Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by Duality
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.

Are you referring to Bush's Crusade?
You realize every single event in his presidency was planned, from the ground up, including the "crusade" to get those meanie muslims? Who wants to rid the world of the Abrahamic faiths? Certainly not christians. That's not our job and it's not our teaching. We follow CHRIST, not Pope, not Paul, but YESHUA the Messiah, who said things like, "Do good to those who do evil to you," not, "Shoot the nuts off the nasty buggers!" What part of "you are being played like fiddle," doncha get?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Lennox on the fine tuning of the universe

Well Don't ya know !! Evolution can do that too!!

Given enough Given enough time

Stay tuned for in the next millenium,, we have

MORE OF THE SAME !

Given enough time Given enough time


lol

you get the point and Atheists will too if we only give them enough time give them enough time give them enough time give them enough time

Love Con

Mod Edit for excessive repeating. (Spamming is not allowed!)

[edit on 26-3-2008 by NGC2736]

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Duality
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.

Are you referring to Bush's Crusade?
You realize every single event in his presidency was planned, from the ground up, including the "crusade" to get those meanie muslims? Who wants to rid the world of the Abrahamic faiths? Certainly not christians. That's not our job and it's not our teaching. We follow CHRIST, not Pope, not Paul, but YESHUA the Messiah, who said things like, "Do good to those who do evil to you," not, "Shoot the nuts off the nasty buggers!" What part of "you are being played like fiddle," doncha get?

You GO GIRL! Undo sometimes you really say it so simple so cavalier yet it is what it is and what it is,

is the truth

Nice Post

- Con

[edited double post]

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Duality
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.

What universe is it that you are talking about? There have been huge atheistic governments that did the exact opposite. They burned churches and slaughtered believers. See You have learned the airbrushed version of history. You are in a nonreality. Wake up and read these links and see what state sponsored atheism has done every time it is in power.

cambodia

China

Russia



[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

They're both idiots fighting over the trophy of stupidity and megalomania.

In their own respective and relative mind sets they made some good points against one another, but neither of them made any superb validations for existence. If I didn't know what I already know I would have come away from this interview knowing no more than I did before it started. I didn't hear any logic invoked on existence only religious positions being defended and the entire thing, besides facts that already exist, was based on semantic speculations and bait and bite techniques.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
They're both idiots fighting over the trophy of stupidity and megalomania.

In their own respective and relative mind sets they made some good points against one another, but neither of them made any superb validations for existence. If I didn't know what I already know I would have come away from this interview knowing no more than I did before it started. I didn't hear any logic invoked on existence only religious positions being defended and the entire thing, besides facts that already exist, was based on semantic speculations and bait and bite techniques.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

And you are??


Well one area of Science can unequivocally absolutely prove evolution is impossible has been in the area of mathmatics.

You watch Lenox use the logic of pure Math and it destroys the pseudo Science of the quasi religion / science of evolution.

It is undeniable, and albeit true the same occurred to Einstein getting hi to consider that the universe was NOT without design and unfathomable superior intellect, Atheist's will deny the evidence in favor of semantically spun stories that can only be as silly as believing in * MAGIC*

Maybe Merlin is Atheism's God? This is why I think our public schools are perfoming a method of child abuse. These kids graduate and actually believe in the Magic of macro evolution the Magic of Natural selection etc.



- Con




[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Duality
I'd say it goes the other way. The world's largest religious groups have 'airbrushed' history to cover their own atrocities for hundreds of years and they continue to do so today whenever they occur.

The fact that Atheists have been essentially opressed by religious folk and remained a minority in history really left them little room to commit any atrocities, at least on the scale that religions have.

That's my opinion anyway.

How has religion oppressed you,, Atheists always playing the "victim" of Religion Yet so many others I know who have been ex-communicated from Church etc,, seem to have no feelings of being oppressed what so ever.

- Con

They haven't oppressed me directly, at least not yet.

They have oppressed atheists throughout history though, as well as other groups but I don't feel thats relevant in this thread. The amount of power 'the church' has had, at least in a Western sense historically has been immense.

Even now religious groups own large amounts of wealth, land and influence. They used to opress knowledge through the much-publicised book burnings and they still hinder science based on the 'word of god'. They used to opress groups such as atheists (heathens in those days, or still?) and other competing religious organisations by simply killing them. They kept the status-quo going in society to keep themselves in power and as far as I'm concerned, they still do.

I don't think much of this is even contested nowdays, perhaps it would be in the US where religion is still fairly prevalent. Churches and religions always talk about peace and love and all of that, about what is 'right', but in the end a lot of this supposed peace is obtained with a sword.

Frankly I don't really feel like digging through piles of documentaries and historical articles to back it all up, if you'd like to I suggest googling religious histories from non-religious sources.

What I'm getting at is, they may never have said "WE HATE ATHEISTS AND WILL OPPRESS THEM!", especially since that name for 'unbelievers' has only recently come into being, but that doesn't mean they haven't done it at all or under a different name. Eg. If they oppress everyone who spreads 'blasphemous' information, atheists will be part of it.

Almost all religions have a very, very bloody and/or oppressive history. I should say though that this most likely wasn't always the direct choice of many of the religious followers, but instead the actions of those in power. Still, when you're supporting the head of these groups you're supporting the oppression. I hope that makes sense.


Edit: As to the comments that I'm in some sort of fabricated reality, give me a break. I could just as easily say exactly the opposite is true for those of you in the US for example where christianity is fairly popular. I also find it ridiculous because this country is also christian, it's just that the numbers are falling.

I also grew up with a fairly religious/superstitious family. I looked at the evidence on both sides and went my own way. I know about the atheism problems in communist countries, but the examples are really lacking when compared with the extent of damage religions have caused.

Additionally it could be argued that those political systems are the problem rather than the atheism. They're inherently violent and oppressive and don't look at it as an atheism VS religion situation, instead they see religion as a threat to the state and so they destroy it. Atheism being enforced merely backs this up sadly.

[edit on 26/3/08 by Duality]

reply to post by Duality


welcome to reality

reply to post by Bigwhammy

What Homer was accurate?

Yes, and

• The Trojan War really was caused by rivalry between the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, occasioned by Paris having awarded the Apple of Discord to Aphrodite on Mount Ida.
  
  
• Pestilence among the Greeks really was the result of Apollo firing his arrows into the camp in revenge for the abduction of Chryses.
  
  
• Achilles really did receive a gift of arms forged by Hephaistos from his mother Thetys... who, of course, really was a nymph.
  
  
• It wasn't Calchas the seer who put new heart into the Greeks after they had been driven aboard the 'black ships', it was really the god Poseidon.
  
  
• And yes, Hera really get jiggy with Zeus to distract his attention from the war at a critical moment.
  
  
• Apollo really did snatch Sarpedon's body out of the midst of battle.
  
  
• Athena really did turn her pal Diomedes into a superhuman killing machine with flames blazing from his helmet and shield.
  
  
• After which she turned her pal Odysseus into a beggar to go spying among the Trojans.
  
  
• And then, of course, turned herself into Deiphobus to deceive Hector.
  
  
• And it was Hermes, as Homer insists, who guided the weeping Priam and Hecuba to the tent of their son's killer.
  

So much for the Iliad. Don't even get me started on the Odyssey: men turned to swine, one-eyed man-eating giants, hydra-headed monsters, spirit encounters...

I'm sorry, Bigwhammy. Homer is only slightly more reliable than that fantasy novel you're forever re-reading. Mind you, if you can get your jaws round the stretchers you find in there, swallowing the porkers in the Iliad and Odyssey should be easier than gobbling jellybeans.

Just because Schliemann found in Anatolia the remains of a city that might had been Troy does not mean the events in Homer took place or, indeed, that there was ever a 'Trojan war'. There might have been. Already in 400BC the historian Thucydides was casting doubt on the Homeric narrative. Yes, you read that right: 400BC. The question has been in debate ever since: see Wikipedia on the historicity of the Iliad. Also see here.

Even the archaeologist in charge of the excavations at 'Troy' wouldn't commit himself, much as he obviously wanted to:

According to the archaeological and historical findings of the past decade especially, it is now more likely than not that there were several armed conflicts in and around Troy at the end of the Late Bronze Age. At present we do not know whether all or some of these conflicts were distilled in later memory into the "Trojan War" or whether among them there was an especially memorable, single "Trojan War." However, everything currently suggests that Homer should be taken seriously, that his story of a military conflict between Greeks and the inhabitants of Troy is based on a memory of historical events--whatever these may have been. If someone came up to me at the excavation one day and expressed his or her belief that the Trojan War did indeed happen here, my response as an archaeologist working at Troy would be: Why not?

Was There a Trojan War? by Manfred Korfmann

Do not forget: I am Astyanax -- 'Lord of the City'. Perhaps you should think harder about the screen names of the people you're debating; it may help you avoid embarrassing boo-boos like this one.

And while we're on the subject, remember: Floyd Rose is not mocked.

Originally posted by Duality

What I'm getting at is, they may never have said "WE HATE ATHEISTS AND WILL OPPRESS THEM!", especially since that name for 'unbelievers' has only recently come into being, but that doesn't mean they haven't done it at all or under a different name. Eg. If they oppress everyone who spreads 'blasphemous' information, atheists will be part of it.

Almost all religions have a very, very bloody and/or oppressive history. I should say though that this most likely wasn't always the direct choice of many of the religious followers, but instead the actions of those in power. Still, when you're supporting the head of these groups you're supporting the oppression. I hope that makes sense.

[edit on 26/3/08 by Duality]

Well don't get me wrong guy, I'm just in a rather cantankerous mood but I know what you are saying and Religions, Pastors etc, that start telling the congregation who to vote for or what bill they want passed does get me ticked off and I am one Church member that doesn't hesitate to tell them without sugar coating it.

What you are seeing here is the result of a number of Atheist on this forum *cough Maddness Cough* who have had nothing better to do then to antagonize Christianity and Christians. So after about 4-5 months of defending our faith,, we decided to give them a taste of their own crap and prove to them they are just as dogmatic just as evangelical as we are .

It was proven in the "gullibility of evolution thread" it was intended to be mis-leading to exploit the religious like fervour of Atheists who jumped to that particular Science defence as if it was a sacred cow.

so thats what it most about

- Con


[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Do not forget: I am Astyanax -- 'Lord of the City'. Perhaps you should think harder about the screen names of the people you're debating; it may help you avoid embarrassing boo-boos like this one.

Yeah,, that DID occur to me as soon as I first saw it in another thread

- Con

reply to post by Astyanax



That would not be my area... undo might want to address it. The article was about the accuracy of the battlefield layout I believe. Did you read it?

Maybe you will enjoy this...




But Floyd Roses go out of tune if you break one string.....

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by undo

As a scientist, do you honestly believe, that for 4000 years, millions, perhaps billions of people imagined what they witnessed and documented, and for the next 2000 years, imagined what they experienced and wrote about? Do you really believe that?

I am not a scientist.

We do not have witness accounts of billions of people stretching over 4000 years. Do you really believe that?

How many people were involved in the writing of Warren Report? In 4000 years, how many people will believe that everyone believed the Warren report?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
And you are??

The only one that knows anything on this rock.

Well one area of Science can unequivocally absolutely prove evolution is impossible has been in the area of mathmatics.

Right... until someone explains how mathematics evolved. Nothing is absolute and mathematics can only explain itself, that which is existence. So far no one has proven beyond a doubt anything; that is the foundation of science. You're not well versed in your knowledge nor your definitions. Mathematics proves science and science disproves mathematics, whereas science and mathematics prove themselves. Whether you call that proof absolutely unabsolute or simply absolute is a toss up for the individual.

You watch Lennox use the logic of pure Math and it destroys the pseudo Science of the quasi religion / science of evolution.

They're both nothing. They both believe in the big bang and one believes Christianity. That's all I need to know about these two primates.

It is undeniable, and albeit true the same occurred to Einstein getting hi to consider that the universe was NOT without design and unfathomable superior intellect, Atheist's will deny the evidence in favor of semantically spun stories that can only be as silly as believing in * MAGIC*

Religion is the same and Einstein was merely a Human Being, just like the rest. A name is a name. Congratualte the guy for his works with Humanity and the rest is speculation taken as truth because he put forth some prominent and withstanding theory. Unfathomable superior intellect... right. Seems like you're able to fathom it right there. Nothing is undeniable.

Maybe Merlin is Atheism's God? This is why I think our public schools are perfoming a method of child abuse. These kids graduate and actually believe in the Magic of macro evolution the Magic of Natural selection etc.

- Con

So if they switched up the words and said "God has a plan for everyone" instead of saying "natural selection"... that'd make you happy? Glad to know that.

Would you rather we call it "supernatural selection"? Afterall, that would be some accurate terminology to explain Jesus... and well... all of us... and everything else... hey, looks like religion and science are the same thing in different words... well what'd'ya know. Nothing new to me, dunno why you all still fight over it.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

And undo is also exposing how all of ancient history has been systematically down regulated to myth. What we are seeing today with Christianity is the attempt to include the Bible as well. Quite frankly as far as academia goes it's a done deal other than the few scholar heroes like Dr Lennox, I posted above. One of the last bastions of reason left in a world gone mad with secularism and perversion of truth.

Ash do you see apostate churches as contributing to this? Preaching a watered down gospel - a prosperity message - feel good message. Where they don't mention sin and unpleasantness like that... are they part of the comspiracy?

[edit on 3/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]

You bet it is,, and we see ridicule being used to bludgeon the most unacceptable parts of Christianity out of most conversation where we are told we are abusing our children with hell fire and brimstone yet that is exactly what has been missing with the adult conversations. Now I don't think it has any atheists scared, but if I were to say the bible was a target, then judgement of the homosexual is the bullseye.

Now I can already take a good guess as what many of them are already thinking,, and would bet Maddness is already calling me a "bigot" or homophobe because it's easier to put me under the spot light rather then examine what is being said. What was Taboo will no longer be as long as convicting those actively engaged in it, is made the BIGGER taboo.

So while we come up with asinine convoluted logic like condemn the sin but not the sinner, may seem politically correct, when it comes to crime and punishment, our laws are the same, you must convict the criminal not the crime. You must punish the violator not the violation. I have seen many Atheist Madd and fox both have told me after insulting me, used that same spin on semantics, they always use telling me they were attacking belief in God not the believer.

So they don't get it when you tell someone belief in God offends them or insults them, which is the logic they use. It is always inside out convoluted twisted rolled or a perversion of logic that permeates their entire philosophy, ideology, religion, whatever they don't want to call it.

The ONLY way this will stop is for people to quit apologising for hurting these special people's feelings and not by using the same asinine and dumb perverted logic Atheist have made so popular . This is why and how Professors at ASU Science Dept have said the "Neo AtheoPolitical" an agenda has made corrupt the Scientific method itself. While WE see evidence of creation everywhere we look, they deny it calling it an accident. They are quick to acknowledge creation but deny a creator did it. Then they support their position by denying your evidence while using hearsay to substantiate natural selection.

What is so sad is this twisted form of justice, right and wrong is why following an unchanging perfected base for morality is better then relying on their motto for doing the right thing because it's right. We see how utterly STUPID that is, but they don't.

Until of course, they become a victim of crime themselves at the hands of someone who assumed what they did to them was the right thing to do at the time.


-Con




[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Astyanax


You're in my territory now, you mean. It doesn't belong to you because you don't believe it. I do. Everything there is dramatized version of real events. There's no telling how old the original events were. They have equvalents in much older names and texts.

On to the issue of why I brought it up..
Are you one of those people that says Troy never existed? Do you really believe that?

(hint: Revelation 9. Apollyon=Apollo. Apollo was Enki. )

[edit on 26-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

[Homeric myth] would not be my area...

Evidently! So, why did you decide to get into it?

I have learnt something from this thread and others like it (thank you, tagteamers!) I have learnt that reactionary Christian activists often seem, at first sight, to have considerable knowledge on a range of specialist subjects you wouldn't expect them to be very well schooled in, such as Marxist dialectics or genetic engineering. They know the terminology and can often quote sources. But closer inspection usually reveals that they really know nothing about these subjects; all they know is what is fed to them by the thought-leaders of their movement -- a salad of lies dressed up to look convincing through the use of the relevant terminology, a few quotations cherry-picked from authoritative sources and a frugal salting of fact. That's their entire coverage of the subject area; they're just repeating what they've been told.

So far on this thread, I've shown you the error of your ways with reference to at least three differing subjects, all of which I do happen to know something about. A wiser man would not have needed to learn the same lesson -- don't spout off about things you really have no knowledge of -- thrice. Once, or at most twice would have done.

As for the video, please don't expect me to watch any more that you post. What a waste of time, waiting for the damn' thing to load and then discovering what fiddlesticks it was. Tell me, have you heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Besides, a video documentary is proof of nothing. If you want to substantiate your claims, please use scholarly sources of appropriate authority. Nothing else will convince me, and creationism-promotion web sites do not qualify.

* * *

Right. Now let's nail this little shibboleth, shall we?

Originally posted by AshleyD
The historicity of Jesus

It's true that much has been published refuting, or attempting to refute, the historicity of Jesus. Is this evidence of a conspiracy to rewrite -- okay, 'air brush' -- history? Remember that Jesus only makes it into history by the skin of his divinely perfect teeth: there are only three references to him in the historical record; all three are minimal and written long after the year Jesus is said to have been crucified. They provide poor evidence that the poor fellow actually existed.

Of course, there are a plethora of references to Jesus in the Bible, but the historicity of the Bible itself varies -- and those New Testament accounts, with their well-known contradictions of genealogy, time and incident, are obviously unreliable.

Understand that I, for one, am not arguing that Jesus was a work of fiction; I am quite willing to concede that such a man lived and died. What I am saying is that there is not very much evidence for it. As such, it is a debatable question for historians (and, let us admit, other interested parties). The scholarly papers, the popular books, the television programmes, web sites and what have you that purpote to prove that Jesus did not exist are contributions to that debate. Of course some of the participants have axes to grind, but many others are simply in search of the truth. It's a debate about a subject that requires debate -- not evidence for a conspiracy to 'air brush' history.

There is no such conspiracy. Nor need there be, since it serves the interests of atheism far better to let the truth be known.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by undo

A good scientist would form an objective theory and conclusion by looking at all the scientfic evidence available. He/she does not start with a conclusion and then try make the evidence support it.. especially one thats based on theology or superstition.

The problem with that thinking is that it is based on a supposition that theology is merely a superstition.

You completely disregarded my point. Expecting me to accept a religious site's biased version of science as credible evidence is ludicrous and unreasonable. What.. should I consider dr dino's sites a factual site also? the flat earthers? ATS is meant to be about denying ignorance.. if the science is legit it shouldn't be a problem finding other objective non religious sources to verify it.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal



The only one that knows anything on this rock.

To borrow your own BS,,
Right... until someone explains how you evolved. Nothing is absolute

Well one area of Science can unequivocally absolutely prove evolution is impossible has been in the area of mathmatics.

Right... until someone explains how mathematics evolved

What on earth gives you the right to keep using the word "evolved then smart guy. You are just proving my point. You see Atheists THINK they believe in logic and call evolution a fact but for the reason you just describe,, that would be called beliving by faith. They deny that because they hate to see themselves at the mercy of the same faith WE christians admit to use.
.
Nothing is absolute and mathematics can only explain itself, that which is existence. So far no one has proven beyond a doubt anything; that is the foundation of science. I said it was pure logic and if you show me a Science that doesn't use math,, then Ill show you a liar.

You're not well versed in your knowledge nor your definitions. Mathematics proves science and science disproves mathematics, whereas science and mathematics prove themselves. Whether you call that proof absolutely unabsolute or simply absolute is a toss up for the individual.

No I am not well versed, but I am well read and having just copy pasted your quote to my Stylewriter software,, it seems to indicate that you are the one having trouble with verse. Try losing the circumlocution and you may find you will need to make a point at the end.

They're both nothing. They both believe in the big bang and one believes Christianity. That's all I need to know about these two primates.

Oh I see,, pffft what was I thinking (bowing) I am in the presence of someone whose amazing and staggering intellect is beyond anything we could begin to understand. Much less wantt to

In the words of Dirty Harry,,

Your Legend in your

own mind

- Con






[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]