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.

 

Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I am trying to Love all of you as best as I can.
I do not think I was conditioned into that, but rather I fight against all odds to seek it.

I don't know if that is a common perception, or if it is uncommon.
If it were common and engineered, that would be fascinating.
I do doubt such a scenario however.

If it is uncommon and not engineered as the hypothesis would presume, that it would leave room open to say statements like "Advertising companies attempt to engineer markets to increase profits and product awareness." Not all attempts work out, a lot fail.

We could say this about governments, religions, any special interest group that passes out any type of information....
It just becomes so arbitrary. Heck my very post here is influential to anyone who reads it even if they disagree....




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
The arguments I'm reading can be summarized as : ''These changes are good because its progressive!'' .... Why is it progressive? .... ''because its good.'' .... And why is it good? ''because its progressive''...who defined progressive as meaning reversing traditional values?....''religion bad! religion bad!''. Its like the electrolytes scene from THAT movie. I'd say the media and those powers behind it have done a solid job of not only rewriting social norms but also convincing people that its a 'good' thing.


Absolutely no one here has made that argument Skorp. If that's the only thing you're hearing, you're just not listening.

And your Strawman is literally pole-dancing at the moment ...

Again, I ask you, since you just repeated your claim again: what are "the powers behind" the media?

Why will you not state what you believe that is? Is it a secret? Do you just not have any direct evidence of your claim?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Mmmm, sorry, you got it backwards.

That's how people use the Bible and the Koran...the circular argument that Lucid Lunacy illustrated with the classic visual.

You should try looking at actual "progressive" sites, for a whole week, sk0rp, while staying away from conservative ones... - do some actual research and learn what you are talking about before jumping on the conservative oppression machine. Here are a few links for you:


www.rightwingwatch.org... Reports on the inane rhetoric of the Religious Right.

www.facebook.com... covers the New Apostolic Reformation - the insidious, under-the-radar heavies that mean to make USA a theocracy

consortiumnews.com... independent journalism

www.alternet.org...

www.smirkingchimp.com...

www.salon.com...

progressive.org...

History and Mission
5
The Progressive is a monthly leftwing magazine of investigative reporting, political commentary, cultural coverage, activism, interviews, poetry, and humor.

It steadfastly stands against
militarism,
the concentration of power in corporate hands,
and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry.

It champions
peace,
social and economic justice,
civil rights,
civil liberties,
human rights,
a preserved environment,
and a reinvigorated democracy.

Its bedrock values are nonviolence and freedom of speech.


Now - tell me which of those tenets listed above, from The Progressive Magazine (established 1909 - 115 years ago) you disagree with.

Progressivism is NOT socialism, it is NOT communism, and those who insist ignorantly that it is are watching ---- FOX NEWS.


edit on 2/13/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


ETA a few more resources for readers' enjoyment and awareness.

edit on 2/13/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Dang acronyms. I always forget to check that out.

No, I don't need none o'dat CIA juju ... nosiree.


I hesitate to make the claim that I understand what you're talking about with Fox News, although I have several friends who I would describe as being in the same boat as your family members ...

... and really, it's not merely the right-wing/left-wing rhetoric ... it's that half of us are demonizing the other half. We're ALL Americans. When I was growing up, even though we could spit and sputter in disagreement with each other, at the end, we all agreed to disagree.

Now, I don't see anything like that anymore. I don't see any chance of consensus on the horizon.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


What will it take to bring us all together, I know this is getting old, but look how divided we are, does ATS mirror society?

How many issues are we going to let divide us, how many stones will we throw?

Brothers and sisters,

I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age,

“He catches the wise in their craftiness”

So then, no more boasting about human leaders!




The more things change, the more they stay the same.
edit on 092828p://bThursday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

@Gryphon66.... I ask you, since you just repeated your claim again: what are "the powers behind" the media?

That was the question posed in the OP...to the thread particpants. I proposed that media played a role in altering and reversing social norms.

Why will you not state what you believe that is? Is it a secret? Do you just not have any direct evidence of your claim?
I already mentioned Joe Bidens admitting that the media played a crucial role in shaping peoples perceptions. If you want evidence, what is stopping you from looking it up? Google?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Did you consider Stormdancer that perhaps folks don't like the implication that they're children, that there is some "greater truth" that one or a few folks have access to? Food for thought.


I think we'd be far, far better served to drop as much egotism as we can, and work to find consensus. What can we agree on? It's obvious what we DISagree on.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Stormdancer777

What will it take to bring us all together


The only thing I think can possibly achieve that is knowledge of God's Infinite Love.
And to share it through kindness and compassion rather than condemnations and scorn.

That is a very hard thing to do for anyone. All of us.
But I will try to aim for standards I know I cannot reach.
All I can hope is that I challenge others to strive for more as well.

Thank you for everything Stormdancer.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


If there's evidence so readily available on Google to support your claim, why not provide it? You're making the claim!

You haven't just asked the membership for an answer to a question you have repeatedly and relentlessly referred to the "group behind" this supposed media campaign you consistently in post after post refer to. You have staked the claim, sir or madam. It's your place to back it up.

No one is talking about whether the media can affect opinions ... now you're just waffling. I'm not asking you to prove that media has an effect, I'm asking you for evidence of the group or groups that you allege are behind a media-based plot in this country to reverse "traditional values" as you refer to them.

It's not my job to do your work for you. Can you simply answer the question: do you have any proof of this alleged group or groups?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Did you consider Stormdancer that perhaps folks don't like the implication that they're children, that there is some "greater truth" that one or a few folks have access to? Food for thought.


I think we'd be far, far better served to drop as much egotism as we can, and work to find consensus. What can we agree on? It's obvious what we DISagree on.



Exactly, take a good hard look, we are children, in the big picture of the universe, pathetic.

The wisest among us are still clueless.

But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

However, ATS wouldn't have a forum without our differences of opinions.............

hmmm

edit on 092828p://bThursday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

muzzleflash

Stormdancer777

What will it take to bring us all together


The only thing I think can possibly achieve that is knowledge of God's Infinite Love.
And to share it through kindness and compassion rather than condemnations and scorn.

That is a very hard thing to do for anyone. All of us.
But I will try to aim for standards I know I cannot reach.
All I can hope is that I challenge others to strive for more as well.

Thank you for everything Stormdancer.


Yes, flash'




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Ah lass, you're winnin' me over with Mr. Bobby Burns now ... LOL.


No, sadly it's not that easy. I'm pointing to one of the really big issues between modern religious folk and modern secular folk.

There's no way to use the 'child' metaphor without being on some level rather insulting.

I could say that "only a child would believe fairy stories about a invisible friend in the sky that helps them out."

See how that just stings, even when I mean nothing by it, per se? Even when I put it in quotes to show that I'm only providing an example and not actually calling believers children?

(That's what the quotes were for, btw, exemplis gratis.)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



I'm asking you for evidence of the group or groups that you allege are behind a media-based plot in this country to reverse "traditional values" as you refer to them.

It's not my job to do your work for you. Can you simply answer the question: do you have any proof of this alleged group or groups?


The question was not directed to me, but my answer regarding these alleged groups can be found in our various and varied self described, so called experts. Clergy promising things that God cannot or will not deliver, government promising, by way of government controlled media, to deliver things they have no intention of delivering. But at the top of that heap are the hordes of "wanting to believe in something greater than themselves" people who cling to pontificating self described experts, without whom everybody could decide for themselves if rainbows are omens or somebody's science project.

We don't read the books, we don't read the bills, we allow "experts" to decipher what they mean. In that sense, yes, we are children waiting to be led to the promise land.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You have dodged the questions I asked. Do you plan to answer them?

So - what would be your plan of action, if YOU were in charge?
You don't want "Christians" because they're not Muslims; you don't want atheists because they're not Muslims. You don't want people to be free because ....... why, again?

You want to round up the entertainers and cut their tongues out? Remove the eyes that watch them? You don't want exposure of the facts/histories that show Patriarchal religion being manipulative, coercive, brainwashing (which it is)?

What are you so worried about? The souls of others?



What you are suggesting is that America needs MORE censorship - when its Freedom of Press ratings just plummeted, according to Reporters Without Borders; even though the ranking is still considered a "satisfactory situation."

This was (re)posted this morning by skyfloating, one of our esteemed mods; read the article, and look at the map.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
For more info, go to the previous thread about it, which is linked below the OP.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

racasan
Modern communications have allowed for the creation of a market place of ideas and good ideas will tend to spread and bad ideas will tend to disappear

And example of a good idea would be, if I let other people alone to do their thing then they are much more likely to leave me alone to do my thing


The natural mind is selfish (my way is right), those ideas which allow for the freedom of selfish thought tend to spread naturally through mankind, those that promote selflessness will tend to disappear.

"If I let others do whatever they want, I can do whatever I want." = selfish thinking.

This type of tolerance is akin to a quid pro qua which benefits "me" (selfish thinking).

God Bless,



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
The arguments I'm reading can be summarized as : ''These changes are good because its progressive!'' .... Why is it progressive? .... ''because its good.'' .... And why is it good? ''because its progressive''...

No .. they aren't using circular logic.

It's been clearly stated many times .. some of the changes are good because they benefit humanity. The changes are more compassionate. They are changes based on being better educated about life and the world. They are changes that are based on better understanding of human psychology and sociology and science. Some of the changes you complain about .. such as the acceptance of homosexuals .. isn't a bad change. It's a good change. And women becoming self reliant and no longer being second class citizens to men ... that's a good change. And people being educated enough to understand that a good chunk of what they've been fed from main stream religions simply isn't true .. that's a good change because TRUTH is always a good thing.




edit on 2/13/2014 by FlyersFan because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   



There's no way to use the 'child' metaphor without being on some level rather insulting.

I could say that "only a child would believe fairy stories about a invisible friend in the sky that helps them out."

See how that just stings, even when I mean nothing by it, per se? Even when I put it in quotes to show that I'm only providing an example and not actually calling believers children?


The quote provided is calling all mankind children, not secular mankind children, while believers something better.

In God's eyes, according to His word in scripture, all mankind during this present age (worldly) are "children" spiritually. We are equal, whether believer or not. This present age is not the age for the salvation (maturing) of Mankind; that time is in the age to follow.

God Bless,



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


A few months back the American oligarchy desperately tried to get the American public interested in a war in Syria and they failed so how do you account for that in your groupthink scenario?

Brzezinski: "Populist Resistance" is Derailing the New World Order



I am wondering how a Muslim who doesn’t even live in the country would even care if America becomes more secular

What advantage do you think you will get with a more Christian America?
Or
What disadvantage do you think you will get with a more secular America?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Wow I see a lot of Love coming from you too!
This is an amazing day so far I must admit.

Thank you for sharing your feelings of compassion with others.
We all know this is what everyone really needs.

It looks like I am your Fan because you got me Soul Flyin!
I don't care if it's cheezy.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 



A few months back the American oligarchy desperately tried to get the American public interested in a war in Syria and they failed so how do you account for that in your groupthink scenario?


Yes, the majority of American people were opposed to any attack on Syria but that opinion was based on the lies surrounding Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and more, but American opinion did not stop the oligarchy from moving forward to take down Assad, that big bad orthodox Christian in Russia did that.

BTW, the oligarchs didn't entirely fail in their ambitions, they openly funded the foreign based "opposition" army with American tax dollars and Syria is now basically bloody rubble while sovereign citizens of Syria are fleeing their homes for their lives. It doesn't matter whether or not American's were "interested", that is never essential to the guys with the checkbook.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join