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: 50
24
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

personally, i think the last 8 years of the bush presidency have been a deliberate and concentrated effort to blame christians for everything, and a massive opportunity to get on the national TV and actually call them uneducated louts. I still can't believe I saw this on CNN. What the freak are they thinking?
I was on the Dean's list and the President's list in college. I'm not an idiot.
this is the kinda crap hitler did to the jews. first find someone to blame, then
make sure the press and anything else influential does a thorough job of making them look like a scar on society.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by undo]


Yeah he is some mascot isn't he lol Dubya lol. I would've voted for an atheist 6 months ago,, but I sure as hell won't now.

( I can just see one of them telling me I should because,,they wouldn't be running for office "in the name of atheism")

heheh

- Con




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
well i'm not going to vote based on a person's religious convictions but on their ability to actually allow people they disagree, as well as agree with, to prosper and thrive. if they can't do that, they don't deserve to be a president of a multi-cultural society/country.

btw, hubby never shot a single person. if he could have, he would've been a conscientious objecter. he was a desk jockey.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

So communism works against darwinian theory? Communism is not anything like darwinism. Someone wanting to work against natural processes like evolution and human nature was darwin's problem?

So when Darwin said that socialism and darwinism are different things he was right?

Cool. Darwinism didn't lead to gulags. Implementing a non-darwinian socio-economic policy led to gulags (doesn't follow, as communism says nothing about gulags). And using non-darwinian agricultural approaches led to famine and death (that does follow more).



Whoever said they were the same thing? That's you building straw men. I pointed out the relationship. I was right. The fathers of communism are on my side. They claim Darwin. So do you. That's not my responsibility. Sorry if it's uncomfortable for you.

But if you don't airbrush history, you will recall Communism was a massive failure. They resorted to massive slaughter of human life. They had no value for human life. They believed we are just mammals and we ought to just do it like on discovery channel. In their frustration they resorted to eliminating the "so called" mutations of society. Usually people of faith and the weaker member of society. Sure they completely bastardized Darwin's ideas for their own evil ends. They justified their evil actions using them. It's not Darwin's fault I agree . But you can not deny the relationship either.



Maybe people should have listened to Darwin more closely (not really, as Darwin's theory is not a social theory, but agriculture, yes). In fact, it appears that some capitalist economists did. One of the people who led to the collapse of a building society in the UK was a big fan of natural selection and the power of the unfettered free market (he was a biologist - matt ridley). A very Darwinian process. Do we blame that on the influence of darwin?

New thread: 'Darwin's theory led to the collapse of banks and the possibility of a coming recession: T'was teh Atheist conspiracy!'


Good point! You should start that Thread Mel.


[edit on 3/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I'm willing to bet those polls that show there are that many christians in the USA, is a complete fabrication. it's meant to make the people who are not christians feel overwhelmed by "country hicks with no education", which is how they were trying to characterize most of the USA. they also want people to think there's so many christians, they voted in bush. and they are trying to divide it along racial lines, so christians of different racial backgrounds will be in disagreement with each other. which of course, is a lie. elections are not democratic. they just look like they are. voters don't vote in anybody. they just go to the polls to give the spin doctors the chance to determine how better to manipulate the mass mind. and of course, there's the infamous "bush crusade", which is supposedly the brainchild of the country christian hicks with low IQs and oh my god, the transparency of the entire thing is so obvious, my dog would recognize it.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by riley
I already showed exactly how it is. It certainly does not change on your say so.


And I already showed exactly what it meant. It certainly does not change on your say so.

Yes.. I explained why it was missleading.. the ONLY context the word thousands could be used in when talking about a population of 550 is to exaggerate.

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:


Not to be rude

I love how you say this just after showing me your disdain for me with an immature barrage of denograting emoticons. Subtle.

nearly forgot..



but you were wrong and apparently seem to be trying to finagle your way around it any way you can.

I admitted being wrong.. but that quote was missleading and in fact led me to the wrong conclusion. I was being honest as I do not believe I would have made that mistake if not for the biased way it was written. How many times are you going to ask me to repeat myself?


No-one has EVER claimed hundreds or thousands were killed. The article implies they have.


No it does not. It is showing exactly what I said: With the way the SWT's are constantly thrown in the face of Christians you would think it would have been Christian America's version of the Holocaust (Yes, now I am exaggerating to hit the point home).

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:

1. Yes you are exaggerating [just like the author did ironically].

2. You have provided no proof that Salem witch trials are mentioned any more than morally or historically warrented. Just because mentioning history is uncomfortable for you does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned.. and just because that author says the word 'thousands' .. that does not prove that christians are being victimised because of it. The language the author used only shows that he's attempting to trivialise the past by saying their deaths are somehow not very significant.. I mean it's not like there were thousands of people killed in Salem!


3. I'm not an american so do not hear about the Salem with trials very often so don't see it being thrown in the face of christians. All I really know about it is that my school put on a play about it 'the crucible' [was a christian school btw yet they didn't seem offended] and that the town was in fact suffering from hallucinations caused by contaminated corn.


I can get picky and twist things around, too. Watch this:

The article does not exaggerate. It admits there were less than 25. It seems you were trying so hard to pick it apart for any little thing by assigning the article's author intentions that simply are not there.

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:


He mentioned hundreds and THOUSANDS to make the number "25" seem insignificant in comparison. It was pretty obvious really.

It seems you were trying so hard to pick it apart for any little thing by assigning the article's author intentions that simply are not there.

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:

There was no need for me to take it out of context.

If the author had gone on and on about people claiming the SWT's had killed thousands then I could see your point.

AGAIN

My original point was that I had made a mistake and I owned it.. then I looked again and noticed the author had made a mistake as well [thousands in a town of 550].

..yet you obsess about me being wrong and are now trying your upmost to pick my posts apart on one little thing I noticed.

However, that is not what he/she does. I do see what you're trying to say but it looks like you're just blowing things out of proportion in order to find something to gripe about.

Only because this is like the fourth time I've had to repeat myself.. and you seem hell bent on confronting me on this issue despite your now saying you understand what I meant anyway. [?] I mean bigwhammy already has made a big deal over this one point with me.. you are coming to his defence as though I insulted you mother yet in the same breath accuse me of blowing it out of proportion? yeah right. I have not seen you use that amount of:

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:


in your reponses to anyone else so it's pretty clear you have an axe to grind with me. [though I have no doubt you'll now claim innocence with the
:shk: even though you'd know it would come off as hostile].

Sort of like whoever it was who entered this thread and then jumped Whammy's butt for using the word 'airbrush' in his title instead of 'revise.'

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:

Are you talking to me now? I have no idea what you are on about.

EDIT. Not interested in discussing this point further as I am sick of repeating myself.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
last time i voted in a primary,
i supposedly helped to elect jimmy carter. i thought he was a pretty good president but some big things went wrong. it was when i went to determine what it was that was going on that i realized this isn't america anymore.
after that, i lost all faith in the "democratic process."



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Jimmy Carters biggest problem was he was too honest. The military industrial complex did not trust him. They set him up to look like a fool by lying to him all the time and keeping him out of the loop. For instance the hostages in Iran. He had them released already... but the CIA set it up so they wouldn't go free until after te election. They actually forced American citizens to stay in jail longer to fix the election. This is proven fact now. He was a great President but he was surrounded by criminals. The same sort of criminals that are running things now I am afraid.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 



Whammy,, type "Atheist" there for the author assumes the reader would have the common sense to fill in the blank or the default unbelief being born Atheist. We forget how they resist having that name attached to anything other then what ever it is they are against.


I honestly cannot tell what is being said here...



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


And I do believe you see where I'm coming from.
Wonder what was going on with those rescue attempts.
That was a huge mess too. How could that many mechanical
and pilot errors happen in the same top secret military
campaign, i have no idea.

wasn't he a member of the tri-lateral commission? not a very
happy happy joy joy organization, in the conspiracy fields.

anyway, the USA is supposed to be multicultural. anyone in charge
of it, should be multiculturally-minded, and have the ability to see
past the end of their own paradigms.

the media has a responsibility to report the news, not have huge
maps of the usa with the words JESUSLAND printed across it and polls
showing how vast portions of the usa are christian idiots.

i'm still flabbergasted they put that on the news

[edit on 25-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

[quote
The Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation of Sweden to men and women who have rendered the greatest service to humankind. Between 1901 and 2007, more than 750 Nobel Prizes were handed out. Of these, at least 162 are Jews.

If you had cited the Nobel Prize rather than the Nobel Peace Prize it wouldn't have engendered a response.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


Oh my mistake. Anyway, point is the same.
Religion has nothing to do with intelligence.
I don't call atheists, stupid or low IQ. I don't call
people of different religions, stupid or low IQ.
If you think the world looks lopsided from where you're
standing, you should see it from where I'm standing.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


And I do believe you see where I'm coming from.
Wonder what was going on with those rescue attempts.
That was a huge mess too. How could that many mechanical
and pilot errors happen in the same top secret military
campaign, i have no idea.


I remember, that history gets airbrushed as well though. The helicopters wrecked into each other trying to escape
Was it intentional, it would not surprise me. He tried to get UFO disclosure as well - they refused him the information.



wasn't he a member of the tri-lateral commission? not a very
happy happy joy joy organization, in the conspiracy fields.



Yeah but if you're not in stuff like that you can not get elected. It was supposed to help cooperation between America, Europe and Japan. One of Rockerfellers squads. It's all about money - honey. I bet it is still going strong too.



anyway, the USA is supposed to be multicultural. anyone in charge
of it, should be multiculturally-minded, and have the ability to see
past the end of their own paradigms.

the media has a responsibility to report the news, not have huge
maps of the usa with the words JESUSLAND printed across it and polls
showing how vast portions of the usa are christian idiots.

i'm still flabbergasted they put that on the news



I live right in the middle of Jesusland and damn proud of it!



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
'jesusland' is a fabrication, though. a deliberate fabrication.
everything about the bush presidency has been a fabrication.
it's all lies to make it seem as if we are still in the majority, so
any unpopular decisions they make can be blamed on christians,
who are then characterized as the entire body of the military-industrial
complex. let's ignore the fact, most of the people in the military that
i know, are NOT christians, don't profess it, don't practice it, and don't
claim it!


EDIT: i do know one guy that was a christian. he was a black man and a navy seal. But I didn't meet him till he was already out of the navy and working for the railoroad as an engineer or something.


Anyway, the whole thing is a very cunning and deliberate smear campaign. Bunk bunk and more bunk.


[edit on 25-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Oh I know... but isn't it just the same thing as the "Bible belt"? They have been using that for years.

And there is a Christian hate site called Jesusland now too www.jesusland.com... part of the radical atheist agenda to blame Christains for a known member of Skull and Bones.

I do not think Skull and Bones brotherhood of death and Jesus Christ are compatible. Bush used Christianity as a tool to get elected. That is about the extent of it I think. In my opinion he's a rouge President, a despot.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


you wanna hear something funny?
my brother-in-law and sister, are both democrats and christians.
neither of them wanted bush for president. most of the people
in my family have been traditionally democrats and christians.

imagine how they must feel to see the jesus fish with the word
"hypocrite" in it as a democratic party bumper sticker.
the democrats no longer want the vote/acceptance of
christians, so obviously they aren't the least bit threatened about
who we may or may not vote for, further strenghtening the argument
that our votes don't mean diddly-squat and they know it. they are
trying to social-engineer christians right off the face of the planet
by making it seem like we are all unworthy blotches on the face of
humanity.

furthermore, they are promoting the black vs. white issue so that nomimal christians who approve of such genocidal thinking, will go along with it and not call for it to stop in the name of human compassion and love.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Whoever said they were the same thing? That's you building straw men. I pointed out the relationship. I was right. The fathers of communism are on my side. They claim Darwin. So do you. That's not my responsibility. Sorry if it's uncomfortable for you.


And so does an evangelist.

But what sort of relationship? Like the relationship between ID and evolution? With contemporary ID being a response to evolution? Therefore we can place the blame for all the pseudoscientific claptrap from these dudes onto evolution? Not at all.

Like the relationship between Xians and Hitler. Therefore we might attempt place the blame for Hitler onto Xianity. At least the german crazy-man was actually working with what these christians said, not against it.

I really don't see the point. What the communists did was in no way related to darwinism. They created a socio-economic structure that had little to do with darwinism, but to work against it. People building gulags and imposing pseudoscientific non-darwinian theories to agriculture had nothing to do with darwinism. It doesn't really have anything to do with communism/marxism as a socio-economic theory either.

But I'm sure that passes you by as well.

It's a very vacuous and specious attempt to tar a scientific theory and atheism with Stalin and Mao's craziness. It says a lot for your approach to these things, whammy. From misrepresentations of Dawkins to specious claims about darwinism and atheism. You'll love the film expelled.

This is where you started:


There is an undeniable unity between Atheism, the theory of evolution, and communism. Evolution claims that life is the product of blind chance, we are not made in the image of a divine creator, and we are simply animals.


Six canards in two sentences. No unity between evolution and atheism. No unity between communism (as there are christian communists) and atheism. No unity between communism and evolution. Add to that the blind chance rubbish, not made in the image of a creator and simply animals (ask Ken Miller and other theistic evolutionists about that one).

That's great going. Just two sentences. Six wildly incorrect claims. And that is undeniable.


But if you don't airbrush history, you will recall Communism was a massive failure. They resorted to massive slaughter of human life. They had no value for human life. They believed we are just mammals and we ought to just do it like on discovery channel. In their frustration they resorted to eliminating the "so called" mutations of society. Usually people of faith and the weaker member of society. Sure they completely bastardized Darwin's ideas for their own evil ends. They justified their evil actions using them. It's not Darwin's fault I agree . But you can not deny the relationship either.


But at most, taking this line, it would be a group of people saying 'look that's what nature is about, we can change it for the better and create a worker's paradise - [anakin]we can make things the way we want them to be[/anakin]'.

Communism was pretty much a failure. Why? Because it attempted to work against human nature and stifle our competitive instincts. People have taken darwinism and attempted to frame it in capitalist terms as well. So I guess Darwin can account for both communism and anarcho-capitalism - two polar opposites.

And Stalin never attempted to wipe out 'mutations of society'. He took out people who he saw as a threat and opposition. Even Trotsky. Along with that, the badly implemented policies caused widespread famine and death.


Good point! You should start that Thread Mel.


Nah, I'll wait for another green-ink tag-team thread.

But I'll leave you with this, again:

Some atheists kill people, most atheists don't.

Some theists kill people, most theists don't.

Considering theists are meant to have some uber-morality, why does the fact some atheists kill people take greater important than the fact some theists kill people?

A rhetorical question. Don't answer it. No point.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I've said this before, and I will say it one last time. And I will say it in as few words as possible.

Real conspiracy= evil,power-hungry men, manipulating us to fight each other instead of them.

Atheism+Religion=Harmony if you take the evil greedy men with agendas out of the equation. We may not like what each other believes, but I'm pretty sure we can live on the same rock without needing to wipe each other out. It's self-serving men with agendas that are pushing that crap.

Stop with the nonsense people please! I know it doesn't make for an interesting thread but geez you guys are just bangin your heads against a wall twisting words around trying to find an angle to superficially "prove" something.

I'm done with yall because I prefer rational logical debate to the diatribe passed off as intelligent discourse around here.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The south was always democrat and Christian for the longest time. If you didn't register Democrat you wouldn't get to pick the Governor in my state. Well it "used" to be that way...

undo just to play devils advocate... we do need to remember part of this history we are talking about ok? I hate to say it but we needed the military industral complex and SOBs like Nixon. Regan and Jesse Helms... as much as they suck in some ways... we are not speaking Russian and wearing red underwear, at least I'm not anyway
know what I mean? The cold war was serious business. The commies really did slaughter those people and we were next believe it. Remember Nikita Khrushchev wanted to bury you!

That being said... the cold war is over but we still have this rabid dog we bred to fight it. We can't tame him. He has rabies. I think we might have to put him down. Know what I mean?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   


pseudoscientific


The problem is, it's not ALWAYS pseudoscience, merely science that's controversial. (notice I said not "ALWAYS"). You have to admit it is our prediliction to over-react to things we disagree with, at least initially, and
if "experts" don't agree with the idea, then it has a snow ball's chance in hell
of making any headway.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


sorry, but i don't believe that. i think they are all in bed together and have been for thousands of years. they just use the common folks as cannon fodder. you have to remember, i believe the leaders of the planet are nephilim, either half, or some variation on half. they can also become christians, i believe that's why jesus came, but it's very hard for them to do because:

1) It's not popular at all, amongst the rest of the nephilim.
2) They are likely to get ousted or assassinated faster than they can say "my dad is zeus" and
3) It's not on Jehovah's agenda for the end times.




top topics



 
24
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join