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: 64
24
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Dear Ash, t respond directly to you latest post....Dawkins hit the nail on the head, as the saying goes, by asserting that religion causes evil.


So does politics. Should we ban politics? So does money. Should we ban money? And I think a better way to phrase your statement was that religion has the potential to cause evil. But everything still goes back to the one thing everything above has in common: People.


My opinion, I've said it before....it is the fact of organized religion causing the evil.


Under what flag do atheistic secular states cause evil? Since it isn't religion, what would that be? There is no religion involved but wouldn't you know it, atrocities are taking place.


I will be really bold here, and proclaim that Christianity is actually an off-shoot of Judaism....as I've said, I'm not a true scholar, just an interested observer who has a brain to think independently.


Absolutely no need to apologize. You are absolutely correct. That is exactly what Christianity is. I was actually trying to explain this to an atheist in another thread but he insisted this was not true. Glad you understand that it is.




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Not sure dawkins has ever said that religion and faith is 'essentially the cause' of all wrong in the world.


"Root of all Evil?"

But of course, you seem to excuse it because he plops a question mark on the end. If I made a thread title, 'Are Atheists Stupid?' do you really think the members here would be okay with it because I tried to cover my hind end by using a question mark? Dawkins has stated several times what he thinks of religion and 'people of faith' and his intentions are clear IMO.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Ash, a question mark at the end is provocative...

Maybe not as provocative as the word 'gullible'.

Why not start a thread titled 'Atheists are Stupid'??? Don't the words 'gullible' and 'stupid' seem to fall in to the same category?

Dear, Ash...you can't have it both ways, sorry Dear.

This post, I just wrote, I realize is referring to another ATS post. I apologize, but I am just responding, not de-railing, IMO.

I have posted up above, re: 'airbrushing', so I stand by those posts and will not repeat.

Thanks, Tim/WW



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
"Root of all Evil?"


No, you're misrepresenting him. The makers of the programme came up with the title. He made them put in the question mark, showing it was a question rather than a statement. He has clearly stated that to think one particular phenomena is the 'root of all evil' is silly.

Yet the misrepresentations continue unabated.

Yes, we know what Dawkins thinks of faith, religion, and the god delusion. Cool, not the issue. You are still misrepresenting him.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


reply to post by melatonin
 


Oh, no. I'm just turning it around. I even had my thread title in mind when writing my previous comment. This whole thing is so one sided. There were so many whiners in that thread about the title but now watch the same crowd now come to Dawkins' defense concerning the title he is associated with because he pops a question mark on the end and explains his title (just like I did but it fell on deaf ears).

The same thing I see going on from the same tag team. "Christians did this! Religion did that! Oh. Atheists? Why, we're like herding cats!" Everyone wants to point out what has happened due to religion but they twist and turn everything and completely ignore what has happened under atheistic regimes, therefore, not in the name of religion.

I am not remotely misrepresenting Dawkins and company. The stuff that has come out of their mouths in interviews, literature, and video projects has made their intentions abundantly clear. They're instigators and propagandists.

[edit on 3/28/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Dear Ash....LOL! 'instigators'??? Oh, my.

I love your intellect, and I respect it too. BUT, you are pointing out atrocities of only the last century, when you and your buddies refer to 'atheist' examples of human misery.

Let's try to compile the last six thousand years of atrocities, and see where the balance lies....oh, not 'lie' as in untruth....but where the onus is borne.

Please, we know already you are clever, and very very smart, and very very educated. So, no games, just facts. Historically vetted facts, please.

It's your show, so give us a great performance, the stage is all yours.....

Thanks, Tim/WW



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
I am not remotely misrepresenting Dawkins that stuff that has come out of his own mouth in interviews, literature, and video projects he has a hand in makes his intentions so utterly clear. Sorry but I'm calling Dawkins out for the instigator he is.


It's very clear you are, ash. But no worries, I can see you want to ignore it.

As I have said to anyone misrepresenting Dawkins, watch the video with Bishop Harries (below). It's very interesting, a calm rational discussion between a 'radical' atheist and a liberal christian. They disagree about certain things, but the respect between them is obvious. He isn't some sort of daemon.

What are his intentions, ash? To get atheism into public discussion, to bring atheism into the arena of ideas in particular places? To use consciousness raising to bring atheism in the US out of the shadows of prejudice and ignorance? To take religion from the main course, and place it in the side orders?

Other than that, what? Create an atheist army in his lifetime and destroy christianity? He has opinions, and like you, is entitled to express them. Better not misrepresent him though, it only reflects back on the people who do so.

You need to paint him and other atheists as some sort of bogeymen, because our arguments are sweet. And we will keep expressing them. They hurt I guess.

To me, Dawkins is a sort of Overton window. And he's performing the role fantastically. I don't agree with him on many things, I disagree even moreso with Hitchens (ugh!). But they are doing atheism and the rational thinking community a great service.

Break the mind-bonds, ash. Leave the wishful-thinking alone, you don't need it. Life is sweet enough without it.


Google Video Link


[edit on 28-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, I'll take you to task on that and will give you your own assignment. I will compile a list of wars/atrocities that were not based on religion and you compile a list of wars/atrocities that are based only/mostly on religion.

This should be fun. If you want, let's focus on the last 2,000 years to make it easier. After we do that, then if you want to go back 6,000 years we can do that too.

Ready? Get Set. Go!

P.S. I'm not educated [fully]. Actually pretty vocal about getting kicked out of two universities for being a very naughty girl.
Never got a chance to finish.

[edit on 3/28/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It's very clear you are, ash. But no worries, I can see you want to ignore it.


Oh, Mel. Please! If anyone is ignoring the facts it would be you. But no worries.

I'm glad you found a video where Dawkins is actually behaving himself. Yes, he can be quite charming when he wants to be. I even used to have a bit of a crush on him several years ago. *[Hangs head in shame]* The point is, he can put on a nice, civilized face with one crowd then spew nonsense and propaganda with another.

Sorry you don't see it.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Dear Ash, I need to figure out how to copy/paste so I can stand up to your challenge!

I'll see if a print screen command works.....



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Update for WW. I don't know about you but what I just found pretty much made my heart sink. It's amazing how horrible humans can be to each other. I started off on Wikipedia and searched for 'List of Wars.' This is just what I found for the last 2,000 years. A mixed bag of economic, political, ethnic, and religious wars:

First Millennium A.D. Wars.
1000-1499 A.D.
1500-1799 A.D.
1800-1899 A.D.
1900-1944 A.D.
1945-1989 A.D.
1990-2002 A.D.
2003 A.D. - Current.

When you tally up the death tolls, it certainly seems political wars far outweigh the death tolls of wars started over religion. Although I hate playing the game of 'who killed more people,' upon looking through this, we're left to conclude people can flat out suck sometimes. We're also left to conclude, religion is not the bane of mankind.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


As you well know, Ash....I am not quite as computer savvy as many others are.

In fact, I do not (yet) know how to pull quotes and embed images.....I do know how to type, and how to spell...and my frustration increases because my left hand is becoming palsied, but I am trying acupunture to correct the condition...but that veers off topic....except, maybe not....

Why would I develop a neurological condition in my hand if we had such a 'Perfect' creator in the first place? WHY would anyone have problems, birth defects, etc, etc, etc????

I anxiously await your response, I really really do...

Regards, Tim/WW

[ps...I was able to print the page of your challenge, so I will now work on it...]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Oh, Mel. Please! If anyone is ignoring the facts it would be you. But no worries.


Projection?

You mean like ignoring the fact that Dawkins has said numerous times that to say one thing is the root of all evil is silly, but it's good fun to misrepresent him as suggesting otherwise?

Good try, ash. Is pride the root of evil? Probably not.

Have fun!

[edit on 28-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Mel, and will you please let go of the strawman? Again, sometimes Dawkins can be charming, sometimes he can be a condescending provocative jerk. He has referred to 'people of faith' as delusional, nutcases, liars, etc. The thing is, when I see a church leader spouting of such things, I don't defend them and will call them out on it. It amazes me that such atheist speakers are being defended by other atheists and are quoting 'the good things' as if it excuses the intolerant remarks. I don't play favorites and it would be nice to see the other side to be able to call a spade a spade as well.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No worries. I did the work for both of us. To copy and paste, highlight the text, right click, press 'copy,' place your cursor where you want the text to go, right click, and press 'paste.' You can also highlight the text, press Ctrl + C then paste it by pressing Ctrl + V.

As for your palsy, sorry to hear about that. I'm asthmatic and it sucks big time. But nature is under a curse due to the fall but it will be restored during the Messianic kingdom. That is the brief Biblical explanation. I wanted to answer your question but don't want to derail the thread.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I think this video, which is an excerpt from the movie WARGAMES, very succintly depicts the problem with Richard Dawkins belief system. To me, he approximates the initial attitude Professor Falken has in the film:







problem is, I don't think Dawkins is figuring it out, whereas the fictitious Falken finally figures it out.



[edit on 28-3-2008 by undo]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


again with the communist = atheist point


This isn’t a math problem. Again with a drastic oversimplification to avoid reality. Come on Madd what happened? I thought “reality was awesome”? I did say they are related through Marxism. I have proven that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.



please, direct me to where this is being done in the name of not believing in a deity.
looking at things it's quite obvious that this oppression is being done in the name of the communist "people's" state.


I find the whole “in the name of” game to be another straw mantactic. I can make the same argument for any religious killing Christian or otherwise. Was 9/11 done “in the name of” Mohamed? Who decides whose name it done under? Oppenheimer invented the atomic bomb , and it was used on Hiroshima , was it done in the name of Oppenheimer? Oppenheimer was probably a Hindu BTW. So was in the name of Krishna? Well it was on behalf of the USA, which has no official religion. So the in the name of the USA is more fair. No religious tie in can be inferred. But not true with China. They have an official atheist position.
Dawkins make the claim faith causes the violence in the world. But it so happens; that true history is clear that governments with no religious faith have a worse record of violence, murder, and rights violations. The facts speak for themselves.



one more thing...you said china's government is officially atheistic...are you confusing the word atheistic and secular? china has many people who practice christianity unharmed and the majority practice chinese traditional religions...
in fact, the most oppressed religious group in china is the northern muslim group...but they tend to be oppressed because they have an anti-government stance


I am disputing Dawkins claim faith is the cause of the violence and killing in the world. China is atheist, but if you want to call it secular it does not affect my point at all. An official government position against faith and the worse track record in human history prove Dawkins to be a buffoon.

I take my authority from the CIA world fact book which I quote:
(note the tiny percentages for the groups you mentioned)


Daoist (Taoist), Buddhist, Christian 3%-4%, Muslim 1%-2%
note: officially atheist (2002 est.)

www.cia.gov...

Wikipedia also says it is officially atheist:


The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.

en.wikipedia.org...



any pro-government religious group is left unharmed, it's the anti-government religions that are harmed
so how is something that's clearly in the name of government power a result of atheism?


Points noted and probably true. All I have to demonstrate to defeat Dawkins inference that” faith is the root of all evil” - is demonstrate that areas “without faith” are in fact more evil. China is officially atheist. I have succeeded with room to spare.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey sorry to hear of your difficulties. I am doing chemotherapy right now and I am sick.
Look at the ATS Handbook and you'll see that quoting and images are pretty easy once you learn a few tags.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I contend that Atheists, specifically radical Atheists led by Richard Dawkins, are conspiring to air brush history to conceal the connection between Atheism and the worst atrocities of world history.


Late in the day to this subject - don't visit this forum often.

Hitler was a confirmed Roman Catholic and christian

Hitlers Christianity

Ain't no one airbrushing what he was responsible for.


Some people make an effective argument for his atheism. I did an extensive post in this thread on Hitler. Back there somewhere. I think there was a consensus from both sides that even Hitler didn't know what he was. Hitler went with what was convenient at the time. Which tells me he did not fear answering to a God.



"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953 ,p 43)



"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery....

< here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....

"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."

Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953 p 118-119)









[edit on 3/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Bravo, BW!! While I certainly disagree with you many times, I have to say that is a great post!

I am not using sarcasm....it seems you have 'trumped' us mere mortals...OK, that was sarcasm.....

But, back to your post....nice job! I only hope others will be more erudite, and be able to tear it down, as I expect they will attmept....

Best, Tim/WW



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
And just for fun:


Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.

Hitler, Table-Talk, p. 143

Christ an Aryan? Nice.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join