Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

maybe it's because the ones about atheists rely entirely on intolerance and misconceptions about atheism, while the ones about christianity tend to have a basis in the realities of the religion...

Oh cmon, you can't expect us to take that seriously.

Atheists understand the 'basis in the realities' of religion?

That's like saying a penguin fully understands the mechanics of flight. Being an atheist means that you distinctly do not care for or want to understand the idea of 'God'.

Not all Christians believe in a fairy-tale cloud-floating God, not all religious people believe in fundamentalist ideas... yet the atheist routinely accuses them of such. To say that Atheists are somehow pigeonholed and are the victim of religious stereotyping is too ironic to be funny.

It is religious people who are pigeonholed, the thousands of unique philosophies that they adhere to are lumped together and mocked by the atheist. Yet here we have a self-diagnosed 'atheist extraordinare' claiming it is the religious who use intolerance and misconceptions.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by NewWorldOver]

*edit* double post... took about 10 mins for my first to show up.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sizzle

 

no, i really wouldn't. it's stupid and is a display of how christians oddly view atheists.

and, for the last time:
one cannot be a fundamentalist atheist!

the "fundamentals" of atheism are as follows: "i don't believe in god"
that's it...

Madness,
That sounds a little redundant, don't ya think? or is it an oxymoron?

Originally posted by sizzle

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sizzle

 

no, i really wouldn't. it's stupid and is a display of how christians oddly view atheists.

and, for the last time:
one cannot be a fundamentalist atheist!

the "fundamentals" of atheism are as follows: "i don't believe in god"
that's it...

Madness,
That sounds a little redundant, don't ya think? or is it an oxymoron?

Nope - it's not an oxymoron at all. Atheists do not believe some 'supreme deity' created everything. Pretty straight forward really.

J.

This is a bit off topic,
but I hope you new moderators don't mind me saying so; I just noticed your names added. Congratulations, yeahright, Cuhail, Sauron, NGC2736!
Sauron, I am not very familiar with you, but I have seen many posts by Yeahright, Cuhail and NGC2736. I know that you guys can only add to the tremendous quality of ATS. Once again, Congrats!

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Oh cmon, you can't expect us to take that seriously.

Well, I suppose we need to see it in context. My original cartoon was meant to highlight the situation with religious belief being given a special protected status. These beliefs are expected to be respected for some reason.

Then, Ashley posts a set of three which basically suggest that other beliefs are given more respect than christianity. Thus, for example, a person might respect a religious belief like scientology more than christian beliefs. Which I certianly don't. Indeed, my original cartoon was meant to suggest otherwise, and my posts said otherwise. I think christianity, islam, hinduism etc etc are as absurd as scientology.

Then a final cartoon basically suggested that 'fundie' atheists would like to kill christians. Indeed, kill them all. However, Ashley did clearly state that wasn't her position. It was just a cartoon in reality. I don't think the followers of Mo' should be offended by cartoons of Mo with a bomb-bearing turban, and I'm certainly not by the one earlier.

Now, if we want to see misrepresentation/misconception, I don't think my own cartoon does so. That's the reality. We are expected to give religious beliefs special status. The second, I think I agreed that some people might think like that. But there's not that many atheists who would actually think like that. And the final one was just a misrepresentation.

However, no worries, it doesn't bother me really. I don't think ashley meant any offense, just an attempt to make a point. I think it was wrong, but that's my opinion. And you know what they say about them.

I won't be parading round the forum calling for heretics to be beheaded like some people do in the real-world when they see a cartoon they find offensive, heh.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Oh cmon, you can't expect us to take that seriously.

Atheists understand the 'basis in the realities' of religion?

yeah...religions are quite easy to study, and atheists study the religions in varying degrees. we may not be able to quote scripture like your standard bible thumper, but we can point out the parts of the bible that they don't know about.

That's like saying a penguin fully understands the mechanics of flight. Being an atheist means that you distinctly do not care for or want to understand the idea of 'God'.

we may not care for it, but we can still understand it.
that and most atheists are former theists...

Not all Christians believe in a fairy-tale cloud-floating God, not all religious people believe in fundamentalist ideas... yet the atheist routinely accuses them of such.

actually...no we don't. sure, some do....but not all of us

we actually are happy about those that aren't fundamentalists and routinely tell them "why can't you make the fundamentalists understand this stuff?"

sure, we'd prefer them to not be religious, but we'd rather have the more benign forms of religion than the more corrosive ones

To say that Atheists are somehow pigeonholed and are the victim of religious stereotyping is too ironic to be funny.

It is religious people who are pigeonholed, the thousands of unique philosophies that they adhere to are lumped together and mocked by the atheist.

evidence?
ah, yes, you tend to just defame, i forgot

Yet here we have a self-diagnosed 'atheist extraordinare' claiming it is the religious who use intolerance and misconceptions.

it's atheist superstar, thank you very much, and part of an ironic joke...

how about this: you give me evidence that we atheists are doing this
then give me evidence that it's a significant number of atheists

or is that too much?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we may not care for it, but we can still understand it.

No. That's a contradictory statement.

You cannot 'understand' something that you don't believe to exist. If you don't believe in a higher source of consciousness in any form, or you believe all religions are silly games etc. you cannot possibly understand spirituality or Godhead.

To say you understand what you do not believe is silly. Did Newton study gravity under the assumption that it was not real? That's not how it works.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
You cannot 'understand' something that you don't believe to exist.

Many atheists are ex theists.

If you don't believe in a higher source of consciousness in any form, or you believe all religions are silly games etc. you cannot possibly understand spirituality or Godhead.

In fact I am very spiritual. I think atheists have said this a few times now but it keeps getting ignored. I do not believe in god/s.. this does not mean I am not spiritual. Unless you think buddhists are not spiritual..?
I believe every living thing on the planet is decended from a single cell. Technically that makes the birds.. even the plants my family so yes I feel a profound connection to all life which I hold a deep respect for. I just don't feel a need to worship it.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by riley]

All of this over a cartoon? I'm starting to feel like that Danish cartoonist who did a caricature of Mohammad.

But take heart, Guys. Like Mel noticed: if I really thought you guys were extremists out to kill Christians, I would have been too scared of all of you to have posted that in the first place.

Anyways, if you look around, you'll see some pretty bad jokes made at the expense of Christians. It all comes around and goes around to everyone.

I'll leave you one more to laugh at that takes a swing at us Bible thumpers:

ok, I'll bite. The pink triangle is a symbol used in Nazi concentration camps and warn by gay/lesbian individuals just the Jewish people were made to wear the star of David...the cross we know, of course what it stands for, as is clearly represented in these drawings. The humor is supposed to expose the supposed hypocracy of those in the gay/lesbian group. However, the two groups could not be more different. One has a choice to believe in religious dogma, the other has no choice nor any religious dogma to even review.

I'll go ahead and save all the Christian's from indulging in bigotry even further by providing some auxiliary evidence to support this assumption.

To joke about a matter like this, especially with the pink triangle is to joke about a people long oppressed not because of a belief, but because of who they are, and who even had to endure the prison camps and death chambers of Hitler's Nazi Germany. For those of you who are believer's, please pray for this women. This is so far from the teachings of Jesus it's ridiculous. This lady does a terrible disservice to his followers.

"


Gay Rams

Time Magazine: Yep, They're Gay

Yep, They're Gay
Friday, Jan. 26, 2007 By JOHN CLOUD



Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon among animals. Male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams.

A few months ago, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a p.r. campaign on behalf of gay sheep. PETA claims that researchers in Oregon are killing gay sheep and cutting open their brains in order to learn how to turn gay rams straight. A few weeks ago, London's Sunday Times picked up the story in an unnerving article that states the research "raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual."

To be sure, a group of researchers led by physiologist Charles Roselli of Oregon Health & Science University has killed about 55 sheep, homosexual and heterosexual, in order to study the neurological basis of sexual attraction. They have confirmed that test sheep are gay by allowing them to pick among males and females that have been restrained in stanchions to await sexual intercourse.

But Roselli says he and his colleagues never had any intention of creating a drug that will turn people straight. And while they have examined whether sheep sexuality can be altered with various treatments, that's not the sole point of their work. Instead, like many other scientists over the past two decades, they are conducting basic research into the nature of sexuality by manipulating hormones in animals.

The Oregon group's work has shown, however, that gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones, news that should cheer those who see homosexuality and heterosexuality as mere biological variations. (Another small but fascinating finding: all gay rams are butch--none present themselves sexually the way ewes do.)

As Roselli acknowledges in his papers, sexuality in humans is far more complex than in sheep. The whole notion that researchers studying farm animals could develop a "cure" for human homosexuality is a fantasy of the far left and the far right, which both value a gay-sheep "scandal" more than the messy reality that is Roselli's work.

But one could have a good argument about whether adorable little sheep should be killed for sex research. As a gay man, I tend to believe the more we know about the complex interplay of biology and environment that shapes sexuality, the less time we will spend nourishing Old Testament anachronisms about sex.

The more pressing question for me is, What would happen if research like Roselli's did lead to, as the Sunday Times imagined, "a 'straightening' procedure [such as] a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn like a nicotine patch"? I hope scientists have better things to do, but would a Hetero Patch be so awful? It would allow bigoted women to get what they want--straight kids--and ensure that gay kids grow up with moms who, at the very least, didn't try to prevent their existence. Gay people seem to fear we would die out if such a device existed. But the elaborate combination of genes, hormones and psychology that produces same-sex attraction has persisted, against all odds, through the millenniums. Gays have survived Darwinian selection, Nazis, the dulling effects of Will & Grace. I don't think a little patch would ever keep some rams from wanting other rams

"

Next you'll try to tell us that for these Rams, being gay is a choice. Debates and humor about a "belief" system is one thing, but bigotry is quite another.

There is professional help available by licensed clinicians who specialize in cult deprogramming; check you're local listings or contact your local mental health organization for a professional referral.



[edit on 4-2-2008 by skyshow]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by skyshow]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by skyshow]

Originally posted by riley
Many atheists are ex theists.

This is the second time I have heard this assertion. Again, I have to disagree.

If a person goes from being 'theist' to 'atheist' then they have failed at theism. Is this not correct?

In reality, they were never 'theists'. They might have subscribed to an organized religion and an external form of worship (which yields no enlightenment). This is understandable, even 'religious' people are in this rut.

But true 'theism' is an intense study of consciousness, and our connection to one another to a single source. Every major religion intends for the 'follower' to be personal with God, and not fall for the material world. Physical science and resolute atheists alike are not going to dissolve the foundations of something so ancient as philosophy and 'religion'.

In any case, I find that an atheist or empty-minded religious follower, neither can say that they understand what it means to be a theist. If they understood, they would be theists.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by NewWorldOver]

I'm not atheist and I'm not religious, these are both trappings of sorts, labels if you will, adversaries. My reasons for running from religion as fast as I can is because it has subjegated women. I have a hard time believing that God would create humankind and let more than half be somehow lesser than the other half. I have always thought women to be very spiritual creatures, just not god enough to lead I guess.

Who was the wise guy that put a pair of pants on God anyway?

Originally posted by skyshow
The humor is supposed to expose the supposed hypocracy of those in the gay/lesbian group.

Now that is a surprising twist. The cartoon obviously shows a Bible thumper as the hypocrite as he is "thumping" away at someone minding their own business. When he is asked to stop, the Bible thumper feels like he is the victim when it was the other way around. HERE is the page my brother sent me with the cartoon. You'll love it because it bashes Christian Bible thumpers left and right. The blog is owned by a homosexual atheist and that is who posted the cartoon. So you better leave a comment on his blog letting him know he is a "bigot" in need of a "mental health referral."

Sizzle's previous comment now ultimately becomes clear. If an atheist had posted that, non Christians would have said, "That is so true!" But a Christian posts that and you claim it points to the hypocrisy of the homosexual. Do you think homosexuals are hypocrites, Skyshow? I don't know why you would say such a mean and intolerant thing. I'm pretty vocal about having a gay brother who I adore. I'm offended you would accuse all homosexuals of being hypocrites.

Now, do I remotely think you are calling homosexuals hypocrites? Of course not. That would be a major case of word twisting on my part. Anyone can obviously see you were not calling homosexuals hypocrites. Anyone can also obviously see who the cartoon is claiming is in the wrong. HINT: It isn't the homosexual.

I could probably say "I love kittens" and you would still come up with a reason to whine. By the way. Where did I get that cartoon from, you ask? My brother sent me an email linking to that page because he thought it was so true with how he gets treated for being gay. Anyone with an IQ over 25 can see what the cartoon is depicting. Not sure how you missed the entire point and launched into a massive monologue.

[edit on 2/4/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
In any case, I find that an atheist or empty-minded religious follower, neither can say that they understand what it means to be a theist. If they understood, they would be theists.

But earlier:

Being an atheist means that you distinctly do not care for or want to understand the idea of 'God'.

So, what you've essentially done is defined those who understand the concept of god as theists.

Not surprising that you think non-theists can't understand the concept.

I understand why people thought the sun orbited the earth. I also understand why people thought the earth was flat. I understand why people in ancient times put lightning and thunder down to gods. However, I'm not actually a flat-earther, a geocentrist, or a thorian.

But if you want to define someone who understands geocentrism as someone who is a geocentrist. Then I guess I don't understand it. I actually understand lots of things I don't agree with.

But I will say I don't understand the concept 'god'. It's an amorphous mess, and each person appears to have their own little idea of what it is. Some think it's a force that binds us (i.e. energy), others a man in a cloud type thing, philosophers have Oom, others, well, who knows. Even christians can't agree on their own god - he ranges from a malevolent dude to an omnibenevolent dude. So which one do we need to understand?

[edit on 4-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we may not care for it, but we can still understand it.

No. That's a contradictory statement.

You cannot 'understand' something that you don't believe to exist.

so much for understanding hamlet or any other fictional work...
guess we'll have to close up the entire study of literature on that one.

If you don't believe in a higher source of consciousness in any form, or you believe all religions are silly games etc. you cannot possibly understand spirituality or Godhead.

we can understand the ideas.
you can understand a different political viewpoint without buying into it and understand why someone would buy into it.

To say you understand what you do not believe is silly.

alrighty, so i guess you don't understand the story of atlas that is featured as your avatar because you don't believe in it.

Did Newton study gravity under the assumption that it was not real? That's not how it works.

that's a false comparison.

I personally follow the Sam Harris school of thought. Basically, I should not have to deal with religious folks in a kind, respectful way. Why? Because of their constant assaults on logic, fact and reason. He calls this "controversial intolerance." There's is no other way to battle the people of intolerance with intolerance in kind. You assault my logic with fariy tales. I assault your fantasy world with fact and reason and I do so in a scathing matter. Why? Because you deserve no better. This goes for the so called "moderates" as well.

"The very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."
-Sam Harris

"To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance."
-Sam Harris

reply to post by AshleyD


Why don't you take this opportunity to explain the cartoon from your point of view. No personal attacks are necessary.

reply to post by skyshow


OK.

Scene one: A homosexual minding his own business is sharing the scene with a Bible thumper.

Scenes two and three: The Bible thumper starts "thumping" the homosexual over the head.

Scene four: The homosexual politely asks him to stop "thumping" and the Bible thumper gets offended because he feels he is the victim who has the right to "thump," apparently ignoring the fact the homosexual has the right to not be "thumped."

Not sure what else to tell you. It seems pretty self explanatory.

What motivated you to post that? I guess then, in light of a long history of passive aggressive posts on here (as someone else even pointed out last week about your posts) I am wondering what that has to do with anything...in other words why did you post that, and given that basic void of little meaning interpretation I have to ask, what did it do for you to post that?

[edit on 5-2-2008 by skyshow]