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.

 

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 40
78
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well you suggested the Egypt thing I just went with that


That was in response to his cryptic "Minneapolis Science Facility" line, and my noticing that the Science Museum in Minneapolis has an exhibit relating to mummies. Mummies are cool, so I'll check it out.


But thanks for pointing out the “Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans” thread, I missed that one


Happy to help, but I hope that you take my post in there to heart -- almost no one believes that, even fundamentalists generally do not. Though there is the voluminous evidence presented by Hanna-Barbara, in cartoon form, of course.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Ah yes the flintstones as a documentary
freethinker.co.uk...
Yabba-dabba-doo

and yes i have noted that you don't believe it



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by adjensen
 


Ah yes the flintstones as a documentary
freethinker.co.uk...
Yabba-dabba-doo

and yes i have noted that you don't believe it


before humans arrived on the scene, the prior sentient, bipedal occupants appear to have been reptilian-mammalians and amphibian-mammalians. not too hard to believe they co-existed with diinos.
edit on 3-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


i merely state that believing searching for knowledge as the original sin is completely void of intellectual thought.

giving someone a brain with curiousity and then puniching ones desire to learn is ridiculous.

give a teenage boy car keys, a bottle of whiskey, some condoms and a prostitute and condemn him for what is expected to happen? really?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 


Original sin is an evil creation of control.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by rebeldog
 


Original sin is an evil creation of control.



Does this statement preclude the facts that there are natural laws that shouldn't be broken?

-Don't hurt/kill people
-Don't lie, cheat nor steal.
-Don't damage someone's property.

Really? So abiding by these aforementioned laws is considered (by you) to be inherently an evil
creation of control?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Mod Note: One Line Post -- Please Review this Link.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by rebeldog
 


Original sin is an evil creation of control.



Does this statement preclude the facts that there are natural laws that shouldn't be broken?

-Don't hurt/kill people
-Don't lie, cheat nor steal.
-Don't damage someone's property.

Really? So abiding by these aforementioned laws is considered (by you) to be inherently an evil
creation of control?


no, it doesn't preclude those things, because original sin and the basic commandments of morality aren't even close to being comparable.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by rebeldog
 


Original sin is an evil creation of control.



Does this statement preclude the facts that there are natural laws that shouldn't be broken?

-Don't hurt/kill people
-Don't lie, cheat nor steal.
-Don't damage someone's property.

Really? So abiding by these aforementioned laws is considered (by you) to be inherently an evil
creation of control?


no, it doesn't preclude those things, because original sin and the basic commandments of morality aren't even close to being comparable.


Oh, K.

What are the basic Commandments of morality?

What is Original Sin defined?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Mod Note: One Line Post -- Please Review this Link.
edit on 7-3-2011 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by Chinesis

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by rebeldog
 


Original sin is an evil creation of control.



Does this statement preclude the facts that there are natural laws that shouldn't be broken?

-Don't hurt/kill people
-Don't lie, cheat nor steal.
-Don't damage someone's property.

Really? So abiding by these aforementioned laws is considered (by you) to be inherently an evil
creation of control?


no, it doesn't preclude those things, because original sin and the basic commandments of morality aren't even close to being comparable.


Oh, K.

What are the basic Commandments of morality?

What is Original Sin defined?


answers to those bait questions:

ETA: here, i can be snarky and informative while fighting trolls at the same time:

basic commandments of morality: do not infringe on anyone's well being in any way.

original sin: claims we are all damned to hell by biological default because our parent's sinned and had sex to keep the species alive. keeps churches funded and the masses in a seeming inescapable meta-pit of fear and hence control.

are you feigning ignorance right now to try and make an arcing point? cause i'd love to hear it.
edit on 7-3-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by zerbot565
instead of posting videos wouldent it be better for the OP to write what the debunked facts are
with references to scholar material and facts ,

posting a video without real references wont get you through university or any other school,

I understand what you're getting at. This is the laziest thread I have ever put together. The thing is that refuting all of Zeitgeist's false claims would take forever and I've had to refute dozens of claims already. Besides, I couldn't possibly do a better job than this guy, so why not give everyone the best?
Addendum: Anyways, videos are much more entertaining than a thesis paper... please don't make me refute anymore Zeitgeist stuff


edit on 17-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)


Zeitgeist may have gotten some of it's claims wrong but not all. You cannot refute that all religions are based on sun worship. If u wish to believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause then that's up to u but don't start a thread insisting that the research done in Zeitgeist in BS when in actal fact most of it is true.

Religion is a creation by TPTB to control the masses. And it has worked! There are a lot of people like you that believe that there is as George Carlin put it 'An Invisible Man! Up In The Sky'. Who watches everything you do.......BS!!

I work in a Muslim controlled state. I get on really well with the guys here even though I don't believe in God. They constantly wind me up because I do not believe. And of course when I ask 'Who Created God?' it's always the same silence or God is the creator so nothing created him. Yeah Right. Whatever! Basically they want to convert me to believing in God and Allah. There's no way in hell (Excuse the pun) that's going to happen.

But back on topic. I think Zeitgeist is great for a starting point to refute religion. They may not have gotten it all correct but there is a sh*tload of evidence they have got right. That's not Refutable!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
answers to those bait questions:

ETA: here, i can be snarky and informative while fighting trolls at the same time:

basic commandments of morality: do not infringe on anyone's well being in any way.

original sin: claims we are all damned to hell by biological default because our parent's sinned and had sex to keep the species alive. keeps churches funded and the masses in a seeming inescapable meta-pit of fear and hence control.

are you feigning ignorance right now to try and make an arcing point? cause i'd love to hear it.
edit on 7-3-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)


Lol at the google link.
I completely forgot about Adam and Eve being the trend setters for Original Sin. (I'm not religious)
However I don't know of any specific scriptures that detail this Original Sin.

The bible has a lot of wise teachings but I never identified that we were all condemned to sin indefinitely.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
well, iirc, and i'm not going to look it up because i honestly don't care, original sin is a catholic concept. it's completely insane. it's the religious trump card that keeps you in eternal fear, shame, guilt, fear. it's a newer construct as well. to think that god would damn his children for doing the one thing they must do to continue as a species, is one of the most outrageous ideas and claims in religion. and to put that entire realm of damnnation on the shoulders of a child is nothing short of abuse. you will ruin their mind's. look at how most catholics behave anyway, they grew up and were strictly abused and sexually repressed and suppressed, and look how they behave as adults with these issues? they become sexual predators, pedophiles, all while wearing the cloak and preaching from the bible, and continuing the cycle.

is that something you would do to your child? take away the familiar terms, catholic, sin, god, would subjecting children of all things be a sane thing to do? for the sake of a BELIEF?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

Thank you for this. This is the part of that video that was most difficult for me to believe. It was just so crass.

Unfortunately, it puts into doubt everything else on the Zeitgeist videos. Part of the plan???



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 





Religion is a creation by TPTB to control the masses.


The later religion maybe. But the origin of many old beliefs had sound reason according to that time, the past beliefs of other lands, and the evolving of 'what works and what doesnt'.

We can see that beliefs to the days of old were very real to those people...they left many markings and spent alot of time detailing their beliefs. Back when Egypt had their beliefs of 'Ra' which evolved to Amun Ra ect ect ect...they had reasons for all of it. To them...it was very real and had a foundation to stand on for what they understood about life and what they did not understand.

As a group that lived in Egypt...to start changing their belief from what was working and not working and to then 'move on' to another land to keep and practice this new belief...its understandable that some of their old practices went with them and some new practices were created. We see this in the Old Testament by looking at the names of the 'gods' that were frowned upon as they tried to start walking the path of 'one god'. We see the names of the gods of other lands mentioned here. We see a history...evolving and in that...we see 'beliefs' evolving too. In the New Testament...we see the same thing. A evolving, of the minds and beliefs of man...for what they understood and could accept.

Its only later that man used past beliefs...to somewhat control a conflicting people. Sometimes is understandable when you see much chaos...for man to try to bring together the people, through a belief that ties both beliefs together. The intent of the men that tied beliefs together again and again to make a 'new' connection between conflicting people is understandable. Yes, some of it may of been to control but in that thought, it may also of been to stop the fighting that was controlling the people more then anything.

If a 'belief' has turned into a controlling nature...its due to later that man used it for this. For most 'beliefs' hold a core nature to them of a hope for peace. Someone then takes a few lines from a belief and supports some radical idea of event or action or turns the belief into a controlling mechanism. This still does not mean that all of those 'past beliefs' were made, created, originated...for control. Old beliefs meant alot to their people and they evolved from former beliefs. We can look back and see 'why' cultures and lands believed what they did. For somehow their 'belief' supported their personal agendas or even supported their own will to have the right to survive.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 


How do you objectify these natural laws?

Morality and law is subjective. Good luck trying to prove it's not. Religion is an attempt to polarize morality and assert absolution. The Devil is obviously the "Anti-God" construct that has to be "demonized" so that non-believers can be discriminated against. People feel butthurt because i have a problem with this? Well they should do, because they are my enemy.
edit on 8/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
well, iirc, and i'm not going to look it up because i honestly don't care, original sin is a catholic concept. it's completely insane. it's the religious trump card that keeps you in eternal fear, shame, guilt, fear. it's a newer construct as well. to think that god would damn his children for doing the one thing they must do to continue as a species, is one of the most outrageous ideas and claims in religion. and to put that entire realm of damnnation on the shoulders of a child is nothing short of abuse. you will ruin their mind's. look at how most catholics behave anyway, they grew up and were strictly abused and sexually repressed and suppressed, and look how they behave as adults with these issues? they become sexual predators, pedophiles, all while wearing the cloak and preaching from the bible, and continuing the cycle.

is that something you would do to your child? take away the familiar terms, catholic, sin, god, would subjecting children of all things be a sane thing to do? for the sake of a BELIEF?


i don't think teaching abstinence was originally meant to be a form of abuse.
in buddhism and hinduism it's a life choice, similar to asceticism. you're taught to rechannel sexual energy into some other endeavor. in fact, pretty much every thorough self help book touches on the subject.

the big difference here is: if my theories are accurate, when we were clones, we didn't reproduce, so sex was irrelevant. after we were modified to reproduce (perhaps a slicing of dna with mammalian dna), we suddenly could reproduce and this wasn't the most popular choice for the planet. it made cloning unnecessary and gave the whole thing a hands free productivity. considering the texts all suggest were originally created as slaves for some entities who, at least half of which, were not on the planet most of the time, having self-reproducing slaves made things easier in an engineering sort of way but had longer term issues. those issues related to the mammalian tendencies that went along with the modifications: territorial, anger, hate, jealousy, murder, etc. which in a well ordered universe would seem characteristically misplaced in a sentient being.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Chinesis
 


How do you objectify these natural laws?

Morality and law is subjective. Good luck trying to prove it's not. Religion is an attempt to polarize morality and assert absolution. The Devil is obviously the "Anti-God" construct that has to be "demonized" so that non-believers can be discriminated against. People feel butthurt because i have a problem with this? Well they should do, because they are my enemy.
edit on 8/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



See, you sound emotionally compromised yourself.
Why is a person who disagrees with you: has to be your enemy?

If a human being is personally attached/invested in their beliefs so strongly and they happen to feel
that without their God's aid I am to burn in eternal hell. Why would that offend me?

Are they not entitled to their opinion(s) just as you are entitled to your own?
I'm not religious.
I'm spiritual.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by madscientistintraining
 


The OP sounds like a christian who got their ego hurt by knowledge.(kinda like how the original sin of adam/eve was searching for knowledge) only idiots believe that stuff anyway. must hurt to find out the bible is not the end all of life or death..

whats wrong OP mad you were lied to by some backwoods hick preacher? and to embarassed to let the message of zeitgesit sink in..

I bet you hate Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Christopher Hitchens too.. and you probably hate Religulous also..


And people say Christians are vile.


Respect, goes both ways. Remember that.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join