, or there has to be an inborn conscience that was put there by someone, i.e. a higher being with a conscience and knowing of right from wrong. Make sense?


I think much about morals are learned. But interesting questions for you, before I hit the sack. Ignore if you want.

What about kids who were raised in a pretty bad home, with little moral leadership? Do you not think some people can learn their own morals? From others, by reason, from the social milieu?
That is part of my point. It's much harder for children raised in a bad environment to come to terms with society. You see many more mass murderers from homes where children were abused, or men who abuse women because they were abused, than you see in children raised in healthy, normal atmospheres.


Conversely, do you agree that some people can express immoral behaviour due to innate or physiological deficits even when raised in a good xian home (e.g., psychopaths)?
Of course, partially for the reasons named above and partially due to genetic mental illnesses.



[Mod Edit - Fix quote tags]

[edit on 24/3/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Bigwhammy was suggesting that atheists do not have morals



Actually I think his logic is a little more along the lines of, god created us in his own image, therefore we're born with his morals, but abandon them when we choose Atheism, resulting in us not having any. So not only are we so foolish that we don't have morals, we had them at one point and discarded them. Talk about a double whammy!



Not really. I am not making blanket judgments on any individuals morality. I don't think you abandoned your morals when you became an atheist at all. You learn most from your parents. I am speaking more about world views and society in the context of this thread.

For example this was posted way back in the thread... care to answer?



HYPOCRISY OF ATHEISM


Almost every religion attempts to establish a 'spirit of the law', but atheism seeks to destroy the spiritual. In doing so, it chips away at the very thing that allows a good and ordered society to exist. The atheist is taking the morality of mankind for granted, unwisely forgetting the influence that religion has had in creating the culture in which he now lives. It isn't that atheists haven't any morals, but that they have no logical reason for having a preferable set of ethics.

Let's say that you find yourself stranded forever on a deserted island with one other individual. This other person is frail and of no practical use for your mutual survival. He is a loud mouth, an instigator, and he eats a lot. He even steals some of your food and the food supply is scarce. He's totally defenseless and a nuisance. Give a logical reason for not killing him.

An atheist criticizes a Christian for having an illogical belief in God, yet he can produce no logical reason for not killing this man. He can try to give a reason such as, "He is my genetic brother," but this doesn't stand up to logic. Why would it be wrong to kill your genetic brother? There is no logical reason, but you can see the atheist trying to give a spiritual reason. He is actually resorting to the 'brotherhood of man' as a reason not to kill this man. This is a spiritual reason, not a logical one. On the other hand, a Christian can simply use his 'illogical belief in God' to provide a very logical reason for not killing the man; "My Lord tells me to love him. My Lord wouldn't approve of me killing him." An atheist can't defend his own illogical belief without being a hypocrite when he criticizes belief in God as illogical.

www.ex-atheist.com...



[edit on 3/23/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 
I have no interest in getting into a word game based on a highly improbable scenario. It's all semantics based around a word that Theists find really annoying, logic. Which also happens to to be one of my favorite words. The superior logic in this case would be"why bother with a question such as this?All it does is invite more circular argument" I don't waste my time thinking baout these things, much in the same way i dont think about what I'd do with a million dollars.

Having said that, i'll indulge you with an answer anyway, just to be a good sport.

I wouldn't kill the man, Im screwed anyway, killing him wouldnt change my situation.

I could however tie him up,tape his mouth shut, and feed him rationed food. not only is this a better solution than killing him, it's more logical too. he may even reform his ways and become useful




[edit on 23-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Your stranded forever on a desert island. Why waste your food, if your going to tie him up? Why not kill him?

Why does life have value?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Gigatronix, I gave you a star for the last post, because you did such a good job of speaking back against such an horiffic 'snippet' brought into the thread.

I was insulted, and angered by that sort of nonsense....and had to refrain from responding. YET, you dealt with it calmly and rationally, and may I say....logically!!

Cheers!!



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by idle_rocker
 
Yep, and I would go a. and call those extremist athiests evil. But not because they're athiests, but because they're ignorant




Ignorance plays a big part of it on both sides of the coin. And I definitely will call the leader of that atheist pack ignorant. I hope I never have to meet him because he'll probably make me shrivel in my boots (or high heels) or poop my pants.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 
You wouldn't kill him right? So why are you trying to rationalize why I should? Nice bait but I'm not nibbling.

His life has value because if I tie him up and show him that behaviour isnt gonna fly, maybe he'll find a way to become useful so that he cna get up and move around and not be tied to a tree all day.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


It's not a bait. See it makes you uncomfortable because you sense the hole left in you by atheism.

Because I have a logical reason why I wouldn't kill him. The creator of the universe told me not to kill.

You know its wrong, but when nobodies looking, why does it matter anymore?

Somewhere deep inside you know....

somebodies always watching.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
They say we'll be surprised when we finally see "Satan" for the first time and know beyond a doubt, that's who he is. A little backstory reveals why that meeting would be so surprising.

He was considered one of the most perfect and beautiful of the created elohim, an Archangel, some say. He was "covered in precious gems" (probably various types of crystallized scales). Other parts of his body shown like polished bronze in the glow of the sun. He was fitted with special devices. He was powerful, wealthy beyond human measure and controlled a vast government that wasn't only local (Earthbound) but out among some of the stones of fire (the planets and stars).

He was known by several names down thru history but the most prominent were Enki and Ra.

He commanded a large group of angelic forces who were faithful to him, almost exclusively. He decided that he was capable of amassing enough of his own power to challenge and replace his Creator, so he started a war against Jehovah, to do just that. He lost. This marks the end of what is called by some, the Angelic Dispensation (the time of testing for the angels, a race created before humans). However, he retained control over Earth and that is what his earthly name means.. Enki (means Lord Earth). Enki was a Seraphim, a Seraph (a serpent being, a reptilian, a bipedal, upright, intelligent being of beauty who later becomes known as the Serpent in the Garden).

Turn the page.

A new chapter opens and we see the human dispensation. There's a new creation in the neighborhood, on some neighboring planet, perhaps in another galaxy or another solar system, perhaps even another dimension, but where ever it was, we were there.

Enki finds out and pays us a little visit. Back on Earth, the planet is recovering from some major catastrophe (either as a result of the preceeding war or some other mammoth event). The former glory of Enki's civilization on Earth is going to be returned, but this requires alot of hard, backbreaking, thankless labor. So being the ever crafty Enki, he comes up with a plan to employ Jehovah's new creation as a slave labor force. "I have seen just such a creature," he tells the other Anunna (the other angels) who were complaining about the idea of having to do hard labor, "someone capable of doing this work for us." And so, humankind end up on this planet, in what appears to be a very sad tale about our inability to follow even the simplest instructions


And here we've been ever since.

Enki, well he's been here ever since too.

His original appearance looks like a cross between a grey, a reptilian and a human, but mostly reptilian. I believe he was divulged of that body he used in the Garden scenario, and had to find a new one as a result. We see him popping up, literally in other Kings and powerful rulers down threw the history of the planet. But when his interactions with humans began, I believe he looked like this (in fact, i think that's his original form he employed when he brought us here, before he was removed from it):




In short, I think Satan is the Terrestrial and WE are the Extra-terrestrials. This is his planet and we are the visitors. The ancient history of this planet and the fossil record, are much more supportive of a reptilian race. Our fossil record , if there is one, is probably somewhere FAR away from here. Isn't it ironic?
But since he is spaceworthy, (hey the planets in the neighborhood, including this one, provide him all the materials he needs, ya know and if we don't employ the protection of the Creator, we end up working for Enki anyway, who then has almost free reign to do whatever he wants with our lives, depending on whether or not we are a thorn in his "side" or a potential benefit), we assume he and his cohorts are from somewhere else when we encounter them in their little UFOs and such.

No wonder we will be surprised. We'll be looking at this shapeshifting, but apparently beautiful being, who probably doesn't look like he could hurt a fly, and wondering how in the sam hill anything that beautiful and benign could do that much harm.

Yeah, it's to his benefit you don't believe in his existence. Abductions work best when no one believes the abductee anyway.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Nice try, but I don't need the fear of some invisible judge watching over me to keep me from doing something. Yes, you trying to convince me that killing him is logical so you can jump all over me about it makes me uncomfortable. That little piece of garbage scenario was worded specifically to make a Christian look good and Atheist look bad no matter what he chose. That's why it had to be in a improbable scenario with all the odds stacked against the man in question, because that was the only way to twist logic around to serve the writers purpose.

I'm not wasting anymore time on this scenario. I gave my answer, I defended it, you failed to make a point. Moving on.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Nice try, but I don't need the fear of some invisible judge watching over me to keep me from doing something. Yes, you trying to convince me that killing him is logical so you can jump all over me about it makes me uncomfortable.


I am not trying to convince you and I am not jumping all over you. You are acting uncomfortable and trying to avoid it because it points out the huge flaw in your world view. It's worded to help you see the truth. Sorry if it's not pleasant to you.

That is the point of this thread. Stalin had a similar scenario.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


Your stranded forever on a desert island. Why waste your food, if your going to tie him up? Why not kill him?

Sounds like you're trying to convince me that killing him is the logical thing to do here, by means of implying that my solution is illogical. There is no huge flaw in my world view, and your scenario does not support otherwise. Actually, all that scenario does is imply that the writer thinks killing the man is the logical thing to do, but he'll defy his own imposed logic by becoming even more illogical and saying he won't do it because God said no-no, as opposed to using the more logical reason that killing is just wrong.

You had two different responses waiting for me, but I came up with an option that doesn't fit in with either. So you tried to coax me into an answer you could counter. And when I didn't do that you just pretended liek I did and implied that I was squirming around trying to wrestle with it. nothing like that going on over here, if anything, you are squirming because I found a flaw in that little airtight pro-religious trap.



[edit on 24-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 



No I have no response prepared I swear. I haven't even thought about it too hard because my faith makes my answer easy. I just wen tback an re read it. To be fair to you OK... I will pretend there is no God. I am not tryint to convince you.

just to examine; where do morals come from and what morals...

I tell you the truth, I feel pity for him because it says he's frail etc. But if it wasn't for my faith and survival was at stake, as soon as he stole my food more than once, I would drop him like him like a fly.

If my survival was not at stake... I am thinking it is lonely on this island. It is logical that I want to not be alone. So maybe try to civilize this poor guy just to have some one to talk too.


If he was just pure annoying like it says after repeated tries to be civil... well I might whoop his tail a few times times -trying to teach him to behave,

Eventually if he would not leave me in peace. I would probably kill him in frustration.

And even with faith in God I might still do this, because I fail often. I am not perfect because I believe. I still miss the mark.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 

Well at least you're honest lol. And I appreciate that you took the time and try to see it from a different standpoint. Maybe now you appreciate that its not all black and white liek the writer of that scenario would suggest. It's good for a semantics excercise but thats about it. I don't think less of you for using it, though I might think it's a little snarky, seeing how easy it would be to get tripped up and snarled in the BS rhetoric the writer was espousing.

I starred you for the effort and sincerity you put forth.


[edit on 24-3-2008 by Gigatronix]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I love that movie "the usual suspects". It starts out with that line "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he doesn't exist"

I think you have a much more complete picture of reality than most undo. Reality is a lot wilder than fiction. People just live in denial because it is easier that way. Well not easier, more like more convenient I guess.

The way you have connected the dots between the ancient tales of other cultures and the Bible is spot on in my opinion. Especially enki being the nacash in the garden an all.

What about all the 1000s of gods the Hindus have. I am clueless, but I would guess rebel Elohim are behind some of that as well.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


OK but apart from God why does human life have value. To me the most logical conclusion is I want to live. So I can assume you want to live. If I don't threaten you then you don't threaten me. Live and let live.

See but your life only has value because I value my own. Make sense? I'm just making this up as I go... So if your life makes mine inconvenienced then the value of yours goes down.

Isn't that just that human nature?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join