Why Keep Posting Religion on a Conspiracy Site?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok I will just be blunt then. What part of TAXPAYER DOLLARS supporting disgusting and ugly art forms don't you understand? And how is that ultimately different from displaying it openly in public, especially when it's all over the news in numerous countries?

Anyway, since you chose to ridicule me on the use of Hindu cosmology, I will now just point you to another ATS thread discussing CARL SAGAN'S views on Hindu cosmology as related to scientific theory. So now I rest my case and good night to you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: jude11

Ummm...

I guess I probably fell asleep and missed something.

There is now a problem with religious posters making religious posts... in the religion forum?

?

Does that follow for the chemtrail and 9/11 conspiracy forums, too? Are people posting on those topics in those forums now personas-non-gratas?

What about the UFO forums? Should we confine ourselves to talking about baseball or something there?

Just trying to catch up on what I missed in my sleep so I can get a handle on this Brave New World! Don't want to stay TOO far behind the times!

It is clear to me that some anti-discussion people dislike discussion so much WITHIN the religious forums because well.....




Pretty pathetic, at least even some non-religious people have even seen the absurdity of it and have posted so in this thread.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
It is clear to me that some anti-discussion people dislike discussion so much WITHIN the religious forums because well.....

Pretty pathetic, at least even some non-religious people have even seen the absurdity of it and have posted so in this thread.

I guess whats not clear to you is that this is not about posting in the religion forum. Even I would defend that. Try to keep up.

originally posted by: inbound

What I am aware of is that english cannot be your first language. I AM NOT THE OP. Im not sure how you got to that conclusion, maybe god told you. You get it now?

I must have misunderstood when I read

this thread, and my comments are related to injecting these things in conversations where they are not relevant to the topic at hand.

And I must have gotten the idea that you were the one defining the topic and the frames and limits of the thread at hand.

While I am an atheist/anti-theist myself, I highly value that such topics can be discussed with (some) civility and intelligence on in this or any public forum. Mostly, for the following reasons:

1. It's important that these topics DO get discussed on something as wild and wonderful as the internet here. As a species we need to cover these topics in a public way to grow and learn about each other. It actually helps provide tolerance of other ways of thinking by seeing how many differences are out there.

2. The posts on here serve as a way to express our individualism and beliefs/non-beliefs without the awful comments one might see on a YouTube video section.

3. This is a great way for folks who are seeking their own paths to read and learn and make decisions for themselves. While it's not the best place to research the actual theology on anything in particular, this forum really shows the diversity of belief systems and has an element of intelligence within the debates. Many folks benefit from reading forums such as these without spending a lot of time/money on books etc.

a reply to: ketsuko

I guess my point is if you accuse people of coming here and proselytizing because they are insecure, I'd say it's the opposite. People who are insecure tend to seek ways to surround themselves only with others who think like they do.

Why do you use the words accuse?

I didn't accuse anyone but simply replied to the thread and what it asks readers of ATS.

I said believers and believe non believers alike are conflicted internally, yes they could be insecure but verbally wont say such and that is the reason they are here discussing and debating.

Your post opposing mine sort of proves my point.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Ok I will just be blunt then. What part of TAXPAYER DOLLARS supporting disgusting and ugly art forms don't you understand? And how is that ultimately different from displaying it openly in public, especially when it's all over the news in numerous countries?

Wow I ask you about if you wish to make the country into a theocracy and you change the subject. I think you did that on purpose. As far as grants to ugly art I say deal with it. You don't get to control the content of said art and no it isn't being shoved in your face. If you can't handle it being on the news then turn the TV off but you can't do that because you need that same news to tell you what to be outraged by. Seriously you are going to cry about a piece of art you don't like on the news while they show million dollar bombs blowing people up. You seem sensitive to all the wrong things.

BTW it had been displayed where there were other art displays it has also been bought for around 300K (crazy) so you don't get to dictate to the owner either and it still has not been made into a public monument. So your argument is invalid.

Anyway, since you chose to ridicule me on the use of Hindu cosmology, I will now just point you to another ATS thread discussing CARL SAGAN'S views on Hindu cosmology as related to scientific theory. So now I rest my case and good night to you.

Either you are over sensitive or you are feining sensitivity. I didn't ridicule you on cosmology. I said you are free to believe what you wish. I don't agree with it being a worthy answer to fill in for what science doesn't know. Just because I don't agree with you does not make it ridicule. Me telling you the only way we will have problems is if you try to force your beliefs without evidence on me is also not ridicule.

I am ridiculing you now for throwing that card because it was uncalled for. Like claiming persecution where there is none.

Only having been a member a couple months, I think most of the religion threads I see on ATS are not posted by religious people trying to convert others but by folks questioning organized religion or the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

One of the things nonbelievers don't get about Christianity is that Christians sincerely believe that it's so great that they want everybody to experience it. Sort of like discovering a terrific chocolate dessert at a restaurant and telling everyone about it--to use a poor analogy.

As to why such threads appear on a conspiracy site, another poster noted that ATS is ultimately about seeking the truth. Jesus Christ claimed he, himself, is "the truth." (John 14:6). Can you think of any other person in history who has made that claim? Sure, some lunatics, but through the centuries, billions of people believe Christ is right.

Another thing nonbelievers don't get is that God, an extra-universal being, cannot be proven or disproven with science or reason. By definition, he must be "outside" this universe, so he is not necessarily bound by its laws.

I sincerely doubt any Christians will convert any nonbelievers on ATS. If they need scientific or reasonable evidence to change their minds, it simply isn't going to happen.

a reply to: inbound

RIght! What was meant was no religious posting at all in the entire conspiracy forum (because there's just not enough room here for even religious conspiracy theories!!!!)

a reply to: Grimpachi

Wow I ask you about if you wish to make the country into a theocracy and you change the subject.

Darn good thing we don't live in Iran or some place like that where the dear leader's face is up everywhere. I'll take the Ten Commandments thank you very much.
As for Theocracy no thank you to that either. I kind of like the REPUBLIC our Founders set up. And that means freedom of speech and freedom to worship whom we like. Atheists do like to interpret it as freedom FROM religion, but even the Supreme Court declared SECULAR HUMANISM a religion of sorts, because the secular humanists at one time declared themselves a religion unto themselves. The religion of no God. And that is what's in our face in our public schools now! Theocracy? Big Brother is laughing so hard his gut is about to split.
The purpose our Founding Fathers had was not to establish a State religion. And we do not have that. But I do wonder about all the people who seem to think that it's ok to implement some Sharia Law. By it's very nature it imposes religious demands directly into our Law structure. That is in my opinion what you should be worried about, not a piece of granite with the Ten Commandments etched into it.

BTW it had been displayed where there were other art displays it has also been bought for around 300K (crazy) so you don't get to dictate to the owner either

And what does that have to do with things being in your face? I don't care what it was bought for, it's still in people's faces if it's in a gallery somewhere. Did you not understand the point I was making about public monies being used to display ugly art? That is not the only instance of course. Did you not understand that the National Endowment for the Arts is a government entity using public money? No, apparently you did not understand this point. Interestingly, the Serrano piece got the attention of Congress on the use of $15,000 for the work paid to the artist through the Endowment for the Arts, and there is a Congressional record of the discussion. www.csulb.edu...

#4. Well, if this is what contemporary art has sunk to, this level, this outrage, this indignity - some may want to sanction that, and that is fine. But not with the use of taxpayers' money. This is not a question of free speech. This is a question of abuse of taxpayers' money. If we allow this group of so-called art experts to get away with this, to defame us and to use our money, well, then we do not deserve to be in office.

There, THERE Is the Congressional record for the discussion of the use of public money to fund ugly and vulgar art forms.

ok I knew there was more ummm art on display in public places artfcity.com...

originally posted by: inbound

I guess whats not clear to you is that this is not about posting in the religion forum. Even I would defend that. Try to keep up.

Did we read the same OP?

What do YOU think it's about, then?

From the OP, it's not about posting in the religion forum per se, it's about making religious posts in the religion forum.

WTF?

a reply to: nenothtu

The point is really that the OP and other atheists here would like to eliminate religious posting completely. I hope they don't expect others to be tolerant of their views in return.
More specifically in the OP since I just went back and re read it, the OP specifically has a problem with people trying to convert him or her to Christianity. Just wait till someone tries something more errrrr direct to convert.....
It's a bit like government regulations, where people somehow feel that if the government just makes more and more regulations that would solve their problems.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Darn good thing we don't live in Iran or some place like that where the dear leader's face is up everywhere. I'll take the Ten Commandments thank you very much.

I am very glad I don't live in Iran though lets be honest if you had been raised in Iran you would be muslim not christian that is the thing about religions the likelihood of what you believe pretty much depends on where you were born. While you may take the ten commandments I take the separation clause.

As for Theocracy no thank you to that either. I kind of like the REPUBLIC our Founders set up. And that means freedom of speech and freedom to worship whom we like. Atheists do like to interpret it as freedom FROM religion, but even the Supreme Court declared SECULAR HUMANISM a religion of sorts,

I am glad you say you do not want a theocracy but you sure do seem to want things censored like a theocracy would. You are also using the term religion for secular humanism very loose. Here is what has been said by the supreme court on the matter.

Secular Humanism and the Supreme Court

Did the Supreme Court recognize "Secular Humanism" as a religion?

by Susan Batte

Argument

In Torcaso v. Watkins, a Maryland Notary Public was reinstated despite his refusal to declare belief in God. The Supreme Court noted that many religions, including Secular Humanism, deny the existence of God.

TORCASO V. WATKINS, October 1961, US Supreme Court:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

Response

The above information appears in a footnote. Whether or not secular humanism was or was not a religion was not the issue in Torcaso. However, the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals in Smith v. Bd. of Comm. of Alabama (1987) held:

"The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the "delicate question" of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so in this case, for we find that, even assuming that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the establishment clause, Appellees have failed to prove a violation of the establishment clause through the use in the Alabama public schools of the textbook at issue in this case."
Argument

In other Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); Justice Clark stated:

"[T]he State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' "

Response

Of course, the quote would make more sense in context:

It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." We DO NOT AGREE, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect." (emphasis added)

candst.tripod.com...

While you may not like it Americans have the right to not believe in Deities and those rights are protected so yes there is freedom from religion.

The religion of no God. And that is what's in our face in our public schools now! Theocracy?

You are just plain wrong just look above on the supreme court rulings dealing with that subject. I even put it in bold for you.

The purpose our Founding Fathers had was not to establish a State religion.

Correct nor let the state favor any religion or require religious test.

But I do wonder about all the people who seem to think that it's ok to implement some Sharia Law. By it's very nature it imposes religious demands directly into our Law structure.

As far as I know the only religion trying to implement religious laws in this country have been the Christian faith. I will fight that or any other religion that tries.

That is in my opinion what you should be worried about, not a piece of granite with the Ten Commandments etched into it.

So now we are back full circle to the question I keep asking that never gets answered. Why do they feel the need to Tag public lands with their religious monuments? If it means so little then they shouldn't be so determined to do it and they sure as hell don't like competing monuments next to theirs so obviously it is something to worry about.

And what does that have to do with things being in your face? I don't care what it was bought for, it's still in people's faces if it's in a gallery somewhere.

OMG there is a piece of art in a gallery somewhere you find offensive. As far as it being in peoples faces "at a Gallery" well do you know what the purpose of art galleries are? I can tell you they were not made to hide art.

That is not the only instance of course.

So there is more than one piece of art at a gallery that you don't like. Perhaps they should be burned[sarcasm].

Did you not understand the point I was making about public monies being used to display ugly art? That is not the only instance of course. Did you not understand that the National Endowment for the Arts is a government entity using public money?

If your argument is there was a grant given for the arts then I understand your position but if your argument is there was a grant given for art "that you don't like" then my my answer is deal with it. BTW the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

I think the only thing you are really arguing is they didn't control the content. You may also not like that it won the competition which is what the 15k was for it certainly looks that what the congressmen were enraged about. I am not to worried about congressional art critics they get pissed when schools teach the earth is older than 6,000 years. Which also brings me to your beginning comment of not caring that it sold for over 300K. See I am not an artist nor an art critic so the only way I can judge an artist success is by how much their art sold for. In this case I have to say "mission accomplished".

This is the transcript of the congressional record.

Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do.

On what conceivable basis does anybody who would engage in such blasphemy and insensitivity toward the religious community deserve to be honored?

They are insulting the very fundamental basis of this country. I say again I resent it

Of course I think they are a bunch of butthurt fundies that think they know what art is and isn't especially when it comes to their religion. Reminds me of drawing Muhammad.

Unless you are advocating that the National Endowment for the Arts never offer grants or hold competitions to any artist again then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Sorry OP. But your post REEKS of complete ignorance. I'm not here to argue but... you've annoyed me a tad.

I am somewhat religious. I have posted about religion and spirituality. Heck, i've even USED it in debates.

How am I any more of a convert for the above than someone who is Athiest? And is trying to push their views to make a point?

Think about what you write before you post. This works both ways. We're not all crazy religious converts - if you're happy having your belief system or "peace" I wouldn't dream of telling you otherwise. We're all very different - I'm more than likely VERY different from the next religious person you talk to - Talk about mass generalization.

Talking about religion on a conspiracy sight is NOT seeking to convert people. It's using YOUR own beliefs in debates. Sorry, you're extremely misguided in your views.

Oh yeah! And "WE" alienate people...

Quote : "I have no idea why ATS allows this but you just keep posting not only in your threads but in ours which have nothing to do with your beliefs."

Take a hint, we're not all crazy.

/rant.

originally posted by: ConvincedMan
Only having been a member a couple months, I think most of the religion threads I see on ATS are not posted by religious people trying to convert others but by folks questioning organized religion or the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

One of the things nonbelievers don't get about Christianity is that Christians sincerely believe that it's so great that they want everybody to experience it. Sort of like discovering a terrific chocolate dessert at a restaurant and telling everyone about it--to use a poor analogy.

As to why such threads appear on a conspiracy site, another poster noted that ATS is ultimately about seeking the truth. Jesus Christ claimed he, himself, is "the truth." (John 14:6). Can you think of any other person in history who has made that claim? Sure, some lunatics, but through the centuries, billions of people believe Christ is right.

Another thing nonbelievers don't get is that God, an extra-universal being, cannot be proven or disproven with science or reason. By definition, he must be "outside" this universe, so he is not necessarily bound by its laws.

I sincerely doubt any Christians will convert any nonbelievers on ATS. If they need scientific or reasonable evidence to change their minds, it simply isn't going to happen.

I disagree with your contention that Christian proselytizers push Christianity because they think it's so great and want everyone to experience it. In my experience, fundamentalists are drawn to it and proselytize because it gives them the opportunity to condemn.

I've met a number of people who have raved about desserts but I've never met one who wished death on someone who chose to not try it. That can't be said for fundamentalists I've encountered who eventually get around to threatening those who reject their sales pitch.

As for what Jesus said, there's zero historical evidence (ie. contemporaneous documentation) that he said anything or even lived. He didn't write the Gospel of John. That was written multiple generations after he allegedly lived by someone who could not possibly have witnessed him saying anything. You may as well have quoted Frodo or Harry Potter.

Nonbelievers absolutely do get that the existence of God can not be proven. It's believers who don't get that and claim that their belief makes God's existence fact. That's why nonbelievers challenge them to prove that God exists. Nonbelievers also understand that it's impossible to prove a negative. Fundamentalists, as a rule, don't even know what that means.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not all of us.
But I think those of us that do simply want to shut up the opposition.

Jesus message was not to condemn generally, in fact the only people he did condemn were the money grabbers at the temple and the religious leaders of the day because they were abusing his people.
The most culturally hated people of the day, tax collectors and harlots and there type were embraced by him, not condemned.
Fundamentalists that preach sinners are going to burn forever, are truly clueless, and deserve the scorn heaped upon them by the non-believers. And for that matter, even from Christians that have progressed beyond that archaic false dogma, by just studying the bible.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I used accuse because the OP has a slightly accusatory tone.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Who said anything about theocracy? But if it's acceptable to fund sacrilege and disrespect, then why isn't it likewise acceptable to fund respect in a 10 Commandments monument? Or is it only that you don't find the positive aspect of that funding to be acceptable, but if someone gets funding to dis religion, then clearly it's not being endorsed?

No one is saying Serrano can't make whatever art he wants on his own dime.