Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 27
15
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
i'm not saying atheists are psychopaths. what i'm saying is the entire principle of survival of the fittest, almost always assures the most psychopathic amongst us, rise to the highest positions of leadership. this, presumably because they have no moral reason to stop them from removing anyone in their way - in essence they don't care about anything but that target their tracking, which is, their desire to be king of the hill at any expense necessary. this resolves to pol pot's and mau's and stalin's, hitler's, and other assorted nasties.

how are we letting these guys who should be in mental treatment, run our nations and corporations? easy! survival of the fittest is viewed as the natural order, particularly by atheists. a religious or spiritual person might also understand, appreciate and respect the struggle for life and safety of family and friends, but the guys at the top of the pecking order, take it to the level of psychopathy, and that level of psychopathy is rubber stamped by atheistic thought that they are not morally responsible, that those beneath them in the hierarchy are nothing more than collections of electro-chemical impulses and blobs of fatty tissue to be used and discarded.

you have to admit, even before religious groups go wacko, the first thing they try to do is convince themselves that the people they are about to attack, are somehow unworthy of their consideration. they dehumanize them, in the sense that they remove any need to think of them in a personal moral sense beyond that. they are just one step removed from full on atheism as far as survival of the fittest goes. and that one step at least gives people a chance to defend themselves and appeal to the moral fiber of the person.
edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Hitler was Christian and the pope did nothing to stop him. I do not know of any documentation by Hitler that states he was an Atheist.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


Hitler was Christian and the pope did nothing to stop him. I do not know of any documentation by Hitler that states he was an Atheist.


hitler was an eugenicist and darwinist, who manipulated the public and used his psychopathy to rise to the highest levels of government. he was hugely involved in the survival of the fittest and darwinist social order. it wasn't enough for him to just control germany. so the pope was covering his bets. if hitler pulled it off, they didn't want him attacking the vatican. far as i'm concerned the only people in catholicism that are christians are the parishioners, anyway. the guys at the vat, i'm thinking they are atheists in the sense that they want everybody to believe in the concept of worshipping man and only man (themselves).

little tidbit you probably didn't know, and pretty much not relevant to the topic but worthy of ats conspiracy theory. there's a photograph of stalin as a young man in school and a different photo of hitler in school as a young man. in both cases, they are on the highest bleacher in the back of a group photo. and both are in the center. top row, center. almost looks surreal when compared side by side. they were buddies ya know later in life. to this day i think stalin invited hitler to attack russia, had his troops traipse thru settlements of jews between their borders, then suddenly, guys who were trained in the snowy mountains of germany couldn't handle the snow outside moscow. lol righhhhht. they weren't on different pages. they were on the same page. least looks that way to me.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest, whatsoever.

Besides....



The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]


Upon realising this, your entire premise falls apart.

Take some time to learn about the subjects you post on, before creating another babbling wall of text filled with inaccuracies....



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Take some time to learn about the subjects you post on, before creating another babbling wall of text filled with inaccuracies....


i haven't as yet called anyone else's attempts at explaining their positions, babbling. no need to personally insult, when the rest of the topic is generalizations anyway. if you want specifics, i'll start cramming my posts full of quotes, videos and other such data. not sure you want that do you? cause i'd be like wanting evidence you watched, read and listened to them before i would post any other responses to you, to be sure i wasn't wasting ats server space for nothing.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



rubber stamped by atheistic thought that they are not morally responsible, that those beneath them in the hierarchy are nothing more than collections of electro-chemical impulses and blobs of fatty tissue to be used and discarded.


Religious people find meaning through their religion so assume people without religion do not have meaning. I see it all the time on this board and I am, I believe, seeing it in your posts here.

Hence assuming this 'survival of the fittest' and disregard for human life and all the other bad things you've associated with atheism.

Your posts are full of interesting stuff. You lose me, and I think many others, when you try to connect it to atheism without much support as to why.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


There are Christians that believed in Eugenics and Darwinism so to say Hitler was an Atheist would be a false claim. I know Christians do not claim him but who would. It still remains he was considered a Christian and never claimed to be an atheist to state otherwise is an unsubstantiated claim.

It keeps coming up that atheists worship man which is also a false claim. Atheists have no need to worship anything it would be an oxymoron if they did.

Atheism simply does not believe in deity’s nothing else. Babies are born atheists because they have no knowledge of deity’s by your reasoning they would have to believe a whole load of other things and be on par with Stalin. It just doesn’t make sense. To try to assign other things to it is foolish or an attempt to demonize it. It is like saying Christians are evil because they believe in a god. It doesn’t make sense.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by undoif you want specifics, i'll start cramming my posts full of quotes, videos and other such data. not sure you want that do you? cause i'd be like wanting evidence you watched, read and listened to them before i would post any other responses to you, to be sure i wasn't wasting ats server space for nothing.


If you fill your posts with accurate and correct information that confirms what you're attempting to say, and when you've been shown to be wrong you actually address it, you'll find you'll get better responces......

What I don't want is more babbling walls of text that take paragraphs to convey what could be said in a sentence



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


According to this he voiced being a Christian:

Wiki: Religious views of Adolf Hitler




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


There are Christians that believed in Eugenics and Darwinism so to say Hitler was an Atheist would be a false claim. I know Christians do not claim him but who would. It still remains he was considered a Christian and never claimed to be an atheist to state otherwise is an unsubstantiated claim.


nah, he was no more a christian than the guys who lead the french revolution. they were all about cutting the ties of royals over them. and yet at the end of it all, the leader of their revolution, sets himself up as some roman god. i kid you not. these guys have their bets covered no matter which way you turn. movements like the revolution would never get off the ground if it wasn't backed by the same organizations they were fighting against in the first place. they screw us over, infiltrate groups that rise up against them, and lead us right back into their clutches again, over and over and over, deep breath, and over and over. thousands of years of it. same thing happened with occupy wall street. one of the banks that caused the trouble in the first place was the deutsch bank. and where does occupy set up their headquarters? lobby of the deutsch bank.
same bat time, same bat channel.

deck is stacked.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


According to this he voiced being a Christian:

Wiki: Religious views of Adolf Hitler




where's evidence he wasn't just manipulating the audience? that's what i'm saying. i mean, how many people here believe bush was following the teachings of jesus? anybody?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



where's evidence he wasn't just manipulating the audience?


Where is the evidence either way on that point? Occam's razor here would be...he made claims of being a Christian because he was one. Certainly not going to say he was a good one (assuming a good Christian is good)
Just that he thought of himself that way.


that's what i'm saying. i mean, how many people here believe bush was following the teachings of jesus? anybody?


Following the teachings is one thing. Claiming you're a Christian, and or attending church, is another thing. Do I believe Bush was following compassionate teachings? Nah. Do I believe he considered himself a Christian? Yep.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by undo
 



where's evidence he wasn't just manipulating the audience?


Where is the evidence either way on that point? Occam's razor here would be...he made claims of being a Christian because he was one. Certainly not going to say he was a good one (assuming a good Christian is good)
Just that he thought of himself that way.


that's what i'm saying. i mean, how many people here believe bush was following the teachings of jesus? anybody?


Following the teachings is one thing. Claiming you're a Christian, and or attending church, is another thing. Do I believe Bush was following compassionate teachings? Nah. Do I believe he considered himself a Christian? Yep.
edit on 6-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


soo, what atheist leaders can we examine and find out if they were really atheists? cause i think that's a pertinent question. if it turns out they were say, buddhists (LOL!!!! yes i know how unlikely that is, just saying) or christians or muslims or jews, wouldn't you want to know that? that's what i want to know. i want to know why a guy who called himself a christian, managed to ignore almost every teaching of jesus, while torturing and killing millions of people.

now let's hop skip and jump across the border to russia, where stalin orders the entire ukraine to be starved to death in their own homes. was stalin a religious man? don't you want to know the rationale for his decisions? what drove his philosophy other than psychopathy?

i mean these are legitimate areas of inquiry and i inquired! results were not good.
edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Both Bush and Hitler believed they were following gods will. It does not matter whether or not you think they were good at following the teachings because they did. You do not get to pick and choose with who your followers are because they choose what they believe.

How many Christians have ever been able to claim they are without sin and have followed all the teachings? Only one in history that I have heard of.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


Both Bush and Hitler believed they were following gods will. It does not matter whether or not you think they were good at following the teachings because they did. You do not get to pick and choose with who your followers are because they choose what they believe.

How many Christians have ever been able to claim they are without sin and have followed all the teachings? Only one in history that I have heard of.


agreed, but when leading a country, you better have your ducks in a row, cause with great power, comes great responsibility. but they don't have to because only the psychopaths make it to the top. do you understand what i'm telling you?
edit on 6-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Double post. Gah!
edit on 6-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



soo, what atheist leaders can we examine and find out if they were really atheists?


You and I have a very different opinion on what atheism means (apparently) so I don't know how to answer that. You attribute a whole hell of a lot to atheism that I strongly feel is erroneous. If we examined an atheist leader to see if he/she was an atheist... the only thing we should be looking for is whether he/she believed in God or not! You would be looking for moral depravity and darwinism and such.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I do not think Bush was a psychopath. He may be a bit dumb in my opinion and definitely not a good speaker. One of the main reasons he was elected was for his Christian views. Many people loved him for that.

Do you get what I am saying?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

soo, what atheist leaders can we examine and find out if they were really atheists? cause i think that's a pertinent question. if it turns out they were say, buddhists (LOL!!!! yes i know how unlikely that is, just saying)


Atheist leaders? not sure how you'd qualiify that, the ones with the most twitter followers? the most facebook likes? the most books published? what?

And BTW, Buddhists are atheists........this is what I meant by taking the time to learn about the subjects you choose to talk about before posting....



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

If you fill your posts with accurate and correct information that confirms what you're attempting to say, and when you've been shown to be wrong you actually address it, you'll find you'll get better responces......

What I don't want is more babbling walls of text that take paragraphs to convey what could be said in a sentence


okay i'll address the survival of the fittest comment. you see there where it says "socially", that's what I'm talking about. socially. it's a social event when a leader, who has no moral compunction to consider while enacting his decisions about who gets to live and who gets to die, kills people. he doesn't have to wrestle with concepts like what may happen to him after he dies. he thinks he and everyone he has abused, just turns to dirt and that's the end of it. without a value above that of fatty tissues and connective tissues, functioning on chemical and eletrical signals, we just become toys in the hands of he who has the biggest guns and best scientists.

you should see some of the stuff that went on during the rise of lenin, marx and stalin. these guys thought of people as test subjects. laboratory rats. meant only to serve the guys who were the most ruthless. hasn't our history proved that ruthlessness backed by brains, wins wars? they know that. we aren't the only ones that know that. the leaders know that very well. they view anyone who isn't capable of the same level of ruthlessness and devil may care, as the natural order of inferior species. by the time they get that wacked in the head, i doubt they even think we are humans.






top topics



 
15
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join