It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 76
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by Cthulwho

Nothing could be further from the truth!

think you're confusing Atheism with Fascism. Regimes like that of Mao's and Stalin's were fascist, ie power and decision making is highly centralized. Another example of fascism is the Christian church. Athiests on the other hand are the exact opposite, being highly decentralized.

Fascism is the extreme right win. Hitler was fascist. Communism is the extreme left wing Stalin/Mao were communists.

The common denominator is humanism (which includes atheism). Humanism states hat morals are not objective standards but the opinions of men.

If human rights are just the opinions of men then men can take them away. The reason the United States has been superior to Stain Mao and Hitler is our Government is based on an absolute God defined standard of human rights and morality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

America has an absolute God defined standard of human rights and morality?

Mind explaining why during the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902 the United States established several concentration camps and herded men, women, and children into them after systematically destroying their homes, livestock, and anything they had, and kept them there for months?

Not to mention the fact that the United States army carried out various atrocities against the civilians of the island, and we know this because the soldiers wrote home to their families bragging about it. Apparently our government got word of it as people came forward with these letters and the Generals tried to get the soldiers to retract their statements on raping and torturing civilians.

I may be wrong, but isn't 1899-1902 BEFORE Nazi Germany? So how can you claim America is superior to say, Nazi Germany, because of God defined values, when we were doing the same thing Hitler was doing as a Fascist, who may have also been Atheist?




[edit on 29-5-2008 by davion]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by davion]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:51 PM
Who started this thread?

Anyone know what an airbrush actually is?

I know....Photoshop gives you a 'tool', called an airbrush.

BUT if you wish to say that someone is 'airbrushing' history, then you must provide proof.

This thing should not go on for 70+ pages, if the premise is fglawed from the outset.

'airbrushing' history is more correctly termed 'revising' history....the regular English phrase is 'Revisionist History'

If there is any thinkg that fits that description, in this thread.....then it should continue.

If, though, the thread is just an attack on Religious beliefs, then it has gone off the rails. If this is the case, why is it still active??

There are better, more important things for ATS to ponder, IMO.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I did weedwhacker and your objection is plain silly. We even already talked about this.

YOU and I on the 2nd or 3rd page of the thread. Memory lapse perhaps?

I even provided you a photo of an airbrush. Remember now?

Weed FYI... when they put models photo on a magazine they air brush the photos to take out the defects on their skin and bodies.

In a similar fashion

Now since atheists like to blame religion for all the killing in the world. They "airbrush" the history that atheistic systems have murdered more than the church ever dreamed of. By not mentioning or acknowledging it. They gloss it over. They sweep it under the rug. Hide it under the newspaper. They feed it to the dog when Moms not looking.

Do you get it now?

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Yup....looked like a Pasche Airbrush, you photo.

Hey.....this has gone nowhere....unless you wish to think that Atheists are 'revising' history. Of course, they are not....the Religious people are.....

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy's not a Paashe Airbrush, it has a photo link to show it is a 'vega' Airbrush. In any event, it looks like a typical, double-action airbrush, no matter who makes it.

For all of you, 'double-action' press dwon on the trigger, to start the air....then you pull back to control the flow of paint.

A 'Single-Action" airbrush doesn't allow you to control the control the amount of paint, by controlling the pressure from the compressor.

Just for people who like to build scale models.....

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Am I 'plane' silly, or "plain' silly????

Because I know how to fly, makes me 'plane' silly....

Nah. I'm just being really silly.....trying to go with your joke, here.

I wanted to bring up the 'airbrushing' thing, because many of our readers may not know what a real 'airbrush' is....hopefully, we have now educated them, even if they knew before, now they know more.


posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Look up the word metaphor weedwhacker. Have you been drinking maybe?

Your fiction about Galileos history in the other thread that I busted you for is proof. Your an atheist you airbrushed history.

Weed you are my evidence today thank you for participating.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy, I really know what a metaphor is. AND, you did not 'bust' me about Galileo, on another thread.

What is the premise (know THAT word?) of this thread??

Please take the time to read it again..... Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

That is the thread topic. Please explain how anyone could 'airbrush' history better than a bunch of Religious zealots.

So far.....there are the Zealots.....they seem to outnumber the thinking people....but you wish to think that the 'atheists' have the upper-hand???

Go onnnnnnn!!!! Please tell us how you 'religious' folk have been hurt. Really, show examples.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Go onnnnnnn!!!! Please tell us how you 'religious' folk have been hurt. Really, show examples.

Are you drinking weed? Believe me you really don't want to do this weedwhacker. YOU are airbrushing right now. :shk:

Threads full of examples. Go back and read it. (I wish)

Mao (atheist zealot) killed millions of Christians. Stalin (atheist zealot) burned 100s of churches and killed millions of Christians weed/

Hmmm that didn't make Richard Dawkins' "Root of All Evil" movie. Sounds pretty evil - wonder why it was never mentioned??????

He fed it to the dog under the table - when Mom wasn't looking.

[edit on 5/30/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:34 AM
Heres what I think.
Christians are more than a little used to getting their way in society and they're not all that pleased that they're losing their iron hold little by little. Everything else seems to be secondary to that from where I'm standing. And you know what, that's understandable, it's a human reaction to that sort of turn of events it's unrealistic to think that it would've continued forever unchallenged.

What I don't understand is all the.. creative, points of view, on "Atheism" in general. They're popping up more and more on the net and every once in a while something like it will make a CNN or MSNBC story (must be bored). Talk about "aggressive or militant atheism"... seriously, either these people are spinning faster than GW Bush's #1 speech man or they're just trying to start something where nothing before existed.

I've never in my life approached someone with the calculated intent of trying to belittle their belief system and overlay my own, never, but I've frequently had others try and elbow theirs into my personal space - do I make thread about it to get all up in arms? No, its annoying but they've been taught all their lives this is ok to do, not that it makes it right but it's not honestly worth expressing my frustration over.

If I made a thread every time a Christian tried to convert me against my will, I'd need a dedicated forum, yet if someone so much as openly expresses their differing point of view in the open, the militant Atheists are pretty much invading the Christian west, burning Bibles and raping virgins.

Tolerance for other points of view is going to have to mature a bit in this part of the world or I think we can all agree, things are bound to get progressively more polarized. People need to stop taking things so personally, actually I don't think people do, I think they act like they do to give themselves reason to start conflict. Look around us.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:01 PM
The problem I'm having with this "airbrushing history" line of thinking is, you're thinking of Atheists as if they are a form of organized group.

We are anything but organized.

It's not like we can congregate and say "hey, lets revise our history".
We don't have meeting places, there is no organization... the only time we manage to talk to one another is when we accidentally meet... even then, the conversation tends to be about anything BUT our beliefs.
Every Atheist is different. Every Atheist is free to chose what he does and thinks, and when.

One common trend I've found in Atheists is we are so sick and tired of being hassled by religious people, that we simply don't talk about our beliefs in public.

Why should we start preaching to others, when the one thing we tend to really hate are preachers?

Allot of Atheists start off by questioning religion because of some moral issue they see with it. Either they see it being used for corruption, or they see it performing atrocities...

Agnosticism tends to be the result of this.
They are often so disgusted with their religion, or the people in it, that they denounce the religion, and take a "don't know, don't care anymore" stance on the existence of god.

Atheists go one step further.
I was agnostic at one point. (Its rare to simply jump straight to Atheism.) But, the more I went along, the more and more I came to realize, there simply isn't a god in the first place. Slowly and surely, I stumbled on small bits of evidence that proved to me, the whole notion of some omnipotent and infallible being creating us, and presiding over us, is total hogwash, a fairytale. It became clear to me that the "God Concept" was created by man, to control man.

At this point, I could have begun fighting it, and the atrocities it has caused. But I saw things in a different light... instead of fighting it... why not use it the same way it's creators did?

And hence, I use religion as a tool, a mind prison for those who cannot be trusted to function naturally in society.

I'd be willing to bet, that if I came to this conclusion on my own... there are MANY people out there who do the same.

Who knows, your branch of religion could simply be a mechanism installed by Atheists to keep you in line.

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:14 PM

Who knows, your branch of religion could simply be a mechanism installed by Atheists to keep you in line.

Which would mean the religions weren't behind the "Atrocities" at all, but their atheist puppet masters were instead. This leads back to the idea of having a clear conscience. If there's justice anywhere in this universe or other dimension, surely the real culprits will be revealed

[edit on 30-5-2008 by undo]

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by undo
The culprits will be greedy powerful men who wnat control over everything. Religion and ATheism is just a tool they wield.

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

adding, for repetition purposes....

OK, BW.....why not keep 'revising' history, especially as pertains to Galileo.

Was he not forced into house arrest? You 'busted' me? What an incredible ego you have.

"He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest"

It is right there on Wiki, but I suppose you don't bother to read actual scientific and historical facts, just the nonsense (and 'airbrushing') spouted by the religious 'authorities'.

For the record, Galileo, after many astronomical observations, began to realize, and advocate the 'heliocentric' concept of the Sun and planets, and how the Solar System was actually idea first suggested, at least in scholarly tomes, by Copernicus.

It was Galileo's misfortune to live in an exceptionally oppressive time, and place....and the Catholic Church did not want his 'heresy' repeated, lest it would cause some of the 'sheeple' to actually think for themselves, and see the idiodic hypocrisy of the Church's doctrine.


There have been far, far more attempts by various organized religions to re-write history than any Atheists!!!

AND, churches use fear as a means of 'control' over thoughts....they do not use logical, critical thinking. Just claptrap.....

[edit on 6/1/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This is because when God is eliminated it really only leaves Darwinism and materialism as a world view.

Bingo. And if there is any history to be written, we have come to be an empty materialistic bloodthirsty society BECAUSE of materialism and Darwinism.

And this is why I cannot take seriously the radical atheist agenda. I am not a self-proclaimed member of ANY organized religion, but I am always shocked and dissapointed in the 'rationalist' atheists who call for the destruction of all religion...

History AND Religion have already been re-written... by the Vatican, by tyrannical government... I really don't think there is anything atheists can do that hasn't already been done. I do think it's dangerous how Atheists subscribe every war in history to have been about religion... it was never about religion... religion has always and forever been a political tool to instigate war.

Religion has nothing to do with mankinds history of attrocity, it is politics, government and military fetishism that is responsible for wars. The atheist who demands a world without spiritual reference IS asking for materialism and Darwinism - and there is no result from that BUT war.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Well Hello NWO, long time since I have seen you round the CiR. I see you are up to your drop dead common sense posts again.

Always a pleasure to read your writes NWO

- Con

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Galileo An Atheists Bed Time Story

Galileo got in trouble for lying in open court. Galileo taught Copernicanism - which was highly debated issue among the scientists of the time - not just with the church. In fact, His equations contain many errors. Galileo was asked by the Church authority too not teach it - no threats - he agreed to it. He signed an agreement. Then a new Pope came into power and he thought he could violate his contract. When he was caught and accused of heresy for teaching it - he pretended like he had never made the agreement. Then they found it and he was busted for lying.

So weedwhacker is your argument that science == dishonesty? I strongly disagree.He wasn't punished for science weed. Maybe you are just ignorant of history then? He was punished for dishonesty.

In 1633 Galileo returned to Rome, where he was again treated with respect. He might have prevailed in his trial, but during the investigation someone found Cardinal Bellarmine's notes in the files. Galileo had not told the Inquisition—actually he had not told anyone—of his previous agreement not to teach or advocate Copernicanism. Now Galileo was viewed as having deceived the church as well as having failed to live up to his agreements. Even his church sympathizers, and there were several, found it difficult to defend him at this point.

But they did advise him to acknowledge that he had promoted Copernicanism in violation of his pact with Bellarmine, and to show contrition. Incredibly Galileo appeared before the Inquisition and maintained that his Dialogue did not constitute a defense of heliocentrism. "I have neither maintained or defended in that book the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion and shown that the arguments of Copernicus are weak and not conclusive.”

Contrary to what some atheist propagandists have said, Galileo was never charged with heresy, and he was never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way. After he recanted Galileo was released into the custody of the archbishop of Siena, who housed him for five months in his magnificent palace. Then he was permitted to return to his villa in Florence. Although technically under house arrest, he was able to visit his daughters at the convent of San Matteo. The church also permitted him to continue his scientific work on matters unrelated to heliocentrism, and he published important research during this period. Galileo died of natural causes in 1642. It was during subsequent decades, Kuhn reports, that newer and stronger evidence for the heliocentric theory emerged, and scientific opinion, divided in Galileo's time, became the consensus that we share today.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

A red herring, and as I have pointed out before, revisionist history, being perpetrated by Christians!!

So, let's now engage...."Christians are Air Brushing History".

That is my intent, and I think it is pertinent to this discussion.

Someone once said that the winners re-write the history, after they are victorious. Not the exact quote, but someone will be able to find the exact quote, and the author, I am sure.

As far as I can tell, the religions keep winning. They are in the majority, and wish to continue to excercise that majority on others, even if it against the others' will.

The litany of alleged 'arguments' by the religious zealots is astonishing ... and to twist the facts of Galileo's life and accomplishments....who was a deeply relilgious man, is disturbing.

Please, find research from less biased sources, if you really care to reveal the 'truth'.....please.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:51 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You have done nothing but type your own erroneous opinions. It's up to you to prove it wrong with scholarship.

Where are your sources weed?

Still waiting weedwhacker.....

You can't do it because the truth is on my side. In D'Souzas' book he lists scholarly papers and Vatican records for his sources. I will refer to one in particular.

From the University of Kansas City Law School

April 1611 Cardinal Bellarmine aske Jesuit mathematicians to confirm Galileo's astronomical discoveries. They do so, but offer interpretations for what they see that differ from Galileo's.

February 26, 1616 Cardinal Bellarmine warns Galileo not to hold, teach, or defend Copernican theory. According to an unsigned transcript found in the Inquisition file in 1633, Galileo is also enjoined from discussing his theory, either orally or in writing.

1623 Pope Gregory XV dies. Cardinal Baberini is named Pope Urban VIII. Galileo publishes The Assayer, which offers his explanation for sunspots and comets.

February 1632 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is printed.

October 1632 Galileo receives a summons to appear before the Inquisition. Galileo asks that his trial be moved to Florence

Galileo made an agrement not to teach heliocentrism then he pretended it never existed - and published his theories. As verified by the records. He then violated his agreement and lied about it in open court The document below is the original interrogations of Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition . It is the final part of Galileo’s testimony, given on the 12th April 1633 with his signature,

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

Even your 'reference' has typos!!!

All I am saying is....please look at real references, not pieces from biased sources that simply support your assertions!

You are quick on the trigger, seem to have a 'wealth' of ready answers...I, on the other hand, need to do some real research. But, I think my time is far more important.

A mistaken 'belief' on ATS is that importing a 'link' from whatever source is valid. Sources must be 'vetted'. This takes some time.

Wouldn't want to bring in some baloney, only to be made a fool of, later.

Yeah.....that was a cheap shot, and unworthy of a real debate, as ATS has asked us to do.

At this moment in time, I do not have the ability, nor the effort left in me, to pull sufficient rebuttals....accurate rebuttals, to refute your post.

Let's allow the audience, who are no doubt going to read these exchanges, chime in, for the mean time.

new topics

top topics

<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in