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.

 

Our Worst Enemy...

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Conspire; intransitive verb

Definition:
work together; to combine so as to cause a particular result, often one involving harm, inconvenience, or difficulty


Conspiracy; noun

Definition:
group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act


Subversive; noun

Definition:
somebody involved in subversive activities: somebody involved in activities intended to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution

Religious segregation:

Religious segregation is the separation of people according to their religion. The term has been applied to cases of religious-based segregation occurring as a social phenomenon,[1] as well as to segregation arising from laws, whether explicit or implicit.[2] The similar term religious apartheid has also been used for situations where people are separated based on religion,[3] including sociological phenomena.[4]
en.wikipedia.org...


So, I think you see where I'm headed with this. My question to you, regardless of your creed(atheist, agnostic, christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, flying spaghetti monster) is this - is RELIGION responsible for fear, hatred, intimidation, and ultimately segregation of the masses? Just as I put those labels for different "religions" or lack-there-of in the case of atheism, I'm segregating the masses...

Also, please look at both sides of the coin here. Would these things that cause segregation ultimately be here if religion didn't exist? I mean, if religious labels didn't exist, wouldn't we just use the means of ethnicity, monetary status, political status, or some other system of segregation to get the job done? We as beings have an evolutionary tendency of exhibiting prejudice. I think even natural selection can be said to be segregating us.

Now, let's look at another aspect of this declaration - altruism. Is relligion responsible for more altruistic behaviour? Is religion somehow responsible for pushing altruistic behaviour past just those of our kin? Without religion, would we only be concerned with the survival of our own(and those that we have a close kinship with) genetic codes? After all, an organism in nature, more or less, will tend to stick with those of its own kind. Many things that are introduced that are foreign and aren't food are usually seen as a threat until proven otherwise.

So, in conclusion, I will ask again. Is it RELIGION that is responsible for fear, hatred, intimidation, evolutionary hindrance, and segregation...or is it the APPLICATION and INTERPRETATIONS of RELIGION that cause these things? Is religion itself a CONSPIRACY by definition?

Remember: "a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act" - are WE as a WHOLE, ie the human race, the CONSPIRATORS? "somebody involved in activities intended to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution" - is this INSTITUTION...HUMANITY? Are we naturally our own worst enemy?

I look forward to hearing your comments.

Respectfully
A2D


[edit on 5-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
...Don't all comment at once!

It's okay if you don't know what to say. I can elaborate if you need me to.


A2D



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Here let me help you out with a reference I think I know exactly
what you mean. SnF
Above Top Secret........

[edit on 5-12-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 5-12-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




That IS an elaboration of sorts. It's just a slight variation from the point that I'm trying to convey

A2D



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
My opinion is that religion is only a factor. We have certain issues as a species, xenophobia is much more rampant then hospitality all over the globe among all the nations. There are still places you or me could be eaten by other humans - and those other humans do not represent any of major religions. So flaw is in us on ground level. Majority of Religions (like Atheism religion for example
) magnify it.
However not only religions influence this in-built feature - leaders throughout the history drew boundaries between "honorable us" and "them that suck" for their own agenda.
When "we" become a crowd - we become dangerous. On personal level vast majority of people are good. So a conspiracy in my opinion is any attempt to turn individuals into herd.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


So you're agreeing that HUMANITY is a group of CONSPIRATORS and the conspiracy's objective is to overthrow...OURSELVES?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I will agree to disagree, if it is not copyright protected. You can find lots of different definitions for conspiracy/subversive/zeroknowledge, all slightly different. There is no need to be pedantic about one of those definitions. Humanity indeed will evolve into something different pretty soon and kill itself in the process, however it has nothing to do with conspiracies,subversiveness or some kind of boundaries. Technological progress alone would do the trick.
Or maybe i fail to understand some point you try to make?
Edit - wrong word used.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Technological process alone WON'T do the trick, IMO. For those processes and the introduction of new technologies to do any harm to humanity, we must use it AGAINST humanity...

The simple fact of the matter is that we as humans strive too much to "divide and conquer". Instead, I think that we should unite and conquer.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I believe it's a big conspiracy. The level of inconsistencies, undertoning, contradictions, and hypocrisy is overwhelming.

From my point of view religion arduously promote perseverance, which is an negative undertone in this case. In virtually every segment of the bible the characters display adversity and more adversity, and then said character demonstrate perseverance towards their God and then God "reprieved and rescued from their troubles." What this implied to reader today is, "be like the perserverer in the bible" and you will be saved and delivered from your adversity. As a result they are mimicking possible manufactured bible characters and bank on God reprieving them for their perseverance. When atheists/mystics or any other contender so-called bash their religion and present them with facts and down them, they look at themselves as the "underdog" and deny the atheists/Mystics evidence, and simultaneously believe they will be awarded by God for their perseverance of believing his word.

In essence religious people stunt growth of humanity development and catalyze hatred and fear.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by GrandKitaro777]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



we as humans strive too much to "divide and conquer". Instead, I think that we should unite and conquer.


If we were all united, who would we have to conquer?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 


But again, your statement points to the application of religion and not religion itself. One has to look past the colors of the portrait and see the underlying factors. IMO, it's not religion, but it's people, that make it into a conspiracy. Religion itself does not inspire segregation. It does not inspire anything but a deeper connection with whatever the head deity is for that certain institution. People tend to take the words and apply them to this physical life which leads to segregation and the "holier than thou" attitude that so many atheists despise. THIS is the heart of the "conspiracy" that so many see in religion.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


That's exactly the point I'm trying to make friend. With no one to "conquer" we could conquer what has been in our faces asking to be conquered...space...genetics...physics...all that jazz....Instead we're left to bask in "glorious" blood from our fellow man....



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I think if there were no religion, people would still find ways to segregate but the reasons you listed, ethnicity, monetary status, political status, etc. would be more easily refuted because they wouldnt be based on faith. Logic and critical thought could show that most claims to segregate are false or not based in fact.

Ethnicity, monetary status and political status are not determined on belief and the differences can be tested and analyzed. Example: Insisting superiority or segregating based on ethnicity can be proven to be baseless. Segregation based on monetary status, can also be shown to be false, because most people know that being rich does not make you a good person. Yes some would try to use it as a divisive tool but no one could claim that they have faith in monetary segregation as means to a better world, without having to show evidence of it.

The discussions surrounding these segregations would be debated on the facts and not faith.

In my opinion, the reason that religion divides people is because each separate religion feels that their religion is the ONE and ONLY. And that evidence is based entirely on faith. So no actual proof for the claim is needed.



Now, let's look at another aspect of this declaration - altruism. Is relligion responsible for more altruistic behaviour? Is religion somehow responsible for pushing altruistic behaviour past just those of our kin? Without religion, would we only be concerned with the survival of our own(and those that we have a close kinship with) genetic codes? After all, an organism in nature, more or less, will tend to stick with those of its own kind. Many things that are introduced that are foreign and aren't food are usually seen as a threat until proven otherwise.


First off, I dont believe that true altruism exists. Secondly, i'm not sure what you are implying here. Animals of the same species will show behavior that helps their species. You ask, without religion would we only be responsible for survival of our own kind. All humans are of the same "kind". There is really no such thing as race. Religion puts a barrier where one should not exist.


Is it RELIGION that is responsible for fear, hatred, intimidation, evolutionary hindrance, and segregation...or is it the APPLICATION and INTERPRETATIONS of RELIGION that cause these things? Is religion itself a CONSPIRACY by definition?


I think that religion and the application of it are the same thing. Is poetry responsible for the emotion it evokes or is it the interpretation of the poetry.
The basis of religion is to have "faith" that what the books of these religions state is true. And the way most of the "religious" books are written, leave it open for interpretation. Humans are allowed to put faith in anything, so its not the source, it is the fallacy or fault of "faith".

The Catcher in the Rye has been associated with several serial killers. It is not the book that causes the problem, its the interpretation and the faith that some put into "hidden" meanings.

Religion/bible, claim to be the word of god so it carries more weight than Catcher in the Rye or any other piece of writing but when you allow someone to use faith as a free pass to be right regardless of evidence you are in turn giving a free pass to interpret and apply what is in that piece of writing to your own ends.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I think if there were no religion, people would still find ways to segregate but the reasons you listed, ethnicity, monetary status, political status, etc. would be more easily refuted because they wouldnt be based on faith. Logic and critical thought could show that most claims to segregate are false or not based in fact.

First off, let me say that you have made some very excellent points. Second, I would like to just note the obvious here and say that segregation has happened many, many times, WITHOUT the catalyst of faith. I think it's actually hard-wired into us as a species, genetically speaking, and there isn't a real "catalyst", only scapegoats.


Ethnicity, monetary status and political status are not determined on belief and the differences can be tested and analyzed. Example: Insisting superiority or segregating based on ethnicity can be proven to be baseless. Segregation based on monetary status, can also be shown to be false, because most people know that being rich does not make you a good person. Yes some would try to use it as a divisive tool but no one could claim that they have faith in monetary segregation as means to a better world, without having to show evidence of it.

I was just using examples there. There ARE things that are determined on belief though. There are things like racial superiority....Have you ever tried to convince a "skin-head" that he's not superior to african-americans? Good luck with that one. It's just as hard, if not harder, than convincing a religious zealot that God doesn't love him/her. So, there are in fact other things that could be used to segregate the masses based on belief.


In my opinion, the reason that religion divides people is because each separate religion feels that their religion is the ONE and ONLY. And that evidence is based entirely on faith. So no actual proof for the claim is needed.

That IS why the division happens, however, what we don't see is that we're doing it to ourselves. We're building the walls that surround us and keep those others out. Sure it may say in the holy books that "thou shall have no other gods before me" or whatever. It doesn't specify whose god is whose. It doesn't say "All muslims are right and christians are wrong." It doesn't say "All jews are right and hindus are wrong." We add these things and with that we villify everything that we've ever sanctified.



First off, I dont believe that true altruism exists. Secondly, i'm not sure what you are implying here. Animals of the same species will show behavior that helps their species. You ask, without religion would we only be responsible for survival of our own kind. All humans are of the same "kind". There is really no such thing as race. Religion puts a barrier where one should not exist.

I didn't mean responsible for our own kind as in species. I meant it as in...genetic likeness....like the old saying "birds of a feather flock together." I mean to say that we'd be more likely to only care for and exhibit altruistic behaviour towards those that are similar in thought process, outlook on life, behavioural mannerisms, and just general lifestyle.



I think that religion and the application of it are the same thing. Is poetry responsible for the emotion it evokes or is it the interpretation of the poetry.
The basis of religion is to have "faith" that what the books of these religions state is true. And the way most of the "religious" books are written, leave it open for interpretation. Humans are allowed to put faith in anything, so its not the source, it is the fallacy or fault of "faith".


Clearly we see that this is not the case. If the application of religion and the message of religion were one in the same, I would not have made this thread friend. Poetry was your example, so I will use it as well. When one reads a love poem, I would assume that it inspires a feeling of hope, or bliss, or joy...something of the "love" nature. When one reads a poem of death and despair, I would assume that it inspires depression and feelings of loneliness or sadness. If this is not the case, please smack me in the face. Now, when someone reads the bible for instance....it is supposed to inspire feelings of hope and everlasting grace and mercy. Note:SUPPOSED. Now, does everyone see that message? I highly doubt it. There is really, in my mind, nothing that I can say is more open to interpretation than the religious texts. I've seen it many times while in discussion about religious doctrine with both theist and atheist. The same words, different meanings. The same sentence, different applications.


Religion/bible, claim to be the word of god so it carries more weight than Catcher in the Rye or any other piece of writing but when you allow someone to use faith as a free pass to be right regardless of evidence you are in turn giving a free pass to interpret and apply what is in that piece of writing to your own ends.

This statement, I could not agree with more. The point though, is what atrocities have come from mere faith? Just faith and faith alone....?

I think that humans have a natural instinct to reject blame. We never want to own up to our own mistakes....It's never the fault of the human...

I think that for far too long we have been pointing fingers in all the wrong directions. We've blamed God. We've blamed Satan. We've blamed religion. We've blamed E.T's. We've blamed everything...except for ourselves.

Simple belief does not harm society. Now, when one acts upon that belief, they're applying their interpretation of their beliefs into their actions. They've missed the whole point of believing...
Biblical faith isn't just "believing"...it'sKNOWING....not "guessing" or basing something off of interpretations.....

Some may say that Buddha speaks of the true self or higher self...but I'd still like to add this: “He has no need for faith who knows the uncreated, who has cut off rebirth, who has destroyed any opportunity for good or evil, and cast away all desire. He is indeed the ultimate man” (Dhammapada 97)

Again, I'd like to say that you had some very excellent points and I look forward to hearing from you again.

Respectfully
A2D



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Good points as well.


There are things like racial superiority....Have you ever tried to convince a "skin-head" that he's not superior to african-americans? Good luck with that one. It's just as hard, if not harder, than convincing a religious zealot that God doesn't love him/her. So, there are in fact other things that could be used to segregate the masses based on belief.


You are right, a skin head believes that he/she is superior to people that look different than him/her but this is applying a belief to something that can be proven with science. Just like i can believe that 1+1=3 but it can be shown logically and scientifically that this is not true. Granted, its easier said than done to just say or show to a racist that "race" is an illusion but he will still hold a belief that it is true.

I think that humans are really good at categorizing things, it is necessary to our survival. This is why we see differences in things. That part is ingrained.

But the desire for some to segregate based on arbitrary means, such as skin color, are a nurture quality. I dont think it is programed to discriminate. it is only programmed to differentiate. The association related to that differentiation is taught. I can visibly see that my skin color is different than someone elses, but I dont have a negative association that having a different skin color is bad, so there is no need to segregate.

We are born with the ability to think someone is ugly(different looking) but culture and society is responsible for convincing us that someone is less of a person based on that arbitrary characteristic. Thus you see changes in beauty over the generations. Current culture prides skinny, past cultures desired curvy. Some cultures fear red haired people, some cherish it.

Discriminating and differentiating are two different things. One is nature and one is nurture.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Yes, indeed. We humans are so foolish as to accidentally conspire against ourselves without realizing it. We would do something like that, wouldn't we?

Didn't I once hear of a story about a guy who accidentally sued himself? Hm...

But you know... I really think the real problem is a lack of care. Some people even think they care and realize that they do not. I do not know how often I hear the excuse, "I didn't mean to."

Here's my motto -- "It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to. You have to mean NOT to."

People are so busy stressing or worrying over extremely petty things throughout their daily business that the simple things that matter mean nothing to them. All is taken for granted.

How many bad things in this world could be prevented and/or avoided all together if people simply thought about the consequences of every action before acting? The human brain, or alteast mine, is extremely quick. It can calculate numerous paths from any point in less than a second. But, you have to care to actually FOCUS.

Which is what I think the real conspiracy is. I believe that TPTB intend to make the combined vision of the world 20/200, or in other words, legally blind. In this way, the world can only see detail if their nose is touching what they see and anything that is farther out than their hand is a blobby-colorful mess. Since people generally don't have the energy to walk right up to everything to inspect it thoroughly, it would be easy to pass laws and move money even just past an arm's length away from us! We wouldn't know the difference.

Yes. They want to kill FOCUS. However, it is our fault they succeed. Because we lack care, they can kill focus. And we lack care because we are selfish. We are selfish because we have no faith. WE have no faith because we feel guilt. We feel guilt because we screw up. We screw up because we don't focus. Once you start focusing, you screw up less. If you screw up less you have less guilt. If you have less guilt, you have more faith. If you have more faith, you are more selfless. If you are more selfless, then you focus even more. Eventually, focus leads to a very sharp, strong, and narrow point of strength. In this strength we find the determination and wisdom to not allow ourselves as individuals to be walked all over because we fear losing something.

As a quick example, how many have submitted to an employer's demands in regards to something that is not your responsibility in order to appease them or to ensure job security? Then you have contributed to the downfall of society. Not because you helped, but because you let them know that they can walk all over you and everyone else with your demeanor/attitude.

Thanks to all of you who are swept aside so easily, I never cease to amaze my employer.

"No?"

"No."

"What do you mean ,'No'?"

"Um... from which correspondence school did you graduate?"

If only people were stronger and wiser. If only people knew just -how unintelligent and how weak our managers are these days-. If only people knew just how much power they have --- AND YET STILL USE IT TO PUT OTHERS DOWN, MAKE MESSES WHEREVER THEY GO, AND RETURN STUFF TO THE STORE SIMPLY BECAUSE, "It served its purpose."

Oh so much power, and all wasted. If people only realized how much they contributed to the reason the TPTB wanted to depopulate us. I have to admit, and I see it all the time, people really are just messy and careless cattle. There are a few who are bright and shining lights in this world. You know who you are. You wipe up your mini-spill after making your coffee at the gas station. Did you know MOST DON'T DO IT? In fact, most literally think just like a kid. "..." That's what they think about their spill. It's not even a register in their brain.

Okay, I'm obviously hijacking this thread. I just feel the need to elaborate on the fact that I think people are foolish enough to commit a conspiracy against themselves, but that the real problem is the lack of care by people and the ability of the TPTB to manipulate it. The end for now.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


your 'Segregating' is a designed Spin...


the human mind-brain has a natural need to 'Organize',
and finding categories, recognizing plainly visible traits, classifying
objects & persons or otherwise 'profiling'
is not creating Bias, or stereotyping, or being biggoted...

you are basically twisting reality imho



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Then define segregation....Here I'll help.

a social system that provides separate facilities for minority groups
the act of segregating or sequestering; "sequestration of the jury"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

segregate - separate by race or religion; practice a policy of racial segregation; "This neighborhood is segregated"; "We don't segregate in this county"
segregate - divide from the main body or mass and collect; "Many towns segregated into new counties"; "Experiments show clearly that genes segregate"
segregate - separate or isolate (one thing) from another and place in a group apart from others; "the sun segregates the carbon"; "large mining claims are segregated into smaller claims"
segregate - someone who is or has been segregated
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

segregated - separated or isolated from others or a main group; "a segregated school system"; "a segregated neighborhood"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Segregate - In taxonomy, a segregate, or a segregate taxon is created when a taxon is split off, from another taxon. This other taxon will be better known, usually bigger, and will continue to exist, even after the segregate taxon has been split off. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregate_(taxonomy)

segregate - To separate, used especially of social policies that directly or indirectly keep races or ethnic groups apart; Separate; select; Separated from others of the same kind
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/segregate

When we "categorise" people....we're segregating...it's as simple as that. Take a look at the wiktionary defintion. "SEPARATED FROM OTHERS OF THE SAME KIND" When we do this, we're basically putting up a "berlin wall".



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 



Discriminating and differentiating are two different things. One is nature and one is nurture.


Is there any evidence to support that these are different? I feel as though they're one in the same....

Discriminating; Definition:

1. recognizing distinctions and valuing quality: able to identify subtle differences and appreciate good quality or taste
Discriminating customers prefer these handmade linens.

2. differential: describes tariffs that are set at different rates for different importers

Differentiate; Definition:

v.transitive
1. To constitute the distinction between: subspecies that are differentiated by the markings on their wings.
2. To perceive or show the difference in or between; discriminate.
3. To make different by alteration or modification.
4. Mathematics To calculate the derivative or differential of (a function).
v.intransitive
1. To become distinct or specialized; acquire a different character.
2. To make distinctions; discriminate.
3. Biology To undergo differentiation.


There is the evidence to support that they are the same. I ask for evidence to support the claim that they are not....


[edit on 6-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


I agree with you all the way up until you start talking about TPTB. I think TPTB are just another way to push the blame onto someone else. WE are TPTB and we're destroying ourselves. You say we give them their power...I say we ARE them. It's basically the same thing except for you think they're an external force.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join