Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by riley


The use of the term 'him/her/it' was, indeed provocative!!!

riley, I can see why you'd be ready to pounce back....and I think a fair court would adjudicate, and absolve you if you had.

BUT, you refrained, and that is most admirable!

Seems BW just recently admitted to the point of this thread, it's to somehow refute a book written by Richard Dawkins. I would suggest that instead of 'cherry-picking' and posting specifics that support one's own theory, maybe the OP should just write his own book, and get it published, to refute another's.

Just my opinion...as far as I know, I still have a right to an opinion....

[spelling edit...my bum left hand just won't obey!]




[edit on 27-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by riley


You can't say I'm wrong, though. You would have balked because you had been balking. So, there's your start with some Google searches. I meant no offense but it is obvious I will never be able to win with you so I stopped trying.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The 'him/her/it' was due to the fact I have no earthly clue what gender Riley is and it seems many people here get offended when you assume the incorrect gender when referring to them. It was a safeguard however I'm not surprised even that is now being complained about.

[edit on 3/27/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Dear Ash....it was the 'it' that I think, and I assume you will admit, could be construed as offensive.

Semantics, Schemantics....you're far too intelligent to play these silly games.

Tim/WW

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by riley

 

You can't say I'm wrong, though. You would have balked because you had been balking.

I've been posting while trying to withstand blatent personal attacks. I've done quite well imo.

So, there's your start with some Google searches. I meant no offense but it is obviously I will never be able to win with you.

You meant no offense? That is a lie. Calling someone an "it" is always an insult.. and the rest of your post wasn't too 'christian' either.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


You're right. The 'it' was too much. Many sincere apologies from this social bonehead.

I'm sorry.

And I won't even touch the 'Christian' comment for that would leave me bringing up Buddhism. It's a double edged sword when you bring up someone's beliefs. Remember that, Riley. Other than the 'it' comment nothing I said was 'Un Chrsitian.' Having an opinion (even a vocal one) does not make one 'Un Christian.'

[edit on 3/27/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by riley
Could you please STOP speaking about me like crap please? These personal attacks are starting to piss me right off and I am not comfortable replying now as you and others have made it too hostile to post. Ease up on the snipes and nasty edits.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by riley]

I agree! The personal attacks will stop. NOW!!!!!

I'm completely tired trying to keep the posts on-topic and forward moving.

The comments on fellow posters will stop!

Bigwhammy- This thread is teetering on the brink of oblivion. I have seen gang-up action on more than one poster and a refusal to forward requested information when asked for. If you've made all your points in this thread and cannot focus any longer on the crux of it, there's no discussion left to make and I will close it.
Or, you can all play by the sandbox rules and keep it focused on DATA and not fellow members, and it can continue.

I'm TIRED of having to keep coming to this thread and breaking up the stiff-backed arrogance.
I will remedy it if it continues!

DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR???

Cuhail

I totally agree with our Moderator's comments. If I have offended anyone, even those who haven't posted, then please know that nothing I write is intended to offend, but occasionally we can unintentionally offend.

The title the OP proposes will certainly spark emotions. That is one thing I think we can all agree?

What has been lost in the discussion is, simply...do Atheists have power to....and I hate the term 'air brush' so I'll substute the term 're-write' history?

THIS is the question, it even has a question mark at the end of the sentence!!!

SO...is there sufficient evidence that 'atheists' are able to re-write history? Pure and simple question, that should be the discussion, easy as that!

My take, since I have the 'floor' for a few seconds...I have said it before, the winnners take the spoils, and then change the 'facts' after-the-fact to suit their cause.

In the course of Human History I know of no instances when the 'winners' were atheists....able to re-write history...except in a very short-term fashion. The truth will out.....

But, I see a long and bloody history of the theists....very tragic, very sad....

[edit on 3/27/2008 by Cuhail]

Eek! Sorry, Cuhail! I just got the U2U saying my above post was removed as being off topic but must have been editing it while it was being removed and therefore accidentally undid your mod edits. I know we're not supposed to undo mod edits and wanted to bring it to your attention. It's the one right above this one. I didn't do it on purpose but must have been editing it while you were editing it and overrode your 'Off Topic' tag.

[edit on 3/27/2008 by AshleyD]

How many references and quotes do we have to put up, before people quit saying, "I don't see anything."???

I will point you, the reader to what Bigwhammy posted on page ONE.

The relationship between Darwinism and communism is firmly rooted in the founders of both these ideologies. The founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, read Darwin's The Origin of Species and were influenced by it’s 'dialectical materialist' attitude. Dialectic is defined as the tension that exists between two conflicting or interacting forces, elements, or ideas (Encarta dictionary) The letters of Marx and Engels showed that they saw evolution as ' the basis in natural history for communism.' In his book The Dialectics of Nature, Engels lavished Darwin with praise, and even went so far as to make his own contribution to evolution in his chapter 'The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. (2.)
The predecessors of Marx and Engels were Russian communists such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. They all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Historian, Alex de Jorge, notes in his work Stalin and The Shaping of the Soviet Union the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin's books. (3) In a similar fashion, Mao Tse Tung, who established communist rule in China, openly stated that 'Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.' (4).

Then, I posted this;

marx and engels archive

Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, had a ready answer to pose as a front or a vouch for Communism against the skeptics who doubted his doctrine. To "sell" his philosophy, he laid the burden of Communism upon "science." "Science" would fulfill Communism, he claimed.

"Science" was gaining ground in its own right, and so for Marx to claim that "science" would provide for the fulfillment of Communism was to align with the contemporary belief that "science" was advancing mankind in every positive way.

"Science?" you ask. "How would science bring forth the reality of Communism?" Well, in support of his agenda, Marx laid down five basic "scientific laws"1: (1) There is no God. (2) Everything is material. (3) Human nature is the product of the economic environment in which the individual is raised. (4) A special environment creates a special class. (5) The proletariat must win.



One infamous Communist, Lenin, once said, "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." 2 Where there is a supreme God, there is a less supreme man who is necessarily under subjection to the supreme God. Therefore, where there is a supreme God, man has limited power, especially since the supreme God may "interfere" at any time and take charge--unpredictably, according to His own counsel. In other words, as the anti-Communism expert, Dr. Fred C. Schwarz, put it, "If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance." 3 The reality of a ruling God topples Communism's man-centered, predictable-circumstance-based sandcastle; so the idea of God must go-

Then Conspiriology came in with this information
Then Bigwhammy posted more, then AshleyD and Idlerocker.

Each time we trace the link between atheism and communism, atheists say "well, there's no connection between atheism and evolution!" Then EVERY time we link Atheism and Evolution, the subject becomes atheism = communism.

Go back and read this thread, please!

BACK ON TOPIC

Since BW and CS seem to be better at the Marxism-Atheist connection than I am, I am going to deal with something more along the lines of my area of expertise. I simply cannot get over the historical rewrite taking place concerning the Pagan Copycat Myth and the attempt to delete a Historical Jesus.

Not only have atheists rewritten history in an effort to delete a historical Jesus, they have also told gross lies concerning other pagan figures like Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Zoroaster, Osiris, Buddha, Krisha, etc. by saying things like they were crucified, born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, were buried three days before being resurrected, started their ministry at the age of 30, etc. Such things were never believed by the followers of these figures and are not believed today about the figures still currently revered. It's insanity.

Then works like The Bible Fraud that rewrite history in an effort to destroy Christian history by pulling completely fraudulent claims out of nowhere. Such works are endless and I could easily name dozens.

___________________________________________________________________________

The faith of the founding fathers is another major issue. It is true some were deists and it is also true most of them were for the freedom of religion. However, they were not anti Christian and they did not support freedom from. This is a very blatant historical rewrite by claiming the founding fathers were not Christians. Notice how they mostly quote Jefferson as their poster child while completely ignoring the majority of founding fathers that were indeed very devout Christians.

[edit on 3/27/2008 by AshleyD]

Round and round we go, where we stop, everybody knows...

But lets move to another as yet undiscussed area:

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.

F. Engels

Communism is a bit like early christianity? Whatever you do, do not look further into the link between these social movements. We apparently already know that communism and marxism are a direct result of atheism and darwinism. Anything else is superficial 'airbrushing' by the narrow bourgeois uplifters.

One of these men, William Weitling, a native of Magdeburg in Prussia, and a simple journeyman-tailor, resolved to establish communities in his own country.

This man, who is to be considered as the founder of German Communism, after a few years’ stay in Paris, went to Switzerland, and, whilst he was working in some tailor’s shop in Geneva, preached his new gospel to his fellow-workmen. He formed Communist Associations in all the towns and cities on the Swiss side of the lake of Geneva, most of the Germans who worked there becoming favourable to his views.

Engels 1843

William Weitling? I suggest not investigating who this man was, and also Thomas Munzer. He is not important.

The seeds of communism were atheism and darwinism. We all know that don't we?

This is an automated message do not, I repeat, do not reply to this post.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by melatonin]

1,000 Tibetans Arrested in China

Jane Macartney in Beijing
March 18, 2008

Close to 1,000 Tibetans have been detained in two days of sweeps across Lhasa, the capital, by paramilitary police hunting down those who took part in last week’s deadly anti-Chinese riots.

Sources in the city said that 600 people had been detained on Saturday and another 300 had been picked up on Sunday. They said it was not clear where those rounded up were being detained because the main Drapchi prison in Lhasa is believed to be virtually full.

Those detained could be at the old Number One prison in the Sangyip district in the northeast of Lhasa, which is not currently believed to be in use. They may be held in the nearby Number Four detention centre and the New Lhasa prison in the same district that has recently been used as a re-education-through-labour centre. They could even be taken to the new Chushur prison some distance outside Lhasa, where most political prisoners are believed to be jailed after sentencing.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

A very current article. Just this week in fact! State sponsored atheism at work again.



[edit on 3/27/2008 by Bigwhammy]

China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet

The Chinese Communist Party has launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in the Buddhist region of Tibet, saying it is the key to economic progress and a weapon against separatism as typified by the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.

The move comes amid fresh foreign reports of religious persecution in the region, which was invaded by China in 1950.

Xiao Huaiyuan, the head of the Party propaganda department in Tibet, told a meeting of the regional committee that the new campaign would "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion".

"Intensifying propaganda on atheism is especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region," Xiao said in the speech, which was reported by Tibetan TV on January 10th.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The Chinese government actively promotes atheism by using propaganda. They believe it promotes their economy and society. This occurred in the late nineties, from the article "Two Tibetan monks were arrested by police in September of last year when they tried to contact UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson during her visit to the region." One was reported to have been seen beaten severely. Neither has resurfaced and they are feared to be dead. In this article US urges China To Set the Record Straight you can read about the monks. As far as I know China might be the only government that has an official atheist stance and actively promotes it with propaganda and violence. I find it hard to believe that people do not see the connection between a lack of belief in God and the devaluing of human life. Chinas record speaks for itself State sponsored Atheism 76,702,000 citizens murdered so far.
source


[edit on 3/27/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by melatonin

We're talking about Marxist communism. (For the most part.)

Not the form of communism the early Christians in rome, Puritans practiced in early America, and Germany and such.

And state sponsored (insert name of religion here)= (insert appalling number here)citizens murdered so far. What's the difference? None. More deranged lunatics using an idea/belief to mask their true motives, every belief system has em.

All this Intelligent design/evolution ins school stuff cracks me up. You wnat ID because you think it's the correct explanation, Atheists want evolution because they think it's the correct explanation.How about we don't teach any kind of theory until you get into college and you choose to study it. I think thats a better solution.If there isn't a ironclad agreement about the correct explanation, why are we teaching it? We shouldn't be teaching either!

You don't really think Atheists are winning this battle do you? How can Atheist hope to execute any kind of conspiracy when they are so overwhelmingly outnumbered and the powerful people in the world generally subscribe to some kind of religion?

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

Originally posted by Clearskies
We're talking about Marxist communism. (For the most part.)

Not the form of communism the early Christians in rome, Puritans practiced in early America, and Germany and such.

Aye, the marxists who took influences from particular christians, and saw parallels between their own social struggles and those of Xians. The problem with the whole logical approach of this thread is that, therefore, we should place blame on christianity for dead chinese & russian people.

It's as much a specious claim as blaming atheism and darwinism. Marxists were atheists, yet that doesn't matter anymore than Hitler being a theist.

The 'Unholy trinity' that produced the evil communists and dead people:

Hey Gig,

Remember that I am responding to the radical agenda of Dawkins and crew first and foremost

Originally posted by Gigatronix
And state sponsored (insert name of religion here)= (insert appalling number here)citizens murdered so far. What's the difference? None. More deranged lunatics using an idea/belief to mask their true motives, every belief system has em.

Not according to Richard Dawkins. He wants to pin the blame on religious faith for violence. That is a conspiracy and a lie. As I have demonstrated that in China where the official faith is no faith, there is even more bloodshed. So do we want a world like that? Yet people are buying into it. That's the point.

All this Intelligent design/evolution ins school stuff cracks me up. You wnat ID because you think it's the correct explanation, Atheists want evolution because they think it's the correct explanation.How about we don't teach any kind of theory until you get into college and you choose to study it. I think thats a better solution.If there isn't a ironclad agreement about the correct explanation, why are we teaching it? We shouldn't be teaching either!

Well you make a good point. I guess I would like to see them teach both in a balanced way.

You don't really think Atheists are winning this battle do you? How can Atheist hope to execute any kind of conspiracy when they are so overwhelmingly outnumbered and the powerful people in the world generally subscribe to some kind of religion?

The God Delusion by Dawkins is a best seller. This atheist propaganda propagates this airbrushing of history; that paints faith as the source of war and violence. That's what he is selling. It's piece of atheistic propaganda and he uses evolution to support it. Well I don't want him to get away with it. It is a lie.

Not only that as Ashley and undo have pointed out there is a conspiracy to undermine the Bible and all ancient history as myth. There are so many threads at ATS accusing the church of manufacturing the stories of Jesus. As a Christian I find myself repeatedly having to address these sorts of lies. Most of them have been debunked years ago but are continually recycled by con men scoring a buck off the uninitiated.

There also appears to be evidence of ancient technology that we just don't hear about for some reason. For instance did you know that we can not cut stone today to the level of accuracy that the blocks of the Great Pyramid were cut to. I am not an expert but that's what I learned in a History Channel Documentary I saw recently. It is my understanding that with all of todays technology we can not duplicate the great pyramid. Yet we are told to believe all of their written history is only fiction and myth. This is undos area. The ancients were obviously not stupid. I fear the truth has been brushed over here as well.

So Gig to wax fantastic a bit; I am afraid the keepers of the Matrix are winning. The lies are being bitten; hook line and sinker. Soon the controllers will set themselves up as Gods and the truth will have been painted over entirely.

[edit on 3/27/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Dawkins is not the only radical atheist extremist. An excerpt from a review of God is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything. By Christopher Hitchens, from the New York Times Sunday Book Review.

And all the logical sallies don’t exactly add up to a sustained argument, because Hitchens thinks a sustained argument shouldn’t even be necessary and yet wouldn’t be sufficient. To him, it’s blindingly obvious: the great religions all began at a time when we knew a tiny fraction of what we know today about the origins of Earth and human life. It’s understandable that early humans would develop stories about gods or God to salve their ignorance. But people today have no such excuse. If they continue to believe in the unbelievable, or say they do, they are morons or lunatics or liars. “The human wish to credit good things as miraculous and to charge bad things to another account is apparently universal,” he remarks, unsympathetically.

Although Hitchens’s title refers to God, his real energy is in the subtitle: “religion poisons everything.” Disproving the existence of God (at least to his own satisfaction and, frankly, to mine) is just the beginning for Hitchens. In fact, it sometimes seems as if existence is just one of the bones Hitchens wants to pick with God — and not even the most important. If God would just leave the world alone, Hitchens would be glad to let him exist, quietly, in retirement somewhere. Possibly the Hoover Institution.

NY Times