It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rexusdiablos
I really hope this thread isn't shut down because it ruffled the feathers of a few zealots (and no, I'm not inferring that all Christians are zealots).
Originally posted by reasonable
Posted on: November 30, 2009 3:30 PM, by Ed Yong
For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when this suck cock
own personal beliefs.
It's so simple, yet so brilliant. Looks like Science and Psychology are truly dismantling religion day by day. Science proves it false and psychology proves it's all in these people's heads.
Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people's mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions.
^^^My oh my, that's a doosie..
Of course, correlation doesn't imply causation - rather than people imprinting their beliefs onto God, it could be that people were using God's beliefs as a guide to their own. Epley tried to control for that by asking his recruits to talk about their own beliefs first, and then presenting God and the others in a random order. And as better evidence of causality, Epley showed that he could change people's views on God's will by manipulating their own beliefs.
Well, I'll stop here because the study is so devastating I don't want to keep twisting the knife. I'm not THAT heartless.
Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
I am zealously against zealots. I am zealously against zealots. I am zealously against zealots. I am zealously against zealots. I am zealously against zealots. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. I hate merry-go-rounds but I love them. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. Infinite loop. "I" am not two halves of a binary computer divided. "I" am "I" Phew. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
It's a simple question. I'm asking MooCow. Then I want you to ask yourself if your views are being forced on me. I'm asking MooCow.
Originally posted by JayinAR
Sorry if this has been advanced prior to now. I don't have the time to read all 15 pages of what I'm sure are nothing more than insults being hurled at one another by now before I have to head off to work.
Short and sweet, this article does absolutely nothing to disprove anything.
God, if (s)he exists, is a being that cannot be approached by man. Therefore, all of the people who believe in the idea of a being more powerful than themselves, are going to mold their beliefs about said God to that which they believe about themselves from a philisophical standpoint...
...The only thing this article points out is that people don't have direct communication with God. It does absolutely nothing to strike down the idea of God and is a total waste of time.
I swear sometimes the atheists can be every bit as fundamentalist as the most rabid Xter.
I'm not calling you a liar though since I'm not a liar myself I will but offer you a truthful response: I don't believe in some of the claims you've made in your post. It's nothing personal, I just don't.
Conclusively, your post is decidedly UNCHRISTIAN. Yes, I'm criticizing the submissions of your post but I do not disrespect you nor am I disrespecting you. This should be allowed in a public forum. To clarify and to repeat, I'm not Christian.
What if you proved beyond a doubt that there was no god but found people who believed, never the less gained something positive?
Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
reply to post by Stormdancer777
“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.”
This might be a wild guess, but my intuition is screaming it. I could be off, but I thought I would share. False trinities? Singularities of threefold structures.
The dragon could be seen as colonial and controlling. Its will is to dominate another. Its love is only for itself. Its logic is structured only to entangle the other, to be the master of the slave, but all of this eventually entangles the dragon. "The dragon always eats itself."
The beast is like the false center of ego. It, in all its vainglory, spreads its IMAGE all over society, and tells others to dance in circles around it, as it is the god to be worshiped. Its will is to seek a stroking of its ego. Its love is all wrapped up in its projected image. Its logic is a logo (think about what marketers do all the time) seeking to usurp the universal LOGOS, that perfect logic seeking perfect reconciliation, wanting only to intertwine with PATHOS, perfectly reconciled emotion (love). It is an impostor and a usurper.
The false prophet seeks to be seen as the Christ, but seeks to have others worship his image. Much like the beast, but instead of imitating God, this false prophet imitates a reconciliator. However, this being seeks division, divide and conquer, and not reconciliation. It seeks to be an author perpetuating and continually rewriting the devil's drama, so to speak.