Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

reply to post by sizzle


you're kind of missing that this is a bit of a joke...
and i can give you plenty of examples of christians "witnessing"
and within the last 300 years i can give you a huge example of christian genocidal acts (see the history of native americans)

and how is the movement of atheist awareness scary?
we aren't inciting hatred against believers, we're not even telling people to actively de-religion the religious...
and

we're trying to show the world that we're here, we don't believe in god(s), and that you need to get used to it.
we're also engaging in consciousness raising efforts modeled after the feminist movement.



can religious, deistic, or agnostic people making future claims about atheists/atheism please provide something to support them?

it's kind of not polite for you to say "atheism is a cult" without giving it any backing.

What's happening here is that each side is taking the other side much too seriously. Try ignoring each other. It's so much easier than all the mud-slinging and name-calling. Honestly, I feel like I'm in a room full of children here. Are you adults or not?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and within the last 300 years i can give you a huge example of christian genocidal acts (see the history of native americans)

So was America founded and developed by Christians or Deists? Because when we're talking about the constitution being written or American government being founded they're Deists. But when they slaughtered natives or traded slaves they were devout Christians.

And can I play the "it wasn't in the name of Christianity but politics" card like when atheists say it wasn't in the name of atheism but communism?

*runs and hides*



[edit on 2/7/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Madness,
I see over and over how atheists go back hundreds of years to sling mud on Christians of today. I seriously have my doubts that any TRUE born-again Christians were involved in any of that. But I know this; Myself and many others are very angry over the treatment that the native americans received from the early settlers of this country. It is becoming a well known fact that Christopher Columbus was a member of the Knights of Malta, which is NOT a Christian organization. So why don't you guys update your mudslinging to the 21st century?

Edit:
Would also like to add just to give an example; Certain African-American (not all) still blame all anglo people for the enslavement of their ancestors. Even though not one person alive today, has held or owned slaves. Do you think that is fair? If you do, (assuming you are anglo) this puts the yoke of blame on you also to wear throughout eternity. Something you cannot ever be forgiven for, even though, you yourself, did nothing wrong.
How does that feel?

Another Edit: Just wanted to include the fact that ALL Anglo's were NOT in favor of slavery at that time, but, no matter, they all got the blame for it.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by sizzle]

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, lets try and start over.

After the 18 pages so far, do you think there is a conspiracy by atheists to 'overthrow' christianity?

How interesting.

I believe it was somewhere long ago in these 18 pages that I myself agreed, yes there is a conspiracy. A handful of members openly admitted and declared their desire to overthrow religions in general, and such statements are made all over ATS and the internet in general.

Is hemming and hawing, trying to deny the general consensus among atheists, really progress? Because if you ask the majority of atheists, they do want religion to end, they consider it a 'disease' There might be a minority of atheists willing to co-exist with religion... but they don't tend to stick their neck out. It's the extremists who convince us that there is a 'conspiracy' to end religion. They're out in the open with it.

Deny?

[edit on 7-2-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I believe it was somewhere long ago in these 18 pages that I myself agreed, yes there is a conspiracy.

Well, that's it sorted then, NWO has spoken - the conspiracy exists. Thread over...

A handful of members openly admitted and declared their desire to overthrow religions in general, and such statements are made all over ATS and the internet in general.

That's not a conspiracy. Some of those saying there should be a conspiracy to overthrow Xianity aren't even atheists, heh.

How are atheists going to overthrow religions? Wanting and doing are not the same thing.

Is hemming and hawing, trying to deny the general consensus among atheists, really progress? Because if you ask the majority of atheists, they do want religion to end, they consider it a 'disease'

There might be a minority of atheists willing to co-exist with religion... but they don't tend to stick their neck out. It's the extremists who convince us that there is a 'conspiracy' to end religion. They're out in the open with it.

I also want many things, but that doesn't a conspiracy make. I would like to see organised religion lose power in society. So what?

As I asked, but you ignored, what form does this conspiracy take?

Does it involve talking to people on the internets? Educating people to within an inch of their lives? Writing a few books? The destruction of churches and holy books? 'Conversions' to atheism at the sword? What exactly?

You supposedly know. So maybe you could enlighten us...

I see that many of us in this thread (self included) find the need to pull in outside issues that are off-topic of the Thread topic that asks, "Is there a Conspiracy of Atheism to Overthrow Christianity?'
In all reality, that is a very confining question. It is a yes or no question. And that is unfair on a discussion forum.
My apologies to Riley. He/she apparently needed some issues addressed and rather than seeing that I tried to squelch that. In my defense, (somewhat) I became concerned for a couple of members who were involved in a very heated debate at the time, and I didn't want to see either of them end up in serious trouble or banned. I had even asked for the thread to be closed, in order to protect them. But as Moderator NGC2736 pointed out to me, this was unfair to others who still wanted to discuss these issues. I had to see that, he/she was correct. It is not my place to be 'The Mighty Protector of All.' even though I meant well.
If it is okay with the moderators of this thread, it is certainly okay with me, as the OP, to expand this discussion a little more on certain issues, as long as we can remain civil. Could we try for that?


[edit on 7-2-2008 by sizzle]

reply to post by sizzle


Well, if you want to be a snot about it, I can play that game too.

What I meant, chuckles, is what is there to overthrow? Christianity is not a nation (though they keep trying to take those over). It's not an organization, it's not an institution. It's a belief, an idea. You cannot "overthrow" those. Now you could overthrow, say, the Catholic Church, but you could not overthrow Catholicism.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you already asked me this? And I do not appreciate your accusation of me being a "snot' about this. I'd also like to ask why you find it necessary to show up on my threads and go out of your way to be rude to me? Some people might call that stalking. If you have nothing civil to add, why bother. You are just being disruptive and rude.

edit for spelling error

One more edit: WalkingFox, I will take this opportunity to apologize for being short with you, but this came after you seemingly were rude to me several times on some of my other threads. I apologize that I handled this wrongly. I had forgotten that ATS affords us an ignore button when we feel that another member is pushing us beyond what we feel bearable. I might have to use it in this case.
But to try to answer your question in a more civil manner, I have posted earlier in this same thread that this topic was in response to another topic that was open on ATS that was of like subject matter.I apologize if the wording of this title thread is offensive to you or anyone else. It was not intended to be.
So let's try not to split hairs over the title, as it is far too late for me to change it for you or anyone else. Can we move along and discuss the issues at hand?

[edit on 7-2-2008 by sizzle]

[edit on 7-2-2008 by sizzle]

Borderline verbal abuse; mini-name calling will cease! If you can't learn from being told to play nice, then there are ways to get your attention. You may think that your attitude is OK, but it is NOT.

If you can't find the words to address someone on this board in a civil way, then keep silent. If you speak, then be prepared to pay for anything hateful or nasty that you post.

I cannot be any clearer than that.

Originally posted by sizzle
My apologies to Riley. He/she apparently needed some issues addressed and rather than seeing that I tried to squelch that. In my defense, (somewhat) I became concerned for a couple of members who were involved in a very heated debate at the time, and I didn't want to see either of them end up in serious trouble or banned. I had even asked for the thread to be closed, in order to protect them.

I accept and appreciate the apology Sizzle.. perhaps you need to just consider arguments more carefully in future.
Thankyou for the request but unfortuantly I dont think I can participate in the thread anymore as I have been warned despite not violating the rules. My post wasn't really offensive and I did not name call so I can't afford to take the risk.

Looks like you were right about the 'atheists should be seen and not heared' theory meletonin.



[edit on 7-2-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Riley,
I. for one, seriously hope that you will continue posting here. Your input is as valuable as anyone else's.
As for me and my errors, all that I can say about that is; I am a fallible, error prone human first and everything else, second. But I strive for growth and improvement. I learn from each and everyone of you on this board. That is why I urge you to keep posting Riley. You are a valuable person.

Originally posted by AshleyD
So was America founded and developed by Christians or Deists? Because when we're talking about the constitution being written or American government being founded they're Deists. But when they slaughtered natives or traded slaves they were devout Christians.

....well, clearly you're being a cultural isolationist here...
"americans" means anyone from the continent of north and south america
i also said 300 years...look at the age of the usa...

i was specifically talking about the christian missionaries...so, yes, they were christians.

the USA was founded by deists and christians... and possibly an atheist, but ben franklin's ideas on the issue are a bit of an enigma at times, so it's hard to discern what he really was.

And can I play the "it wasn't in the name of Christianity but politics" card like when atheists say it wasn't in the name of atheism but communism?

only if you can prove it. the communists were doing it in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism.

Originally posted by sizzle
Madness,
I see over and over how atheists go back hundreds of years to sling mud on Christians of today.

and i see christians talk about soviet russia as an example of atheism being a bad thing...which is odd, when they can't show how anything was being done in the name of atheism

then you see them mislabel hitler as an atheist.

I seriously have my doubts that any TRUE born-again Christians were involved in any of that.

and your overt bigotry is apparent. you believe that you are the one who can discern who is a true christian and who isn't. you even used the term "born-again" which shows your clear bias on this issue.

But I know this; Myself and many others are very angry over the treatment that the native americans received from the early settlers of this country.

well, that's good, but it doesn't stop that it happened.

It is becoming a well known fact that Christopher Columbus was a member of the Knights of Malta, which is NOT a Christian organization.

um...well, where the hell did you get that from?
seriously, i'm in malta right now, and i can't find any evidence that he was a member of the knights hospitalliers... and they were and still are a christian organization...

So why don't you guys update your mudslinging to the 21st century?

well, i've mentioned the christian separatists of india before...but i always hear that they aren't real christians.

Aye, ashley's showing a good example of the no true scotsman fallacy.

[jedi wave]this is not the one-liner you are looking for[/jedi wave]

[edit on 9-2-2008 by melatonin]

I'm amazed and sort of amused by the hostility in this thread. Some of you should take a step back and listen to yourselves. Do you realize how absurd you really sound? You are like preschoolers battling it out on the playground at recess. Over what? Is it really worth all the nastiness? I don't think so. Take it easy on each other.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, ashley's showing a good example of the no true scotsman fallacy.

Mel, it was not the Scotsman fallacy. Your accusation reminds me of people who throw around the terms "Strawman" or "Ad Hominem" only to look up the original poster's comment and realize they used no such argument. It becomes clear the second poster's accusation is unfounded when the previous poster used no such fallacy.

MIMS said Christians committed atrocities against the Native Americans. In order for my reply to be a Scotsman fallacy, I would have said, "Well, no true Christian would have done such a thing." But that is not remotely what I said. Instead, I pointed out the hypocrisy of such comments in a tongue and cheek manner: When the first Americans were founding the country and creating the constitution they are called Deists who denied Christianity as the true way. When they were trading slaves or slaughtering Indians they were devout born again Christians.

[jedi wave]this is not the one-liner you are looking for[/jedi wave]

I sense the humor is strong in this one, Obi Wan.

[edit on 2/9/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
....well, clearly you're being a cultural isolationist here...
"americans" means anyone from the continent of north and south america
i also said 300 years...look at the age of the usa...

Then for it to really hit home, you should push the date back from 300 years ago to 600 years that way you could include the Catholic Spanish Conquistadors who converted the Mayans by force. Most of the settlers from the 300 year mark took place in North America... those pesky little deists.

only if you can prove it. the communists were doing it in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism.

Er... that is exactly what I said. Communists claim to do what they do in the name of communism (politics) and not atheism (religion). So can we claim what the founding fathers did was in the name of the republic (politics) instead of Christianity/Deism (religion)? I never implied communists did it out of atheism. Hope that helps.

[edit on 2/9/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Madness,
I don't know why I am bothering to reply to you, as you seem to go out of your way to miss my point. But since you zeroed in on an area that was not the point, let me see if I can clear that up.
Here is the difference between a born-again and not born again;
Example: At this time I could only say without having ever met the president of the United States, George Bush; That I know ABOUT him. Or that I know OF him. But if I were to go to Washington or he were to come here and spend time with me, and he was to share things about himself, and leave a part of himself in me spiritually to continue teaching me, THEN I could say that I KNOW George Bush, instead of knowing ABOUT him.
Somehow, I know that you will twist that around. But maybe, someone else will get it. So maybe it won't be wasted words.

Edit: That is not the entirety of being born again, as being born again is a spiritual transformation, that involves the process of following John 3:16.
That states that if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord (or Son of God). You will be saved. That is my simplified version. The emphasis is on believing in your heart.
That is when that verse changed things for me. You will have to forgive me that I could not give you the direct word for word bible quotation, because my bible got soaked and is illegible at this point. But that is what is written on my heart.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by sizzle]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Mel, it was not the Scotsman fallacy.

Oh, no. It was...

But it wasn't you who said it...

My bad. T'was the Sizzler.

*Note to self: Must. Pay. Attention.*

I sense the humor is strong in this one, Obi Wan.

I'm also willing to accept my failings like any good jedi. Sorry

reply to post by melatonin


Mel,
refresh my memory. I'm a little lost on this scotsman fallacy. When and where did I say anything about that since I don't even know anything about it?