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.

 

Public enemy number one: Organised Religion.

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by infojunkie2
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The problem is that you can't prove any of what you believe, can you?


What exactly did I say my beliefs were? I didn't. All you can know from my atheism is that I don't believe in deities. I don't need to prove that. If you claim that a deity exists it's your duty to prove your claim.


a theory is not proof mind you. I also wonder if you could tell me about the very first sign of life, whatever it was, before it became a human , does not a design have to have a designer?


I don't have any answer about the first sign of life. I don't particularly have a great need to know either. But there certainly is no requirement that the first life had to have a "designer".


even your belief says that creation began somewhere, and the beginning of creation had to have a creator .


I don't have a belief that "creation" began somewhere. I don't believe that the universe is a creation nor that it had a creator.


also if humans used to be monkeys and they evolved then shouldn't you as a human ,at least be able to do all the things that monkeys can do, but I doubt that you can swing from trees like monkeys do, but isnt it true that one something evolves it becomes better?


Evolution does not say that humans evolved from monkeys, rather that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Also, evolution does not produce gradually better organisms. It produces changes in an organism that are either beneficial to its survival or not.


so it seems to me that you should be able to swing from trees while singing old macdonald at least.


Well, humans can swing from trees but so far your entire point has rested on incorrect assumptions about both my beliefs and the theory of evolution.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Similarities between Christ and Horus, for sure, nobody can deny that. Everybody has their own opinion, Good post.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Learn how to spell organized



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





TextAtheism has no beliefs. It's defined by a lack of beliefs. And just because FFRO puts up a few billboards, it doesn't mean they're a religion.


So, Nihilism is not a belief system then? How come it has so many observant followers?



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 


I guess even atheism has evolved.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthTakesTime
Learn how to spell organized


organised past participle, past tense of or·gan·ize (Verb)
1. Arrange into a structured whole; order: "organize lessons in a planned way".
2. Coordinate the activities of (a person or group) efficiently.

Don't give me a spelling lesson.. You are clearly a Fool with no point to make.


Again there is no need for pointless attacks..



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I saw Zeitgeist too.

I always think it's funny when someone quotes Yeshua. Not one person who wrote "the bible" was an actual witness to what He said. Therefore it's not His words, it is his words with room for human error involved. Also, if one wants to read the bible, one shouldn't read an English version as many words have been mistranslated and caused many wrong ideas about what the bible is saying. For example, the word used for "betray" in terms of Judas is NEVER used as "betray" anywhere else in the bible - it is used to mean "to hand over". Big difference. So read your bible in the original Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise you are at the mercy of men with salvation for sale.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I am an agnostic skeptic. I am not a follower of any organized religion. I do have my own personal spiritual beliefs, but I remain open to the strong possibility that they are not correct or true. (This is a part of my stance that skepticism and belief are not mutually exclusive, provided one follows certain intellectual rules for one's self.)

I have studied, to the extent a layperson can, for about fifteen years the world's religions and religious history. And while there is much that I might personally disagree with or even decry about the organizational structures and agendas of some leaders of the world's organized religions, I still support and respect their right to exist. Freedom of religion, in my opinion at least, is essential to any semblance of freedom, regardless of all rational or pragmatic concerns.

I do understand the historical inconsistency and cultural cross-pollination at work in the history of the world's faiths, however. For example:

The concept of the offspring of a deity being associated with a "holy virgin," descent to the underworld for three days before rising again, etc. goes even further back, to ancient Sumeria, though perhaps not in as thematically consistent a form as Horus.

In Sumerian mythology we find references to a "holy virgin," a garden which becomes corrupt and from which this holy virgin must flee, and a tree of life (as in many cultures ancient.) In Sumerian mythology it is the "holy virgin" (Inana) herself who descends into the underworld, bargains with the powers therein, and rises again three days later. Indeed, stark similarities (of varying degree) for most organized religions' myths and parables can be found in much older belief structures and pantheons.

The bible is a good example of how religious scripture is collated over sometimes huge periods of time. The bible consists of "books" containing the writings of many, many authors, usually even in a single "book," such as Daniel, based on much older, verbally perpetuated stories. This is true of every organized religion. We're talking about pre-writing stories passed down verbally for hundreds or even thousands of years finally being written down later by multiple authors, and then coalesced into a single work that attempts to make them coherent. And even that effort to render all of it one compliation wasn't done until a long, long, long time after Christ's death. (Although, I know many Christians believe that this is the work of divine planning and that the authors were divinely inspired and that the "harmony" of these disparate scriptures is evidence for them of their God's existence. I can accept and respect that regardless of whether I agree with it for myself.)

I am always in strong disagreement with the justification of conflict or bloodshed in the name of one's God(s) or religion. I am always in strong disagreement with the apparent political agendas sometimes at work on the part of many of the world's religions' leaders. I am always in strong disagreement with the justification of bigotry in the name of religion that I have unfortunately witnessed at times. But note: I am opposed to those things whether they are associated with or justified by religion or not.

Nevertheless, as someone who believes strongly in personal freedoms, I must defend and support the freedom of religion, even of organized religion. I cannot agree with any effort to try to convince anyone that their beliefs are in factual error, because they have likely heard those arguments before and still adhere to their faith, as is their right, regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks that's rational or correct. Human beings have the right to congregate as part of an organized religion, and to worship or practice their chosen faith, whatever that may be, however they choose. I will not look upon them as an adversary or as "wrong" purely on that basis.

Provided they are not hurting anyone.

If they are hurting anyone, then appropriate law enforcement or sanctioning action should be taken to prevent harm to others. And I can politely say, "I don't personally subscribe to your beliefs." That is as far as I go, though. Beyond that, no one's faith is my business.

Just my two cents. Peace.
edit on 3/24/2011 by AceWombat04 because: typos

edit on 3/24/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Clarification



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


if i may add to your idea, christianity is also significant in that it was the first faith to place importance on the individual. it emphasized one's personal relationship to the Deity, rather than a laundry list of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not's." Christ taught that all were equal regardless of culture, race, or gender--certainly a revolutionary idea at the time!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
One could just as easily argue that lack of religion causes mass murder and injustice. The Soviet Union under Stalin killed millions of Jews and others. Some even argue that Hitler only claimed to be a catholic to get the majority of support of the German people, while implementing Eugenics even though that is an idea that goes against many things that the bible says. You should really read about the Jacobin's Society during the French Revolution and their Reign of Terror, they where very anti-religious. Even if you take out religion, people will still war, people will still treat others as a lower class. People are just naturally evil and greedy. Everything is used as a tool for social control. The biggest item for social control is not religion like some people seem to think, its Money. Whoever controls the money, can control the majority of influence, weather your spiritual or an atheist, it controls everyone. There has yet to be a society without religion that has been all peace and love. The only society that i have seen that have been truly peace and love are the Amish. I could be wrong on that but i haven't seen any evidence of it yet. They are not perfect but they seem to be pretty distant respectable people.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by feanor411
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


if i may add to your idea, christianity is also significant in that it was the first faith to place importance on the individual. it emphasized one's personal relationship to the Deity, rather than a laundry list of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not's." Christ taught that all were equal regardless of culture, race, or gender--certainly a revolutionary idea at the time!


Holy Moly! Absolutely correct my friend! Oh how people neglect this point.

But, say that softly around here. There are many who will come tell you you must have their relationship with God.

Shhh, lest ye be stoned.



Just kidding of course. That is paramount my friend. So few understand that.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandalphthegrey

They brainwash their believers.
They prey upon the weak.
They don't pay a single penny/cent in taxes.
They hoard wealth , knowledge , important literature and works of art , that belong to the masses.




I'm not brainwashed
I'm not weak
Now it's a tax issue?
See....now you're strictly talking about Rome....
and that's a horse of a different color.

If you're more specific in your arguments you'll be far more successful.
Please don't paint with such a broad brush.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by feanor411
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Christ taught that all were equal regardless of culture, race, or gender--certainly a revolutionary idea at the time!


it's still the most revolutionary idea!
unattainable accept through him.
the most radical dude to ever walk this rock.
edit on 25-3-2011 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Public enemy number one: The closed mindedness of one to accept the closed mindedness of another.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
So, Nihilism is not a belief system then? How come it has so many observant followers?


How did we get to nihilism?
What does that have to do with anything?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


I didn't know that so called scientific facts were based on contradictions...you don't have to be a savant to know that this is a blatant contradiction...you're saying

"Look at it this way, It makes far more sense to say "How can something exist that has a beginning?" Things that exist are formed of matter.. Things can change in form but can not come into or go out of existence..Matter will always remain".

I could have sworn that science and logic were used hand-in-hand, but at one point you say that things can change, thus affirming the things existence, but then you say that it can't come into existence. It is as if you're saying that a non-existent thing is capable of doing something, and you also say that matter remains (or in other words, exists), but is, according to you "non-existent".



edit on 25-3-2011 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by feanor411
Christ taught that all were equal regardless of culture, race, or gender--certainly a revolutionary idea at the time!


What christianity are people following these days? Has anyone here actually read the bible or are people just making up stuff they think they'd like to believe about Jesus? Equality of culture, race and gender was not part of Jesus' agenda.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reprobation
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


I didn't know that so called scientific facts were based on contradictions...you don't have to be a savant to know that this is a blatant contradiction...you're saying

"Look at it this way, It makes far more sense to say "How can something exist that has a beginning?" Things that exist are formed of matter.. Things can change in form but can not come into or go out of existence..Matter will always remain".

I could have sworn that science and logic were used hand-in-hand, but at one point you say that things can change, thus affirming the things existence, but then you say that it can't come into existence. It is as if you're saying that a non-existent thing is capable of doing something, and you also say that matter remains (or in other words, exists), but is, according to you "non-existent".



edit on 25-3-2011 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)


Have you never heard of water changing forms.?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre

Originally posted by Reprobation
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


I didn't know that so called scientific facts were based on contradictions...you don't have to be a savant to know that this is a blatant contradiction...you're saying

"Look at it this way, It makes far more sense to say "How can something exist that has a beginning?" Things that exist are formed of matter.. Things can change in form but can not come into or go out of existence..Matter will always remain".

I could have sworn that science and logic were used hand-in-hand, but at one point you say that things can change, thus affirming the things existence, but then you say that it can't come into existence. It is as if you're saying that a non-existent thing is capable of doing something, and you also say that matter remains (or in other words, exists), but is, according to you "non-existent".



edit on 25-3-2011 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)


Have you never heard of water changing forms.?


Yes...but..water has to exist to be able to change forms...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reprobation

Originally posted by TechVampyre

Originally posted by Reprobation
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


I didn't know that so called scientific facts were based on contradictions...you don't have to be a savant to know that this is a blatant contradiction...you're saying

"Look at it this way, It makes far more sense to say "How can something exist that has a beginning?" Things that exist are formed of matter.. Things can change in form but can not come into or go out of existence..Matter will always remain".

I could have sworn that science and logic were used hand-in-hand, but at one point you say that things can change, thus affirming the things existence, but then you say that it can't come into existence. It is as if you're saying that a non-existent thing is capable of doing something, and you also say that matter remains (or in other words, exists), but is, according to you "non-existent".



edit on 25-3-2011 by Reprobation because: (no reason given)


Have you never heard of water changing forms.?


Yes...but..water has to exist to be able to change forms...


Water is a molecule made of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Its formula is H2O... Water is matter. So what are you going on about.?

Is it that hard to understand that, Things that exist are formed of matter.. Things can change in form but can not come into or go out of existence..Matter will always remain.
edit on 25-3-2011 by TechVampyre because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join