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: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I think there is a solution to every problem, especially in our present situation.
I do not believe there is any heart or mind that is out of reach.
It always will require deep thought and to put one's self in their shoes to get an idea of their existence.

The hardest part is to try to understand someone and not look down on them.
Also it is extremely difficult to balance one's own ego with a reasonable amount of humility and pride.

I am Proud that I have courage to tell You and everyone I Love you deeply.
I am Humbled by the fact I struggle to live up to it.
Today seems a little easier though.




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


For the most part agree with what you have here but my point that “the majority of American people were opposed to any attack on Syria” still stands and so does my question to the op about his groupthink idea



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

ElohimJD



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,


I realize that makes a big difference to a certain mindset, EJD, but all that "semantic hand waving" doesn't do anything for folks who think like I do. See, as hard as it may be to believe, I just don't buy any of it. So to a certain mindset, when that kind of rhetoric is applied, we shut down.

If the goal is communication, that stuff needs to wait on the table.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

racasan
reply to post by frazzle
 


For the most part agree with what you have here but my point that “the majority of American people were opposed to any attack on Syria” still stands and so does my question to the op about his groupthink idea


So called groupthink in America is divisive, not inclusive. And all the while Americans are being divided on every subject under the sun, the groups doing the ACTING are those who are doing the governing and lobbying for actions that are opposed by individuals who are no more important to either of these powerful groups than a beheaded Syrian Nun. We only THINK our opinions matter.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Again I am in agreement with you, so you also don’t go along with the op’s view that there is an all encompassing group trying to make Americans less religious?

And I have seen a lot of people make similar comments on things as you have put here all over the internet – that must imply the divisive thing is not working so well anymore



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

@racasan

.... ....Syria and they failed so how do you account for that in your groupthink scenario?
International conflicts are not one sided, there are many players and powers involved...and so ''groupthink'' can be challenged by those with opposing views. However, an internal situation can be tightly monitored. It is possible for one sided media to project A particular kind of view as being THE ''correct'' one, while mocking and dismissing another. It works on the same principle as conditioning the masses that brand X is better than brand Y.


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?
As a Muslim, absolutely nothing prevents me from recognizing values such as ''old fashioned'' marriages and families and morality in Christian societies... The reason because we uphold the same in ours. Anyway, the point of this thread was to look into how christian America had its traditional values rewritten by nameless faceless entities. I.e- means unknown, unelected powers destroyed the values that America once had So when asked to pinpoint those who brought about these major changes in norms, it has been conclusively demonstrated that no one here has a decent solid answer. (somebody actually suggested hippies as being the root cause. You can take that as seriously as you want to, I think it is a pathetic and laughable explanation.)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Soviet espionage created America’s political correctness culture
www.examiner.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

racasan
reply to post by frazzle
 


Again I am in agreement with you, so you also don’t go along with the op’s view that there is an all encompassing group trying to make Americans less religious?

And I have seen a lot of people make similar comments on things as you have put here all over the internet – that must imply the divisive thing is not working so well anymore


No, I do agree with OP. The success of the plan is quite apparent, the sheer number of breakaway churches and dwindling congregations demonstrates divisiveness. But as far as I can tell, the general falling away from Christianity has to be attributed to thousands of years of so called experts rewriting and restructuring of the basic principles on "how to live a good life and not harm others". They haven't taught that very basic respect for life for some time now, the church's views have almost always been my way or the highway to hell. The difference now is technology and the ability to communicate our discontent with the status quo on such a large scale. We no longer have to believe the guy in the pulpit just because he has a degree from a seminary and a 501c3.



edit on 13-2-2014 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

@ Gryphon66... 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.
I said there is a power behind these changes and I asked ''who or what'' it is. Meaning, that question was left open for discussion. I did not say ''this group in particular are behind these chanes''.

No one is talking about whether the media can affect opinions .
I have, thats what the whole Op was about. And a lot of people contibuted on the same line of thought. Thats what the thread was intended to be about all along.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Actually the hippy thing is probably right – my whole life I have one way or another been involved with for want of a better term content providers – musicians/artists/film makers all-sorts – each and everyone of them ordinary people with something to say and the internet has given them the equivalent of a radio or TV station with which they can communicate with everybody else on the internet so that’s probably 3 or 4 billion people by now

And none of these people are under the control of anybody but their own conscience and all of them sick of the way things are

And its not just in the west
www.nytimes.com...

Last October, a woman in Qassim, considered Saudi Arabia’s most conservative region, lashed out at a member of the religious police who demanded that she cover her entire face (she was wearing a veil that left her eyes exposed). “Don’t provoke me!” the woman retorted. “Do you think we don’t know our own religion? We know our religion, and covered up before you even existed. The full facial cover is not forced upon a woman!” A 42-second video of her response blew up on Saudi social media. Using the hashtag #Don’tProvoke, people tweeted messages of support, criticizing the officer for berating a modestly dressed woman, and for doing so in front of her children. The public outpouring was a rarity in a country where, when it comes to confrontations between men and women, it is generally accepted that women are to blame.


edit on 13-2-2014 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Values and societal norms don't change unless someone first intended a change. It can happen either on the part of the people themselves OR those with the ability to shape the perceptions of the people. People did NOT start waking up and go about rewriting norms that they upheld for several generations. ________________________________________The acceptance of formerly shunned behaviours/ideas was the result of skilled manipulation and re-education, designed to alter society's perceptions on certain issues. Its on the same principle that ad campaigns and war propagnda works, except its 100 times more efficient. Part of this re-education is the idea that these changes are ''progressive''. A lot of times civil rights flavored language is used to promote these issues. You see it all the time whenever some celebrity speaks about it. So when a person accepts these changes, he does so thinking its ''progressive'' for the only reason it was suggested to him that it was ''progressive''. ________________________________________Yes, accepting these changes don't happen overnight. The erosion of religion combined with the non-stop media bombardment pushing the agenda creates the right conditions for people to accept these changes. Opposing voices are quickly silenced or ridiculed or misrepresented.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Stormdancer: With all due respect, one article fronting for one man's book, does not explain anything.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Skorp: SO, you're not going to answer because you don't have one. So you're alleging a cohesive, coordinated effort spanning fifty or sixty years bringing into play television networks, motion picture studios, radio, newspaper, internet all directed toward one goal ... and you can't offer any proof of the entity that's accomplishing this massive feat.

Okay, good enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What in the world are you folks talking about??? ... the Christians in the USA are doing fine and remain well in the majority!!!

Pew Forum - 78% of Americans are Christian

Gallup Poll -- 77% are Christian

Christian Century - 80% are Christian

... and so on and so on ... I absolutely cannot understand the constant "Christians are being targeted, victimized, belittled" nonsense ... you're in the majority and you always have been in this country. Try being a pagan-atheist-Taoist for a while if you want to feel left out in the cold ... sheesh.






posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
Values and societal norms don't change unless someone first intended a change. It can happen either on the part of the people themselves OR those with the ability to shape the perceptions of the people. People did NOT start waking up and go about rewriting norms that they upheld for several generations. ________________________________________The acceptance of formerly shunned behaviours/ideas was the result of skilled manipulation and re-education, designed to alter society's perceptions on certain issues. Its on the same principle that ad campaigns and war propagnda works, except its 100 times more efficient. Part of this re-education is the idea that these changes are ''progressive''. A lot of times civil rights flavored language is used to promote these issues. You see it all the time whenever some celebrity speaks about it. So when a person accepts these changes, he does so thinking its ''progressive'' for the only reason it was suggested to him that it was ''progressive''. ________________________________________Yes, accepting these changes don't happen overnight. The erosion of religion combined with the non-stop media bombardment pushing the agenda creates the right conditions for people to accept these changes. Opposing voices are quickly silenced or ridiculed or misrepresented.


So, I can decide to change values and societal norms just because I want them changed? What a load of meaninglessness!

Who designed and performed the "skilled manipulation and re-education" ? Oh wait, you don't have an answer, you're just sure that it happened.

Did you pull the "100 times more efficient" out of the air, or do you have some objective measure of what you're claiming?

No one can help that you don't like what's happened in our country and culture, nor that you seem to be obsessed with the word "progressive" along with gays/lesbians/bis/trans/etc.

There is no erosion of religion. See above. 75-80% of Americans are Christian. Christianity is alive and well in the USA.

It is not simply "norms" that have been rewritten, as much as you don't want to acknowledge it.

American citizens who have long been denied their equal civil rights are slowly being recognized over time.

The fact that you want to call that movement or trend or achievement something else ... is relevant only to you.
edit on 14Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:05:47 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: Corrections.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Gryphon66

I realize that makes a big difference to a certain mindset, EJD, but all that "semantic hand waving" doesn't do anything for folks who think like I do. See, as hard as it may be to believe, I just don't buy any of it. So to a certain mindset, when that kind of rhetoric is applied, we shut down.

If the goal is communication, that stuff needs to wait on the table.


Fair and reasonable retort. I agree with your logic here regarding effective communication and can understand where you are coming from.

I was mainly attempting to correct the misunderstanding that the quote provided was putting believers and non-believers into different categories. How that quote made you feel is real to your mind and I can respect those real feelings, saying something in an attempt to communicate that results in the listener "shutting down" would be a less effective means of communicating.

God Bless,



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

@ racasan.... Actually the hippy thing is probably right – my whole life I have one way or another been involved with for want of a better term content providers – musicians/artists/film makers all-sorts – each and everyone of them ordinary people with something to say and the internet has given them the equivalent of a radio or TV station with which they can communicate with everybody else on the internet so that’s probably 3 or 4 billion people by now

And none of these people are under the control of anybody but their own conscience and all of them sick of the way things are

The hippies were at best a subculture of its time... Like punks and metalheads. Under ''creative control'' of nobody but absolutely powerless to rewrite societal norms. The real power to control mainstream media and influence society lies elsewhere. But the entertainment industry seems to be responding to what people are in to. If the people behave stupidly, they give them stupid shows for entertainment. If people love whorish behaviour, they give them whorish singers and celebrities. But the love of stupidity and whorishness themselves was caused by the removal of decency and traditional values, that religion brought to the table.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 


I think you're missing a point if you reduce it merely to "my personal reaction" to your explanation. I'm trying to reach my hand over the fence to let you know that it is quite often the allocation of humanity to some blighted, sinful, diseased, childish, belittled, wretched, maligned state by too many of the Religious that puts so many of those who think differently completely off to your message and closes our ears to even the productive parts of your beliefs.

Let's take Christianity for a minute. In this story, Jesus Christ, co-equal with God Almighty the Father, comes to earth, suffers and dies, as expiation for the "sins" of humanity. However, problem is that those "sins" were set up and defined in fthe first place by the same God who then insisted that his Only Son be skewered on a Roman Cross. So, one would think that after the Crucifixion, all would be forgiven right? WRONG, humanity remains the sinful scum of the earth until they have the right kind of water applied to their heads, hands or whole body, jump through that hoop or this one, and woe, woe, woe, we're still only garbage.
edit on 14Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:22:25 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: OK



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Gryphon66.... and you can't offer any proof of the entity that's accomplishing this massive feat.

I've proved a murder has taken place and I'm asking ''who's behind it''... Because I'd like to know myself. Which is why I asked in OP ''who or what'' that entity is. My words in OP are on record..and I'm not interested in these pointless back and forths where I am asked to answer my own questions.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The world isn’t a shepherd and a lot of sheep, but it is a lot of subcultures stuck together that make up one big culture, I was a punk I lived in a very secular part of the world and was never religious nor was my family/friends/ neighbours – and I grew up to be a bad tempered atheist anarchist who quarrels with you here on this website that gets about 0.5 million visitors a month (if I am reading the stats right) and everybody else is from subcultures X who is/not/was religious

The whole world is made up of such interactions even more so now thanks to modern communications



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n

Gryphon66.... and you can't offer any proof of the entity that's accomplishing this massive feat.

I've proved a murder has taken place and I'm asking ''who's behind it''... Because I'd like to know myself. Which is why I asked in OP ''who or what'' that entity is. My words in OP are on record..and I'm not interested in these pointless back and forths where I am asked to answer my own questions.


Fair enough. Going with the "murder" metaphor then, can you give us your "list of suspects" or your "persons of interest"?

Here's my logic for repeatedly asking you for this information:

You very clearly see efforts to cause these changes that you pronounce in very clear detail, repeatedly, you're very certain that the media (and I'm assuming, entertainment industry) is caught up in the unified tactics, that have basically mind-controlled the American public into accepting other American citizens as citizens ... yet, you have no idea of who, what or where that control is coming from. Can you see how unlikely that is?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I couldn't control myself.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join