Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


YAAAAWWWNNNN..... oops, snort and snore too...

Con, great job, cherry-picking a post. A very thoughtful post, that got 'spun' by selective quotes.

I know, can't 'pull' down the whole thing, and respond in sito, as it were...but really!!! Tearing down another's post is just wrong, and beneath your dignity as a contributer to ATS!

Yeah, I may get smacked for this, my opinion...but it is MY opinion.




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by Conspiriology
 
Actually, I spoke out against extremist Atheists, and aligned myself with Atheists that have no desire to fight you.

As far as the Christian hating goes, that's not my thing, some of my best friends are Christians and we have a lot of fun conversations, because we both know neither of us is trying to convert the other.

Extreme atheists hate all religions apparently(I say apparently because I've never encountered one or heard much about them until now). I'd be willing to bet there's some extreme Christians out there doing a fair amount of hating as well. You don't have a monopoly on people hating you. Some people just need to hate something, whether its religion, politics, video games, Britney Spears, whatever. The solution for you is not to hate back, but WWJD? Turn the other cheek yes? This goes for Atheists feeling the heat from religious types too, get over it and don't contribute to the hatefest.

I know that may sound hypocritical because I called you out, but I was more concerned with your rhetoric, I have no issue with your religious beliefs themselves.



You make a lot of good points and are one of the most rational atheists I seen in a long while. I agree, and I know their have been some hateful Christians. I write letters to one of the most powerful pastors in Texas all the time telling him he is nuts. (John Hagee) I think it is a Christians responsibilty to question nut cases like that and I have done so on this forum as many will attest.

I just know that when I go to Christian Churchs they are talking about food drives or asking me to help with sheetrock or framing a house for someone that needed it. I had started going to these "bright" meetings and every single meeting scared the hell out of me always talkin smak about Christians.

Same can be said of Christian websites MOST are sensible with few being full of expletives or hate speech and almost none obsessed with a specific thing or people like ALL and I do mean ALL Atheist websites.

I am willing to live and let live too but I can not deny what I have seen growing and never would have imagined that someone reading a book would go out feeling like they had a license to be rude to a people like the Atheist books do.

- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 
I found that dishonest believers comment to be asanine myself, but please don't assume all Atheists think that way. Atheists who make statements like that do not represent all of us, just as religious folks who make similar bizarre statements don't represent all of those who believe in God.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


YAAAAWWWNNNN..... oops, snort and snore too...

Con, great job, cherry-picking a post. A very thoughtful post, that got 'spun' by selective quotes.

I know, can't 'pull' down the whole thing, and respond in sito, as it were...but really!!! Tearing down another's post is just wrong, and beneath your dignity as a contributer to ATS!




*sigh* another thing Christians should get used to hearing is the following,

When ever you post a quote against what Atheists have said it is "Cherry Picked" or you are quote mining. I got the idea for it from Atheists websites using quotes of the bible that contradict themselves.

I would have appreciated a more specific example for what I cherry picked.



Yeah, I may get smacked for this, my opinion...but it is MY opinion.


Yeah,, opinions vary,,

you know what they say about opinions lol but no offense was taken

- Con

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by banyan
 

Buddhism is essentially non-deistic. Buddhists do believe in the existence of gods and other supernatural beings (essentially the Hindu variety). Lay Buddhists even pray or make offerings to them but this is frowned upon and monks don't do it. Buddhism sees the gods as subject to the laws of death, rebirth and karma, in common with all other living beings. The Buddha taught that it matters nothing to the soul in samsara whether the gods exist or not; and that there is nothing to be gained, in the long run, by praying and sacrificing to them.

In particular, Buddhism has no concept of a Supreme Being.

* * *


A few points now about the OP, which is clearly an attempt to smear atheists and atheism, no matter what Bigwhammy's good friend AshleyD has to say about it.

First, the post misrepresents Richard Dawkins. What does this mean?


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Dr Dawkin’s proverbial cry for war in the name of Atheism against most of the world population.

Is Dawkins promoting the wholesale massacre of the religious? Is he calling for believers to be herded into concentration camps, to have their property expropriated, their children taken from them and raised in vast, godless battery-farms? He is not. Richard Dawkins is declaring war against faith, not against the faithful. He believes, rightly in my opinion, that religion is a Bad Thing and should be discouraged. He is also a liberal and a believer in free speech, so he is certainly not calling for religious observance to be banned -- though he does suggest, in The God Delusion, that public ceremonies should be strictly licensed and controlled. To someone who has seen how a religious procession can provoke a sectarian riot, as I have, this seems like an eminently sensible precaution.

Next, there's this little strategem, which I find rather deceitful:


Notice how the author walks on eggshells to not take a position on anything else in particular. This is because when God is eliminated it really only leaves Darwinism...

This follows directly after an external source quote that looks, given the preceding context, as if it should be attributed to Dawkins. Notice how Bigwhammy walks on eggshells to avoid any suspicion that 'the author' he refers to here is not in fact Richard Dawkins, but someone called Austin Cline, the author of the 'answers' page on About.com linked to and quoted in his post.

I think this is a very poor show, and encourage anyone who wants to know what Richard Dawkins really has to say about just about everything Bigwhammy has been animadverting upon in his post to visit Dawkins's official web site. You will find him readable, lucid and entertaining.

Neither the OP nor any of those that follow offer any valid evidence of this claimed atheist conspiracy to airbrush history. The business about Darwin's religious beliefs is just a diversion, since none of it (even if it were true) suggests that Darwin was trying to pervert the historical record.

* * *

As for this:


Atheism was most certainly a profound influence in the dark equation of death by Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao

Intelligent people have repeatedly pointed out that Communism (and Nazism) are religions. Godless religions can exist: see my remarks on Buddhism above, though I do not mean to suggest any other similarity between that ancient faith and these modern monstrosities.

Like any religion, Communism and Nazism both demand belief in a higher power that transcends the individual and trumps all other relationships and loyalties. Both derive their morality and ethics from this power, as interpreted and enforced by its anointed representatives (party commissars, the Supreme Soviet, the Gestapo, the KGB). Above all, both demand that certain 'truths' (dialectical materialism, the ultimate triumph of the proletariat, the mystical power of the Volk and their 'Aryan' bloodline) be taken on faith, without a shred of proof to support them.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Astynax, a star for you!!!

What a cogent and coherent post, I thank you very much for writing it.

I will come back and re-read it often, in order t fully take it in....

Best, Tim



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Can you post the sources for those quotes, please?

reply to post by Clearskies
 


I know this Marxist thought very well. However, others may not. You need to source your quotes. I'm not playing MOD and policing the thread. It's just that if I can't source the quotes that you use I'm left without the original context of the quotes. This makes it impossible to understand the quotes in the context of your own argument.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by Areal51]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Great thread BW,
I came across something fairly interesting while compiling material for another thread topic. Does anyone remember John Todd? He was a pretty controversial charcter from the 70's.
You rarely hear of him any more. He was the son of an illuminatti family. I don't think they qualify as atheists, because most are into witchcraft or devil worship. So, I hope this is not off-topic.
But John Todd was an alias. He was actually a member of the Collins family. He later converted to Christianity and discovered that he also had been a victim of mind-control most of his life.
He began to reveal secrets about the illuminatti and their influence in mainstream religion. How a lot of the BIG churches were bought off and watered down.
He also revealed some information about the Salem Witch trials. That not one of the victims were witches. All of them were Christians except one, who was a prostitute.
The so-called 'preacher,' was not a preacher at all, but a slave-trader. This was all done for several reasons. Some of it was to put a bad slant on Christianity, some of it was to obtain the property of the victims. One of the victims was a man.
Once Todd converted to Christianity and began to publicly reveal these secrets; Lo and behold! he became a child-molestor and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. That shut him up!



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Atheist conspirator expelled from Creationist movie

I assure you all this is perfectly on topic. You must go to the link, though, I don't want to spoil the fun by telling you about it. Here's a teaser:


I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend.

Go have a read. Whichever side of the controversy you're on, you're bound to enjoy it.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax



In particular, Buddhism has no concept of a Supreme Being


Who is Buddha? that's a myth a legend, their is no DNA proof no photographs that such a person ever existed.



Is Dawkins promoting the wholesale massacre of the religious?


To steal a quote from dawkins himself,, given enough time.,, History has shown that secular humanism does exactly that.



Is he calling for believers to be herded into concentration camps, to have their property expropriated, their children taken from them and raised in vast, godless battery-farms? He is not. Richard Dawkins is declaring war against faith, not against the faithful.


Oh yes that is exactly what is and HAS been going on Ill show you every step they have completed in the following post after this.

By the way,, you can not attack faith without attacking the faithful for faith is just a word with a definition and cares not what dawkins thinks, impervious to any such assault. It is the same in the opposite and Ill use a more positive analogy. If I say I am going to attack drugs, removing them from the streets, is not the drug user who benefits?

If I attack bowlings balls with an agenda to remove them from society, is not bowlers who will have a justifiably logical reason for being personally affected? Of course it is so use your Atheist double speak on the less wise as I have seen this tactic used and GUESS WHAT,,

I DON'T BUY IT!!



- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

UNDERSTANDING THE LIE OF HUMANISM



BY BRANNON S. HOWSE



Humanism is a Religion




Is humanism a religion? Let's begin this important discussion by defining the term "religion." Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines "religion" as: "a set of beliefs." Webster's New World Dictionary defines "religion" as: "a system of belief." The word "belief" is defined as opinions as "thoughts upon which people base their actions."2

Another way to say this is that an individual's worldview is the foundation of his values, and his values are the foundation of his actions. Thus, the answer is now clear. Humanism is a religious worldview.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not realize that humanism is a religion funded and promoted in America's public schools by taxpayers' money. While this is taking place, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and other humanist organizations, liberal groups and individuals file lawsuit upon lawsuit. Their targets: Students who pray over their lunch, mention God or Jesus Christ in their graduation speeches, sing Christmas carols, have Christmas parties, observe Thanksgiving, and on and on. While these same groups, individuals and organizations fight to remove the religion of Christianity from our schools, colleges, courtrooms, city hall buildings, city seals, and city squares, their dirty little secret is they don't want a religion-free zone. They want to replace the Judeo Christian faith and acknowledgement of God's place in our history and its impact on our nation and culture. Their goal is to substitute the Judeo Christian religion for their religion of secular humanism.

If Americans, in large enough numbers, would come to understand the facts I am about to document in this chapter, the fight would no longer be misconstrued by the opposition and liberal media. Dr. David Noebel and Dr.Tim LaHaye, in their 2003 New York Times Best Seller titled, Mind Siege, write: "The truth is, humanism is unmistakably and demonstrably a religion. One need merely visit the second edition of A World Religions Reader to note the prominence given to Secular Humanism as one of the World's religions. Indeed, in a list of the World's religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism, Secular Humanism is at the top."3

Some argue that humanism - unlike Christianity - does not force a specific set of religious positions and beliefs on people. Dr. Noebel continues, "Humanists preach a faith every bit as dogmatic as Christianity. Moral relativism is foundational for Secular Humanists ethics; spontaneous generation and evolution are basic to their biology; naturalism is foundational to their philosophy; and atheism is their theological perspective."4

The Six Main Beliefs of Humanism




Atheism is the belief there is no God. Since there is no God according to humanists, they proclaim that they are God. In fact, the very definition of humanism is "the belief that man is God." As its foundation, Secular Humanism has six main beliefs that include:
1. Atheism: There is no God.
2. Moral Relativism: There is no such thing as absolute moral truth for truth is relative.
3. Evolution: Man was not created but was the result of a spontaneous, random process.
4. Socialism: The elimination of private property for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth by the centralized government.
5. Autonomous self-centered man: Man is the center of all things, and at this core he is good but does bad things when impacted negatively by his environment.
6. One-world government: National sovereignty and world borders must be dissolved to allow for the creation of a one-world government, one-world court and universal-tax.

While these are the six main beliefs of Secular Humanism, many beliefs go into the making of the Secular Humanist worldview. Secular Humanists, in their Humanist Manifesto I, II and the Humanist Manifesto 2000, clearly describe the beliefs that makeup their worldview. Let's take a close look at what a Secular Humanists believes and some of the most liberal organizations that embrace the beliefs, values and worldview of Secular Humanism.

While reading this section, keep in mind that your beliefs are the foundation of your values, and your values are the foundation of your conduct. What you are about to read reveals how today's Secular Humanists are indeed living out their worldview.

www.worldviewweekend.com...



The rest is all there and it is undeniable
www.worldviewweekend.com...

- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Who is Buddha?

A man, nothing more. He himself said so repeatedly, and his followers take him at his word. Nowhere in Buddhist scripture is it taught that he is divine, or even immortal. In fact, the Buddha-essence is distinguished from the mass of other living souls by the fact that it no longer exists; it evaporated into nothingness when the Buddha died. This is nirvana, the extinction of the self -- the word means 'snuffing-out' in Sanskrit. You can't worship the Buddha because there is nothing to pray to. Far more definitively than Elvis ever did, the Buddha has left the building.

* * *



I DON'T BUY IT!!

Remind me again -- what was I selling?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

A man, nothing more. He himself said so repeatedly, and his followers take him at his word. Nowhere in Buddhist scripture is it taught that he is divine, or even immortal. In fact, the Buddha-essence is distinguished from the mass of other living souls by the fact that it no longer exists; it evaporated into nothingness when the Buddha died. This is nirvana, the extinction of the self -- the word means 'snuffing-out' in Sanskrit. You can't worship the Buddha because there is nothing to pray to. Far more definitively than Elvis ever did, the Buddha has left the building.



Remind me again -- what was I selling?


BS as usual

I read siddartha and it was facetious about his existence however Atheists mission to airbrush Christ out of history has been historical




[align=center] The Humanists' War on God and Freedom of Religion [/align]


Humanist Manifesto I: "The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives."

Humanist Manifesto II: "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural…."

The British Humanists Association: "Some opponents of Humanism have accused us of wishing to overthrow the traditional Christian family. They are right. That is exactly what we intend to do."

Peter Singer, Austrian philosopher: "Christianity is our foe. If animal-rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo Christian religious tradition."

The National Education Association (NEA): In a 1997 resolution, the NEA declared "…The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence…." Resolution 26, in 2003, read: "The Association also opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence."

Democratic National Committee (DNC): In 2004, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe appointed the Reverend Brenda Bartella Peterson as the senior advisor of religious outreach. Bartella was one of thirty-two clergy members who filed a Supreme Court brief in the summer of 2004 taking the side of Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued to make it illegal for public school children to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

American Civil Liberties Union: In 1960, "the ACLU launched several legal initiatives to prohibit Christmas decorations or the singing of carols in public schools or on public property."5

The Regent's Prayer Case of 1962 was "one of several anti-prayers suits that the ACLU was involved in- [in which] lawyers argued that a prayer recited each day in the New York public schools constituted an unlawful 'establishment of religion.' "

In 1976, the ACLU "brought suit in New Jersey in an effort to prohibit Christmas pageants in the public schools."6

In 1981, the ACLU took a case hoping "to prohibit the Gideons from distributing Bibles to students in the public schools on the grounds that such programs constitute a violation of the "'separation of church and state.'" 7

In 1986, "the ACLU was able to forbid religious invocations before high school football games. For the first time, the lawyers successfully used 'endorsement' languages instead of the traditional 'establishment' language - the implication being that the government is not only forbidden to establish or institutionalize religion, it is even forbidden to endorse or condone it." 8

In 2004, the ACLU sued the City of San Diego for renting property to the Boy Scouts'. The ACLU is offended by the Boy Scouts commitment to prohibit homosexual Scout leaders and atheists.


www.worldviewweekend.com...




-Love Con






[edit on 22-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sizzle

I came across something fairly interesting while compiling material for another thread topic. Does anyone remember John Todd? He was a pretty !






posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The problem not being atheists or christians themselves, but those who to point out again and again how OTHERS are "WRONG" instead of cleaning up their own act.

Christians are generally fine people and so are atheists. They both have a lot of valid and interesting points.

And, contrary to the nonsense promoted here...you can easily MIX them.

A GOD could have easily initiated evolution. No contradiction there.


Thats it exactly but I see time and time again,, Christians making apologies to these people and rather then graciously accept them they say words to the effect " Bleep you Bleeping Bleep bleep and die"

I mean it is outrageous and I have seen growing FAST where Dawkins influence is reaching rock star status and his message is one of take no prisoners. Once things start effecting our personal lives like what has happend in Phoenix where they are interupting the offering, then it gets where it is time to act.

For the most part I was just a 2 -3 time a year Church goer and most christians never botherd me but I wasn't that close to them. That has changed and I just think all this talk and what I see going on in schools with Atheists actually accusing me of child abuse,, That really pisses me off and our church is trying put an end to such allegations. You know CPS is not that great here and acountable to no one. Just accusing someone like that can get your kids taken away. I can't tell you here on this forum what I would do to someone making such idiotic allegations that were so utterly baseless. Now Atheist are working to make that baseless acusation have credence.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by banyan
what i find interesting is that whenever i have seen negative threads about atheism, it's always from the perspective of a christian. which, yes, that does make sense because they are polar opposites and the majority religion in america, but what does surprise me is that i never read about a buddhist or any other religious guru thrashing on atheism, at least on here. please, someone correct me if i am wrong. do other religions not care to convert atheists? or do they actually have some humane ethical respect towards other's views?


Nope,, you might as well add buddists to the Atheist crowd and Dawkins himself calls them an ally of sorts but jokingly says after they are done with Christians,, they will work on Buddists next.

- Con



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

The Humanists' War on Parental Authority


Humanist Manifesto 2000: "Although parental moral guidance is vital, parents should not simply impose their own religious outlook or moral values on their children or indoctrinate them. Children, adolescents, and young adults should have exposure to different viewpoints and enjoy encouragement to think for themselves. The view of even young children should be respected."

American Civil Liberties Union: "ACLU applauds Appeals Court decision upholding minors' right to confidential abortions." In other words, the ACLU wants minor children to be able to have an abortion without their parents' knowledge.

National Education Association: In Today's Education 1983-1984, the NEA made it clear how it feels about parental authority as follows:

The NEA believes that communications between certified personnel and students must be legally privileged. It urges its affiliates to aid in seeking legislation that provides this privilege and protects both educators and students.

In the February 10, 1973, issue of the Saturday Review of Education, former NEA president, Catherine Barrett makes clear the objective of this powerful organization: "Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling…. When this happens - and it's near - the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher…. We will be agents of change."

The third annual conference of the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) brought together multicultural educators from all 50 states. Keynote speaker Lily Wong Fillmore, a professor of language at the University of California at Berkeley, asserted that the radical curriculum reform they propose will provoke "definite clashes with the practices, beliefs and attitudes that are taught in many homes…. No matter what students' parents and families think about others or the environment…we are going to have to inculcate in our children the rules that form a credo that will work for a multicultural 21st century…."19


www.worldviewweekend.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

The Humanists' War on Parental Authority


Humanist Manifesto 2000: "Although parental moral guidance is vital, parents should not simply impose their own religious outlook or moral values on their children or indoctrinate them. Children, adolescents, and young adults should have exposure to different viewpoints and enjoy encouragement to think for themselves. The view of even young children should be respected."

American Civil Liberties Union: "ACLU applauds Appeals Court decision upholding minors' right to confidential abortions." In other words, the ACLU wants minor children to be able to have an abortion without their parents' knowledge.

National Education Association: In Today's Education 1983-1984, the NEA made it clear how it feels about parental authority as follows:

The NEA believes that communications between certified personnel and students must be legally privileged. It urges its affiliates to aid in seeking legislation that provides this privilege and protects both educators and students.

In the February 10, 1973, issue of the Saturday Review of Education, former NEA president, Catherine Barrett makes clear the objective of this powerful organization: "Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling…. When this happens - and it's near - the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher…. We will be agents of change."

The third annual conference of the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) brought together multicultural educators from all 50 states. Keynote speaker Lily Wong Fillmore, a professor of language at the University of California at Berkeley, asserted that the radical curriculum reform they propose will provoke "definite clashes with the practices, beliefs and attitudes that are taught in many homes…. No matter what students' parents and families think about others or the environment…we are going to have to inculcate in our children the rules that form a credo that will work for a multicultural 21st century…."19


www.worldviewweekend.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I read siddartha and it was facetious about his existence

Siddharta is a novel by a twentieth-century German author, Herman Hesse. It tells the story of a young man who shares the Buddha's name and undertakes a similar quest for understanding, but who is not the Buddha. It is true that the Buddha and Buddhism are mentioned throughout the book, but if you think having read it makes you an expert on Buddhism, you are sadly mistaken. Remember, it is not a true story; it is a work of fiction. You know what those look like, don't you?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CreeWolf
 



Tell me, what about everyone else? How about maybe all the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Satanists (perhaps)? All those who don't believe in Christ, but no, it had to be the Atheists, riiiight.




new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join