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: 55
24
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


So if people witness an event as a group, it doesn't count because yuo weren't there? Then it's safe to ignore modern history? Or are assuming people just lied for 5000 years and now they only tell the truth in history books?




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


Okay, without launching into a detailed account of why you don't believe in creationism, could you explain to me why you are talking about that site?
You've refused to consider scientific info because it's on a religious site?
Wanna toss out everything you use that's been made by religious people?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

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.


In a court of law they would tell you denying the source of the evidence doesn't deny its power to impeach your testimony or convict a criminal. Just because you got the fingerprints from a professional forger doesn't make the prints wrong, just exploits your prejudice in creationism websites, Christians and everything else your hipocricy in this post reveals.



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.


Yet that is the same analogy I use to attack many of the tenets of Natural selection and evolution. Hell their was NO ONE even alive at all to witness most of what they would have us believe happened and it was MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years later they came up with this crap.



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.


Their is a lot about that quote I can agree with


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


Now you're catching on,, and given enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time enough time

Elvis will evolve and say,,

Con,, has left the building.

G/nite all

nite asty

- Con






[edit on 26-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Duality
 


You musta skipped the part where I said "We don't follow" (fill in blank), we follow Yeshua the Messiah, who said things like "Return good for evil," "bless those that curse you," etc. In a perfect world, everyone gets that part right.
In an imperfect world, people follow after men and the precepts of men, and end up participating in misery and suffering.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
But since you ask

reply to post by undo
 


You're in my territory now

Pardon me ma'am, I didn't mean to intrude.


It doesn't belong to you because you don't believe it.

What, Hera seducing Zeus with her magic g-string? No, of course I don't. I like visualizing it, though; there's nothing more attractive that a beautiful middle-aged woman who's allowed a certain lushness to... ah, but I digress.


Everything there is dramatized version of real events.

That is faith, not fact.


There's no telling how old the original events were. They have equvalents in much older names and texts.

I will take your word for it.


Are you one of those people that says Troy never existed? Do you really believe that?

No, I have never really thought that. I'm not sure the ruins Schliemann discovered were the Homeric Troy, but I'm happy to concede that Troy may have existed, that there may have been a Trojan war and for all I know it may even have started over the abduction of an Spartan queen by a Trojan prince. The point -- which, of course, you will not concede -- is that the Iliad is a blend of fact and fiction. But we're pulling the thread off topic again.


hint: Revelation 9. Apollyon=Apollo.

I'm awfully sorry, but I don't follow sports.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I'm awfully sorry, but I don't follow sports.


Enki (sumerian name for Satan), Ea (same guy), Ra (same guy), Apollo (same guy). He gets around cause, as his original name indicates, this is his
planet (Enki=Lord Earth, and that does not mean like in elemental magic or horoscope reference, cause if it were that type of reference, he'd be more closely associated with water, as Lord of the Abyss, God of Sweet Waters, Watcher of the Water (Abadan, Abaddon), which of course lends him further titles, like Poseidon. Head cheese. Big wig. Sumerian texts refer to him as the "Great Dragon", an appellation he's given 4000 years later in the Book of Revelation, some 3000 years after the sumerian civ had been buried under 8 ft of flood silt from the Black Sea Flood.

Not my fault you fellas are tossing out the baby with the bath water.



[edit on 26-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by riley
 


Okay, without launching into a detailed account of why you don't believe in creationism, could you explain to me why you are talking about that site?

Someone made a claim about new scientific research proving a higher order being created the universe. That whole site is about proving the bible and that 'god did it'.

It is not reasonable to ask someone to accept scientific 'proof' from a religious site.


You've refused to consider scientific info because it's on a religious site?

Exactly. A religous site can never be a credible source of science as it's a religious site.. not a scientific one. Their primary agenda is validating their own beliefs. If any science contradicted their beliefs they'd be prone to ommiting it completely.

Wanna toss out everything you use that's been made by religious people?

I haven't said any such thing.. there are plenty of scientists that believe in god. Their agenda however is looking for answers.. not starting with answers and making the science fit. That is BAD science. The site is full of bastardised scientific tidbits meshed with bible quotes and it's sole purpose is to covert people to christianity by trying to make the idea of creationism sound more logical.

Again.. it is not unreasonable to ask for an objective scientific source when asking for scientific proof.

What is wrong with posting from actual scientific sources anyway? Are you afraid they might contradict your beliefs? If you're right they should validate them.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   


objective scientific source


Are you sure you're objective?
That may be part of the problem.
If you don't read the evidence, how will you know ?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo



objective scientific source


Are you sure you're objective?
That may be part of the problem.
If you don't read the evidence, how will you know ?


That site does NOT contain objective scientific evidence.. and I have indeed looked at it. Asking me to believe what it says is also asking me to believe in the god it is promoting. It has an agenda.

It is a religious site not a scientific one. [again] Asking for a scientific one to verify claims is not unreasonable. How many times do I have to say this? All I want is people to post evidence from scientific sources that are not run or funded by religious groups. What is so wrong with this request? If the science is real there shouldn't be a problem.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   


All I want is someone to post evidence from scientific sources that are not run or funded by religious groups.


No you don't. If you had it, you'd be desperate to find a reason not to believe it. Even if there really wasn't one. You'd be forced by your current stance to conclude that you prefer the stance you already have. The only way this would change is if mainstream science changed their viewpoints on the same topic and enough of them agreed to it, that you wouldn't feel ostracized or outside the bell curve.

Part of how these mainstream thoughts and ideas become the huge paradigms that they do, is group think and mob mentality. That's always been true, and it'll probably never been untrue. It takes advantage of our desire to feel like we are a part of something noble and truthful.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo



All I want is someone to post evidence from scientific sources that are not run or funded by religious groups.


No you don't. If you had it, you'd be desperate to find a reason not to believe it. Even if there really wasn't one.

Judging by this outburst it's seems you could not find any real, non religious, scientific evidence to back your beliefs/claims.


Every time I ask for something scientific someone just points to a bible. :shk:

[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   


Judging by this outburst it's seems you could not find any real, non religious, scientific evidence to back your beliefs/claims


What claims? I haven't made any yet. I was just observing your
response to the link, and thought it an odd reason not to consider the info. I haven't read it myself, as my specialty is ancient history.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo



Judging by this outburst it's seems you could not find any real, non religious, scientific evidence to back your beliefs/claims


What claims? I haven't made any yet.

Given you keep defending the site and have been argueing with me over it for the last few posts I figured you must know and agree with what it claims. You mean you don't?! So you were just accepting what it said as fact just because it's a christian site..?
It's either that or you just wanted to have a go at me just for the hell of it.


I was just observing your response to the link, and thought it an odd reason not to consider the info. I haven't read it myself, as my specialty is ancient history.

You think someone not blindly accepting scientific 'facts' from a christian site is odd?

I am an atheist. I have been asked to believe what a christian site says without question. Does that really make sense to you?


Edit. I honestly think you were just causing trouble. You accused me of not being objective yet you didn't even bother finding out what I was talking about.. you adamently defended the site yet you didn't even read it.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by riley]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
In a court of law they would tell you denying the source of the evidence doesn't deny its power to impeach your testimony or convict a criminal. Just because you got the fingerprints from a professional forger doesn't make the prints wrong, just exploits your prejudice in creationism websites, Christians and everything else your hipocricy in this post reveals.


...but the "evidence" you provided is nothing short of outright fraud
which is pretty much the whole deal with creationism websites
they produce fraud
they're "liars for jesus"



Yet that is the same analogy I use to attack many of the tenets of Natural selection and evolution. Hell their was NO ONE even alive at all to witness most of what they would have us believe happened and it was MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years later they came up with this crap.


...you don't have to directly witness it. you can use evidence to indirectly witness something.
science isn't about having someone there to see it direct, it's about having some way of observing it through evidence.

there are plenty of murders that nobody has witnessed, but forensic evidence is still damning

and again, evolution is not crap
but you've ignored my challenge to debate it and my other challenge to debunk a paper on evolutionary biology of equivalent length to the crock piece you sent me.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   


You mean you don't? So you were just accepting what it said as fact just because it's a christian site?


I read everything that I'm asked to read, and consider the information because going threw life with tunnel vision can be less than revealing. Just look at my beliefs. Not very mainstream, I should think. Reason? Not because I am rebelling. I'm simply following where the data leads me. I reject nothing but instead I research to see where it leads and what it means, if I have the ability to do so. I have a great deal of respect for the ancient past.

I'm very right-brained. I can sing, paint, draw, write poetry, write books, and play two musical instruments (although not as well as i would've liked), so things like physics and astronomy, are a rare encounter, but I certainly try to grasp the meanings if asked to.

For example, I tried to understand string theory. I asked the physicist to start with the really basic info and work from there. I tried to understand quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation. I do try, but it doesn't always mean I get all of it. I was in college to be a doctor of natural medicine, which would've required a MD and a specialization afterwards. I made it 3 years into my education before my life's circumstances stopped me going in that direction. I've studied biology and genetics, microbiology, anatomy and physiology, but couldn't tell you more than the basics (been awhile and a bout with cancer, diabetes onset, etc)

The science you deal with, is entirely left-brained, which is extremely logical. For me, logic is not just applicable to tangible events but anything we can experience, even if we weren't there at the time.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Thing is even the Salem Witch trials weren't done for "purely" religious reasons.
Ever read or seen the play "The Crucible"?
It was more about petty BS and people using accusations of witchcraft to open up land they wanted.......


I've seen The Crucible ages ago and am aware of the fact the charges were bogus. The point I was trying to make was something like American slavery and killing the natives doesn't count because it wasn't technically done in the 'name of Jesus or Christianity.' The SWT's were however carried out under a religious guise to say in essence (but not literally, of course) 'burn the sinful witches for Jesus.'

But, hey! I like your explanation better. It was for land and politics!
Can you expound on this? I feel like I have been brainwashed by atheists airbrushing history as I did not know about this! hehe



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I feel as if I've stepped into an alternate Universe!

Voices of reason get drowned out admist a chorus of bible thumpers!!

Just to repeat something I said earlier (in the other Universe, apparently): History gets re-written by the victors, whether it is a secular war or a religious war. Perhaps we should strike the word 'war' and replace it with 'battle', as in a battle of ideology.

To imply the ability of 'Atheists' to re-write history (much better term, IMO, than 'air brushing') would mean that somehow 'Atheists' have made greater inroads than, say...'Christians', or 'Muslims', or [pick-a-religion].

Who actually control the reins of power? Religious groups. 'Atheists' are demeaned and ostracized, they have no ability to 'control' or change history, even after that fact. The ones in power do that very well, thank-you-very-much!

Hence, I propose that the premise of the OP's thread is moot...and what has gone on since, in all of these pages of posts, is an ex-post facto argument by those who just wish to argue religion. Pffft! It's pointless to argue, when minds are so made up as to be entrenched.

In fact, what should occur here is a scholarly debate, not an argument. When it de-rails so profoundly, it's time to close up shop and move on.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
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.


Just a quick teeny tiny correction. The thread was actually started with good and honest intentions and with multiple purposes. For one, it was to point out some really bad hoaxes and false evidence that had been widely accepted for years until later recanted or debunked (hence, the gullibility factor). Second, it was to discuss the heat creationists receive in the origins forum, the media, universities, and the field of science. Third, it was to show how evolutionists really don't have much room to talk after we started pointing out flaws and holes in the theory.

As the thread progressed and comments started to be directed at me personally concerning my character, intelligence, personal life, and Christian faith, then my eyes were opened and I started to realize what you had been trying to tell me all along but that I didn't want to listen to: Yes, attack evolution and the gloves will come off because it is a sacred cow that you don't touch. I started getting hints at their fervor around page two but slightly more into the thread I started to realize fully what was going on. Yes, you would have thought I had just punched their mother in the face then peed on her while she was laying helpless on the floor writhing around in pain.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I propose that the premise of the OP's thread is moot...and what has gone on since, in all of these pages of posts, is an ex-post facto argument by those who just wish to argue religion. Pffft! It's pointless to argue, when minds are so made up as to be entrenched.

In fact, what should occur here is a scholarly debate, not an argument. When it de-rails so profoundly, it's time to close up shop and move on.

Well said. Nothing more to see here.

Goodnight all.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW, as is typical with ATS threads, a very specific premise is brought forth in the original post and other pieces of information with different slants are later introduced. This is exactly what happened in this thread.

Yes, proving atrocities were committed in 'the name of atheism' is the tough one. However, this thread, although started on that thought, was not limited to it. We progressed much further than that to show just how much atheists are attempting to rewrite, revise, and airbrush history.

If you missed the comments, just ask. About 5-6 other points of revision were introduced into this thread as well which leaves very little doubt in my mind that such a thing is indeed occurring.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join