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.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen
No, atheists tend to be pretty poor performers in debates against philosophers,
Atheists aren't philosophers? You can have a philosophy without believing in a god...and you can discuss ideas you don't believe in.
reply to post by AfterInfinity
having intercourse during the moon cycle?
The “Illumined” Luciferian or Illuminati concept of a Moon Child ties in closely with the concept of ascended mastery. A Moon Child ritual is a very dark and high level occult ritual which requires blood sacrifice, the goal of which is to call into a prenatal infant, a demonic entity which will not just possess, but displace the original spirit, and live out a mortal life in the body.
Originally posted by Rapha
reply to post by AfterInfinity
having intercourse during the moon cycle?
Doing that during a 'blue moon' is nothing more than a shallow thrill.
Ref. Book of Enoch Chapter 8 verse 8.
Back in the Days of Enoch, the fallen watcher named Asaradel taught the motion of the moon.
Every month starts at a new moon.
the Gregorian calendar that is used today does not match the real calendar. it is a solar calendar, real dates are fixed by a lunar calendar which begins at new moon. there is never a blue moon then.
Source for 'blue bloods', 'blue moons' and 'moon children'
timenolonger.wordpress.com...
The “Illumined” Luciferian or Illuminati concept of a Moon Child ties in closely with the concept of ascended mastery. A Moon Child ritual is a very dark and high level occult ritual which requires blood sacrifice, the goal of which is to call into a prenatal infant, a demonic entity which will not just possess, but displace the original spirit, and live out a mortal life in the body.
Lilith's more sexual and predatory aspects seem to be associated with the waxing phase of the Moon: Zohar 3:76b-77a - "At times it happens that Naamah goes forth into the world to become hot from the sons of man, and a man finds himself in a connection of lust with her, and he awakens from his sleep and takes hold of his wife and lies with her. And this desire comes from that lust which he had in his dream. Then the child that she begets comes from the side of Naamah, for the man was driven by his lust for her. And when Lilith comes and sees that child, she knows what happened, and she ties herself to him and brings him up like all those other sons of Naamah. And she is with him many times, but does not kill him. This is the man who becomes blemished on every New Moon, for she never gives him up. For month after month, when the moon becomes renewed in the world Lilith comes forth and visits all those whom she brings up, and makes sport with them, and therefore that person is blemished at that time. (Patai81:457f)" (bold mine) Zohar 2:267b - "And that spirit which is called Asirta becomes stirred up...and goes to the female who is beneath all females. And she is Lilith the mother of demons. And a man may become stirred up by that evil spirit called Asirta, which attaches himself to that man and ties himself to him permanently. And on every New Moon that spirit of evil appearance becomes stirred up by Lilith, and at time that man suffers harm from the spirit, and falls to the ground and cannot get up, or even dies. (Patai81:462)" (bold mine) Bacharach, 'Emeq haMelekh, 84b, 84c, 84d - "And this is the secret of the children laughing in their sleep when they are small: it is from Lilith who plays with them. And I heard that when a small child laughs during the Sabbath night or the night of the New Moon, it is because Lilith is playing with him, and it is well that his father or mother or anyone who sees him laugh should tap his nose with his finger and say: "Go from here, you accursed one, for you have no resting place here!" Let him say this three times, and each time he recites this incantation let him tap the child's nose. " (bold mine)
Originally posted by adjensen
Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. (Source)
Originally posted by brackforce
Originally posted by adjensen
Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. (Source)
I just watched the debate and completely disagree. I have no idea why anyone would say that Hitchens was rambling and incoherent while Craig was flawless. I didn't see that in ANY WAY.
Originally posted by n00bUK
Well, every religious war that has ever happened was obviously in the name of God, so this number would be running into the hundereds of millions. But if we want to get technical then God is responsable for every war, every death and so forth. So God has a Kill record next to none.
Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Originally posted by n00bUK
Well, every religious war that has ever happened was obviously in the name of God, so this number would be running into the hundereds of millions. But if we want to get technical then God is responsable for every war, every death and so forth. So God has a Kill record next to none.
In the name of doesn't mean anything. Some guy could go blow up something in iran and say it was in the name of the Dallas Cowboys.
Does that mean the Dallas Cowboys killed people ? No
Your logic...if there is any...is very flawed.
Well, you're definitely in the minority -- Hitchens' performance was widely panned among his peers. From a debate standpoint, he definitely failed to put together a cohesive and organized argument, didn't respond to a lot of points that Craig made, and his rambling lack of direction, particularly in the section where he could ask Craig direct questions, indicated a almost total lack of preparation.
Originally posted by brackforce
I will admit that Craig might have won in the context of the rules of debate or whatever, but my point is that I identified much more with the things that Hitchens pointed out as opposed to Craig who did nothing to sway my opinions to the the side of religion.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by brackforce
Let's steer this back on topic, guys. What does this debate have to do with giving "God" credit for all the harm he's done?
Originally posted by brackforce
reply to post by adjensen
Seems to me that Rich has good reason to not want to talk to Craig.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by brackforce
All-powerful...all-knowing...and all-inactive. Of his own choice. That makes him equally guilty, as guilty as any sinner that ever existed. Possibly even more so. End of story.edit on 13-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
reply to post by brackforce
Or, you can take the MamaJ approach and just make a bunch of crap up combining whatever you like from various religions, discarding what you don't understand or agree with, and end up with your own science fiction story that makes you feel good about your "understanding" of the spiritual realm.