Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by jimbo999
Incorrect. The Vatican actually frowned heavily on the worship of The Virgin Mary etc - and still does in many ways.

I can't listen to this nonsense anymore. You can't just re-write history and make up whatever you like about religion.... that's just not how it works.

Since when is the Vatican opposed to ANYTHING within Catholicism? Do you understand where Catholicism comes from? The Vatican.

Do you understand where every Catholic precept comes from? The Vatican.

Do you understand what political body you atheists seem to confuse with Christianity, day in, day out, attributing pagan holidays and polytheistic tendencies etc. to? THE CATHOLIC VATICAN CHURCH : the very institute designed to decay and erode the true Christian religion... the Vatican is a bigger boon to Atheism then Atheists themselves... and this has become apparent to me.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
We do not claim Atheism to be a handful of things that it is not. Not even when Atheists themselves claim things that are impossible ("I'm a Buddhist Atheist, Islam is more atheist than Christianity etc.")

Impossible? I see you have again failed to educate yourself. :shk:

AGAIN:

There is no contradiction with an atheist following buddhism as there is no god in buddhism. You do know what no god means don't you..? Buddhism is a philosphy and god is not even relevent as it is not based on worship.



[edit on 28-2-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by jimbo999


Hmmmm..so what you seem to be implying is that your 'statments' and 'sentences' in no way represent what you believe or think - and that they are somehow dissasociated from you personally? That these comments of yours are somwhow 'seperate' from you?


[edit on 28-2-2008 by jimbo999]

where do you hallucinate that? I think it is FOX that subscribes to that idea
not me. She thinks she can mock a sentence or phrase and then I am supposed to dissasociate myself from it apparently so it won't mock me but the phrase

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Nope - I think Fox is right. She was attacking your statement. Period. It seems you are unable to differentiate really. She/he explained that to you succinctly I thought. I think you're simply 'in over your head' here, and I would leave it be if I were you.

The choice is yours of course, but you'll only get another verbal mauling from Fox if you don't.

Face it: you're out of your league with Fox....

Regards,
J.

Please show me what is you are so impressed with fox?? I have never seen anything, unless you like reading the material of career flaming forum warriors who use the oldest material is so much more above par.

You 're right about the league thing though hell I don't even go to other threads regarding things I don't even believe in just to argue with people who do. To me that is just hilariously funny so yeah,,,, she has it all over me in that regard. Not something I am a bit envious of much less admire

Guess that's why she has to get madd to help her out?


- Con



[edit on 29-2-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


con, just cut the crap. you're redirecting this into a pointless discussion. in the last few pages you've:

No,, you're wrong madd FOX redirected it but I am guilty of bothering to respond to her .

1: brought up the opinion of one atheist and talked about it revealing the true nature of atheists

I know what I have done Madd I MADE THE POSTS. Good to see you are keeping up for a change

2: accused fox of attacking you

No I accused her statements of attacking me,, or does that only work for her when attacking mine?

attacked fox's intelligence in a most shameful manner

I gave my opinion about a hypothetical scenario freeborn gave if you don't like it too bad,, It isn't my fault you are impressed with her intelligence and I am not. The very last person I would expect to know anything about shamefull acts are Athiest's

attacked atheists in general

I have never attacked them I attacked their statements, sorry Madd if it is good for the goose it's good for the Athiest. You can't have it both ways,, sorry.

I have said Dawkins is a "Punch in the face waiting to happen" along with harris but this,, ha ha coming from YOU! Someone who makes it his whole existence in life to antagonize christians and Christianity is not going to carry any weight with me. Frankly Madd your opinions never did impress me.

sorry,, just my opinion

: complained that attacking your arguments is the same as attacking you

You'd be right mad but she wasn't attacking the argument she was giving a presumptuous opinion about why I said something to freeborn words to the effect winning points with god. It had nothing to do with the post but then again it never does with her.

stick to the point: where is the conspiracy of atheists to overthrow christianity?

My God Madd hah ha ha just paste your name to a search here and look at your posts. You are like any Atheist I have seen in over 5 dozen forums like this. All the same thing, anyone who spends as much time antagonizing Christians as you do either has to be living at home with mom and dad or they do it for a living.

con, just cut the crap.

I was trying to,, like I said, your argument is with Fox, not me

So YOU cut the crap, I tried telling Fox the same thing, if you didn't notice.

- Con












[edit on 29-2-2008 by Conspiriology]

There was a South Park episode 10-12 where atheist overthrown christianity, because of all the religious conflicts, and in the end there was a war between 2 wings of atheist

Originally posted by silencee
There was a South Park episode 10-12 where atheist overthrown christianity, because of all the religious conflicts, and in the end there was a war between 2 wings of atheist

HA HA HA I Know I saw that one too,, I wonder if Madd will ask for proof that it ever aired. The storyline for that one originated from some of the same resources I have seen. The ones Madd deny's regardless.

- Con

reply to post by Clearskies


ah, but this is an atheist's view on the subject...
i'll redirect you to dawkins' idea about ridding the world of religion: consciousness raising

that's what he's repeatedly and vehemently defended as the one and only way to rid the world of religion...by just letting people know

that's not really a conspiracy to overthrow anything...especially since it's just one man speaking on behalf of himself.

reply to post by Conspiriology


ahem:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
stick to the point: where is the conspiracy of atheists to overthrow christianity?

i'm going to officially declare this: i'm not going to respond to anything more in this thread that isn't pertaining to the topic.



so...how big is this conspiracy? seriously, i've heard quotes from individual authors, but never anything to show that a large number of people are doing anything...

I think there is a conspiracy by Atheists to overthrow Christianity. All the high minded scientific mumbo jumbo is a load of crap. Gods existence is as plain as day, you can't see it because you love sin. That's the only reason. They don't want to accept that there is such a thing as sin. Denial is their crutch. They deny God so they can play like children. Atheism is an excuse to do what you want. Of course they would like Christians to go away, we remind them that one day it will come back to haunt them.

Does that sound narrow minded to you? Good.
(thanks JD!)

I see it every Christmas with the Atheist’s, whining sniveling baby act they promote being “Offended” by Christian Symbols. This Country you hailed as one started by people that hated Christianity and is one of the most ignorant ideas you ever tried to put off as fact. The Fact is Smart Guy,, Atheist stealthy little conspiracy to change the Constitution to favor their goals of eliminating Religion is only a scratch on the surface. That Bogus crap about separation of Church and State was NEVER intended to support ANYTHING LIKE Atheists and their repugnant Ideals and their so called “Science”

You know,, the one that says we are all monkymen.

Nebraska man's existence was hypothesized on the basis of a single tooth, which was later shown to be a pig's tooth.

Then we have the Java man! Oh this was one HUGE for the A-evolutionist

BUT WHAT HAPPENED!!

LO AND BEHOLD!!


Another one BITES THE DAMN DUST AND EVOLUTION PUTS ANOTHER SHOE STORE IN ITS PSEUDO-SCIENTIFC MOUTH.

Turns out, it was found to be a gibbon, not an "ancestor" for man.

Piltdown man was found to be a hoax in 1953; by the same Atheist Pseudo Science using destroy religion by brainwashing kids into thinking they are the descendants of beasts like Magilla the Gorilla, that we are all memeplex minded mutant ninja monkeys.

So desperate is this Junk Science to prove itself they actually MANUFACTURED THIS ONE!

Then again EVERYTHING they say has to be a spin of sorts when you think about it using disciplined thinking.

Then their was Australopithecines, which the Atheist’s and their self proclaimed wannabe kitchen cosmetology scientists got behind with the same self delusional asinine arrogance the same Garbage, the same Crock fulla corn-fed Crap they have been pushing as scientific fact since 1857 and yet once again it was later found to be only ancient apes which never "evolved" into men; What?? Darwinian Dolts of dimwittedness dumbfounded again??

Isn’t THAT UNUSUAL????

THEN WE HAVE Neanderthal and Cro-Magnan man and what do you know, it turns out they are Homo Sapiens themselves not transitional forms for Homo Sapiens.

These So called scientists have kicked us out of our schools to promote their agenda and have kept Science in the stone age when other sciences scream past evolution because they don’t say dumb things like the quote below .

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

This is an example of scientific dogmatism where if the theory conflicts with the evidence one does not augment the theory but rather, proclaims that something is wrong with the evidence.

Proof? Church and state, lets take a look at who is REALLY getting reamed by the Constitution shall we, because it sure isn’t Atheists. ultramedia.freehostia.com...

This Action comes from the virulent mouths of God Hating Atheism’s most prolific and pathetic leaders and can be seen in Front Page Websites.

Science Must Destroy Religion
www.huffingtonpost.com...

This best selling Comic Book Creator not only speaks nothing but hate, he encourages it.

People like this illogical logger headed elitist who refers to us with cutesy little anecdotal dim witticism such as “flat earthers” then referring erroneously to our belief in the sun revolving around the earth. He laughs while getting snide sardonic snickers from his many sheep in the biggest peanut gallery of pre-pubescent pissants I have ever seen in a lecture given for so called “intellectuals”.

Such lofty labels expect more from the super being’s of the non supernatural scientific superior crowd.

Makes many Christians, myself included, wonder if we shouldn’t do the same and snub our nose up at the mental midgets calling them “Monkey boy’s” or Apeyist’s .

The Conspiracy to Silence Christianity will see an occasional interruption of a chartroom with an Atheist using a 50 sized Font spamming, “I’m looking for god! Has anyone seen GOD! GOD! WHERE ARE YOU?”

I wonder if it wouldn’t be poetic justice for us to make jokes about every thousand years have us running all over looking for an animal that slowly evolves wings from an appendage which would become very awkward for climbing or grasping making it easy prey (so much for survival of the fittest theory eh).

This is what they believe!!

But you won’t see any Christians publishing jokes of us running around Gods Creation yelling “You see it you see it!!” Has anyone seen any animals change!

SOMEONE,,, PLEASE!!

In your best Jerry Maguire voice,

SHOW ME THE MUTATION!

In fact, if anything, Atheist’s are pampered and coddled like they have a self concept one molecule away from being an eggshell. At least when WE complain about rights being TAKEN we have something REAL taken but you don’t see Christians going to the ACLU every time they see the pseudo scientific false claims of Evolution.

They are supported by the renowned Zoologist from Zanadu, Atheism’s high priestess Richard “Dick” Dumbkins or DoHkins whatever his name is. He has been galvanizing an army of Atheists to get behind the Separation of Church and State encouraging them to complain even if it doesn’t offend them; it is their civic duty to stop Religion.

Well it’s time we told Dawkins what time it is.
www.petitiononline.com...

You want a conspiracy to silence our Christianity,,
www.usdoj.gov...

It’ll be over OUR ETERNAL LIVES and

Your dead Darwinian

deceived body,

bunky

- Con










[edit on 1-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by sizzle

why do you think this is wrong...it's a myth ..propogated on the people of the times, to illicit control and stability....DUh!!! that period of time was at the least, violent, miserable, and ripe for some type of messiah... to deny this power struggle, is to deny history. listen,, this was about control and money... and if you approach it in that way... you will see the distinction, otherwise you can cling to your beliefs....perhaps that is why the athiests have such a strong arguement...because religion is nothing more then a sham...a way to control the "UNWASHED" and if you approach it that way ...and ... measure what has happened in the history of mankind... in that mind-set it becomes quite clear.

reply to post by jimmyx


baby ...it's always ...follow the money!!! and if you work from that premise ...the designs on mankind become alot more clear

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
We do not claim Atheism to be a handful of things that it is not. Not even when Atheists themselves claim things that are impossible ("I'm a Buddhist Atheist, Islam is more atheist than Christianity etc.")

Impossible? I see you have again failed to educate yourself. :shk:

AGAIN:

There is no contradiction with an atheist following buddhism as there is no god in buddhism. You do know what no god means don't you..? Buddhism is a philosphy and god is not even relevent as it is not based on worship.

Well actually......in Buddhism there is a belief in god, the fact is that there is an acceptance of god in Buddhism, only in the confines of the religion it is understood that we have nothing to do with god..... What we do here on earth in this life is in no way affected by god even though it exists........

The basic point of our lives (according to Buddhism) is to reach enlightenment, to become a better person through the beliefs of Buddha.....If you're an atheist and a Buddhist it makes no real sense because the basis of atheism is to not believe in a god, where Buddhism does believe in a god, it's just that they don't worship it.

Why do monks pray – and whom are they praying to – god exists in Buddhism

Originally posted by jimmyx
[ten,, this was about control and money... and if you approach it in that way... you will see the distinction, otherwise you can cling to your beliefs....perhaps that is why the athiests have such a strong arguement...because religion is nothing more then a sham...a way to control the "UNWASHED" and if you approach it that way ...and ... measure what has happened in the history of mankind... in that mind-set it becomes quite clear.

Is that what they told you LOL HA HA HA HA Oh man,, ha ha you umn this is coming from someone who KNOWS!! HA HA HA


we been where you're at guy,, WHY ON EARTH would we want that garbage again.

what you have is about the self the sex the drugs the ego the greed the meaningless purposeless useless lifestyle like the one you see all these other atheists trying to do

Break our stride.

ha ha ha

Originally posted by andre18


Why do monks pray – and whom are they praying to – god exists in Buddhism

NOW THIS IS INTERESTING?? Have you talked to madd and Faux?

They say that isn't so?

- Con

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I see it every Christmas with the Atheist’s, whining sniveling baby act they promote being “Offended” by Christian Symbols.

...actually, we promote the inclusion of either all religious symbols pertaining to the season or none at all...
if there was a jewish display, we'd ask for a christian one to be added (so long as it's on public land and not a matter of private choice)

and, honestly, that whole idea of a "war on christmas" is something bill o'reilly made up to get higher ratings.
we don't care what holiday you celebrate, it's why we say "happy holidays" to cover all of them

This Country you hailed as one started by people that hated Christianity and is one of the most ignorant ideas you ever tried to put off as fact.

um...we didn't actually say that...
though there were some things they quite obviously didn't like in christianity
ben franklin thought a lighthouse was more valuable than a church
jefferson loved the bible...well, the version in which he edited out the metaphysical and theological stuff

we just like to point out that many of the founding fathers were deists instead of the common myth perpetuated that they were all christians founding a christian nation..

The Fact is Smart Guy,, Atheist stealthy little conspiracy to change the Constitution to favor their goals of eliminating Religion is only a scratch on the surface.

change the constitution?
um...are we the ones that are pushing for amendments to ban things that go against our idealogical beliefs? nope...
on the other hand, christians are trying to change the constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage...

That Bogus crap about separation of Church and State was NEVER intended to support ANYTHING LIKE Atheists and their repugnant Ideals and their so called “Science”

uh huh...freedom of religion for everyone except those with no religion...

You know,, the one that says we are all monkymen.

you're betraying your ignorance on the theory of evolution...a theory which so many theists accept

Nebraska man's existence was hypothesized on the basis of a single tooth, which was later shown to be a pig's tooth.

wow, a scientist made a mistake...and then another scientist proved it wrong!

Then we have the Java man! Oh this was one HUGE for the A-evolutionist

BUT WHAT HAPPENED!!

LO AND BEHOLD!!


Another one BITES THE DAMN DUST AND EVOLUTION PUTS ANOTHER SHOE STORE IN ITS PSEUDO-SCIENTIFC MOUTH.

Turns out, it was found to be a gibbon, not an "ancestor" for man.

ok...another example of how evolutionary biology showed itself to be wrong on a particular issue.

Piltdown man was found to be a hoax in 1953; by the same Atheist Pseudo Science using destroy religion by brainwashing kids into thinking they are the descendants of beasts like Magilla the Gorilla, that we are all memeplex minded mutant ninja monkeys.

...um...no
see, you clearly don't understand evolution if you think anyone is saying we descended from gorillas
learn to understand a theory before you criticize it
and again...evolutionary biology proved it to be wrong

So desperate is this Junk Science to prove itself they actually MANUFACTURED THIS ONE!

ok...you've attacked 3 specimens out of hundreds of millions and you think you have a case?

Then again EVERYTHING they say has to be a spin of sorts when you think about it using disciplined thinking.

how do you explain the discovery of the tetrapod sea/land transition fossil that was predicted by evolutionary biology years ago?
or that huge mountain range of evidence that we have...

Then their was Australopithecines, which the Atheist’s and their self proclaimed wannabe kitchen cosmetology scientists got behind with the same self delusional asinine arrogance the same Garbage, the same Crock fulla corn-fed Crap they have been pushing as scientific fact since 1857 and yet once again it was later found to be only ancient apes which never "evolved" into men; What?? Darwinian Dolts of dimwittedness dumbfounded again??

um...what the hell are you talking abut? Australopithecus has been shown to be something of a common ancestor for ourselves and other ape like creatures...

Isn’t THAT UNUSUAL????

THEN WE HAVE Neanderthal and Cro-Magnan man and what do you know, it turns out they are Homo Sapiens themselves not transitional forms for Homo Sapiens.

Cro-Magnons are our ancestors...
Homo Neanderthalensis isn't...or they may have been through interbreeding...

see, you don't even have your science straight
we are Homo Sapien Sapien

These So called scientists have kicked us out of our schools to promote their agenda and have kept Science in the stone age when other sciences scream past evolution because they don’t say dumb things like the quote below .

...do you even know what you're talking about? evolutionary biology has made leaps and bounds and has increased our understanding of the biological world exponentially...

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

...science is the study of the natural... so that statement is not stupid. the point is that we'd need a new branch of study to tackle the supernatural

This is an example of scientific dogmatism where if the theory conflicts with the evidence one does not augment the theory but rather, proclaims that something is wrong with the evidence.

science being dogmatic about staying within its field of study? oh no!
next you're going to say that science is dogmatic for not studying art
the horror!

honestly, i'm going to stop addressing this post because it's well...rude.
hell, it's basically an ignorant rant
i've already proved the ignorance of it at this point...

get your facts straight on something before you attack it.
especially that whole "evolution = atheism" thing...
it doesn't
there are more theistic supporters of evolutionary theory than there are atheistic ones simply because the atheists are outnumbered by theists

reply to post by Conspiriology


andre isn't fully versed on all forms of buddhism...he's probably talking about tibetan buddhism, which does have a form of "god" idea...but it's a far more abstract one

there are many forms of buddhism...

Originally posted by Conspiriology
These So called scientists have kicked us out of our schools to promote their agenda and have kept Science in the stone age when other sciences scream past evolution because they don’t say dumb things like the quote below .

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

This is an example of scientific dogmatism where if the theory conflicts with the evidence one does not augment the theory but rather, proclaims that something is wrong with the evidence.

Con, it's people like you who want to push science back to the stone-age. Indeed, as Michael Behe admitted, to make ID science, we'd have to make astrology science. Now that is stone-age science!

The rest of the anti-science rant can be readily refuted easily by a site like talkorigins, so I'm not interested in that, because people presenting hoaxes are not just restricted to science, but also pseudoscientific creationism (e.g., Paluxy tracks etc). And in each case it is scientists that show them to be incorrect, not pseudoscientists. Thus, science is fantastically self-correcting. However, that stuff is tremendously boring.

But I am interested in the ID bit. Kudos for not suggesting that ID is a 'theory', you appear to have done some learin', con.

What is the 'hypothesis' of intelligent design, and how do we test it with the scientific method?

Why has the cdesignproponentists 'scientific' journal progress in complexity and intelligent design not published a single article since 2005?

Number of scientific articles testing the ID 'hypothesis' published in the literature = 0
Number of any form of article published in an ID journal since 2005 =0
Number of popular books published on intelligent design = lots
Number of films = one
Number of media releases = too many to mention

All science so far!

And yet people think ID should have time in the science classroom?

Has anyone seen any animals change!

SOMEONE,,, PLEASE!!

In your best Jerry Maguire voice,

SHOW ME THE MUTATION!

This is rather silly, con. You want evidence of the presence of mutation? Maybe the Nylon bug would suffice. A bacteria that evolved via mutation the ability to digest Nylon - a man-made substance. That is evolutionary change

Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.

But I now expect a shifting of goalposts - [con]SHOW ME RAT TO BAT[/con]

[edit on 1-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


MIMS, your knowlede of Buddhism far outstrips mine but a question or two.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation and an individuals next life form depends on how the individual has lived his life in his most recent adaptation, (a very simplistic summarisation but I think that's the essence of it). The goal is to achieve Nirvana.

Now here's my problem; when someone dies, who judges the individual and decides what life form they are to be reincarnarted as, what criteria are there to determine this and who decided upon the criteria?
Dare I say it, God?

Your point about about there being many interpretations of Buddhism is quite correct yet you lump Christians together as a whole despite there being literally hundreds of Christian denominations.

Yet you consistently appear to oppose the exact same generalisations when it comes to discussing Islam and related issues.

With all due respect, (for you are a very informed and intelligent person, of that there can be no debate), you don't appear to be as Atheistic as you say, just virulently anti-Christian and quite the spiritual but reasoned and scientific individual.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Now here's my problem; when someone dies, who judges the individual and decides what life form they are to be reincarnarted as, what criteria are there to determine this and who decided upon the criteria?
Dare I say it, God?

I'm not an expert in buddhism in any way. But, AFAIK, we decide by our own behaviour. That is, karma. You make your own bed, no sky-daddy judges you.

ABE: This might help:

Buddhism and the god-idea

Who am I to question a guy/gal called Nyanaponika Thera on Buddhism? So, in sum, this dude/dudette views buddhism as atheistic in the sense that an ordaining creator god does not exist, thus it is atheistic. However, he also points out that it is not purely materialist (he makes some noise about atheism in this context, but atheism =/= materialism).

Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic , namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world [this is what atheism pertains to, rofl]. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching [and are not related to atheism either, it's just that many atheists are philosophical naturalists].

[my additions]

Thus, as I said earlier, you could be atheist and also believe in reincarnation and karma. It doesn't require a sky-daddy, and this is all atheism speaks to.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by melatonin]