Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Gay couples aren't going to go straight just because the law says they can't marry. Allowing gay marriage has zero impact on population whatsoever.

I never implied that gay couples should become straight. There's just no advantage for society to recognize same-sex unions. In male-female unions we see a definite advantage that deserves a hat-tip and a tax break from the government. Normal couples can have children and keep a society alive by producing children. The tax break can be seen as a reward for the expense and trouble that couples go though to have offspring.

Allowing gay marriage is rewarding behavior that has no advantage for the society. What can homosexuals do that straight people can't? Nothing. What can normal couples do that homosexuals can not. They can have children and produce the next generation for the country.

Originally posted by melatonin
What happens when medical science can do something for same-sex couples?

Lets say medical science can provide a method to clone or make a child from the genomes of both parents. What then? Time to allow marriage for same-sex partners?

You do realize that cloned animals still need a uterus to grow in? While this might provide some hope for lesbian couples, male-male couples are out in the cold. Again, it's not religion that's holding homosexuals back. It's just nature. Nature frowns on homosexual couples and denies them continuance by not allowing them to have children. If anything religious groups are simply acknowledging what science proves to be true.

What's amusing that this argument against Christians (anti gay marriage) is really a beef with Nature. Christians are not making the rules, just acknowledging and following them.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by dbates]

I can say this.. I belive Atheists are just holding some ground vs the teachings of Pat Robertson..
I could only wish a man like Pat Robertson was taken out of power..

There is no conspiracy when it comes down to the world Pat Robertson sees for all mankind.. Its down right sickening!

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA

Right wing Wack jobs have been pushing way to far these days...
And the power base feeds into this monster daily..
I for one would love to see an end to all this maddness..

However if you wish to pray to some GOD.. That is your right..
I do protect that.. Fairy tales are harmless...

Its when these Nut jobs like Pat Robertson.. Fred Phelps, and other right wing Fundies, start attacking everything and everyone around them..

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us.

THis is all from the mouth of Pat Robertson..
And you think they are much different than the Phelps family?
No they are one in the same monster..
The only difference is Phelps go out and say what they mean..
While Robertson has the same outlook, but he is much more clever about it!
I belive the church is very clever.. But do not mistake being clever with Wisdom...
The church IMO lacks much wisdom.. And has brought this conspiracy of your upon themselfs with their militant actions of the past..

Dont belive me.. Check this site out for yourself..
Pat Robertson quotes that you should know about

Agin fairy tales are harmless, and I belive everyone should be able to freely whorship their god of choice..
But when their God starts pushing into my life, and my ways of belife.. Thats when a fairy tales becomes very harmful!!!

And many christians will stand up and say NO WAY.. The Phelps do not stand or speak for any of us...
And I can say you better rethink that statement.. Phelps are Right wing Fundies all the way...
I would like to see an end to the maddness that is the right wing Fundies Church.. Its pure evil in my eyes..
And not a loving and all caring God..
But a God that hates Gays.. And hates anyone that is not "them".

Its the cold truth.. LIke it or not.. Its all there across the web to learn..
You can either learn it.. Or ignore the facts..

OK, seeing people are a bit slow on the uptake:

Con:

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. Chained and caged like an animal, evolutionists displayed him in the St Louis Worlds Fair calling him the "the closest transitional link to man". Later, they displayed him like a beast in the Bronx Zoo in New York.

The zoo's evolutionist director Dr William T. Hornaday, said how proud he was to have this "transitional form” of mans evolution in his zoo. Treated like a caged animal, missing his family, his kids, Unable to bear the mis treatment he was subjected too, Ota Benga committed suicide.

Harun Yahya

Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.

www.evolutiondeceit.com...

Plagiarism, con. You are in no position to make any claims about honesty of other people.

That's the second time. In my department, you would now have a permanent mark on your academic record, and most probably be ejected from the university for such blatent dishonesty on a second occasion, after a warning. In a US university, you would already have been ejected, they tend to be more strict than in the UK.

That's just the one paragraph. There's lot more folks!

Failure to do so will get you a MANDATORY 3 DAY POST BAN on the first offense, all points and prestige titles (writer/fighter/scholar) will be erased. A second offense will guarantee you a permanent account ban with no appeal and no questions asked. Complete loss of access to AboveTopSecret.com. That's how SERIOUS we are about STOPPING this disgusting activity. Stealing someone else's intellectual property and presenting it as your own mental produce is not only illegal, it's fraud and straight out LYING to the community.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Liar, liar pants on fire? Springer will be well pished.

ABE: And swapping a few words here and there is not sufficient to claim as your own work.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by dbates
You do realize that cloned animals still need a uterus to grow in?

Of course. At the moment the uterus does need to be attached to a human female

While this might provide some hope for lesbian couples...

...

What's amusing that this argument against Christians (anti gay marriage) is really a beef with Nature. Christians are not making the rules, just acknowledging and following them.

Aye, and as humans we break these rules everyday, from IVF to contraception. Anyway, as I said, what about the lesbian couple? This hypothetical couple are now producing a child that is the genetic offspring of both partners.

Should they now be allowed to marry? It appeared that this was your one issue - same-sex couples can't produce offspring, and so they shouldn't be afforded true marriage.

In this hypothetical (and likely future) situation, they can. We wouldn't want the child born out of wedlock. We have 9 months to make the decision...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology

*Clickety Click*

That's not evidence, con.

Oh C'mon Melatoxin,, I have seen you say
you don't believe in GOD,,

so what chance do I have,,

you will believe me?

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh C'mon Melatoxin,, I have seen you say
you don't believe in GOD,,

so what chance do I have,,

you will believe me?

- Con

Why should I, con? You show none of the traits that would suggest I should trust your word.

It is interesting to imagine what tributes might have been rendered to Pasteur if he had lived in the period of the early saints of the Church and had won the love of his generation and the reverence of succeeding generations by his might works. It is interesting to surmise what would have been the attitude of the early Church toward such a benefactor of mankind. Our believe today is that Pasteur should stand as a symbol of the profound and intimate relation which must develop between the study of nature and the religious life of man, between our present and future knowledge of nature and the development of our religious conceptions and beliefs.

praxical.blogsome.com...

Osborn was a christian. He was someone who tried to bring together faith and science.

So, lets correct what you said earlier:

You call an Atheist Christian Scientist finding using a pigs tooth and building an entire skeleton around it writing documents for peer review a MISTAKE!

That's better. The answer to this is: yes. It was an honest mistake. He was just wrong. Scientists are human, they do these things. Other scientists showed him to be wrong. He even was humble enough to issue a retraction.

Will you accept you were wrong?

ABE: and you can call me any cute name you like, I care more about honesty and good scholarship than such things.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
as humans we break these rules everyday, from IVF to contraception.

Well, there a difference between helping nature decide what to do and completely changing the rules. The cost taken on by couples who chose this route (if it were available) would be so excessive that it could be seen as counterproductive for a society to reward. You would be using up valuable resources to do something that occurs naturally without the help of science. Hardly the scenario that calls for a tax break or a pat on the back.

For the same reason candy and cookies are taxed at the grocery store while bread milk and eggs are not. The first are unnecessary luxuries, while the latter are considered necessities. The government isn't telling you what to eat, they're just giving you a tax break and reward for making choices that are better and more natural.

Originally posted by dbates
Well, there a difference between helping nature decide what to do and completely changing the rules.

Hmm, OK. Guess that meant no. I can't see how the costs would be that restrictive, no moreso than IVF etc. But thanks for answering anyway.

So it's not really about being able to produce offspring, but what you consider natural. The bible is going to provide little ethical insight into these future situations, and I'm sure there will be many.

I can see a future with artificial wombs, eggs and sperm from both sexes, and all kinds of very interesting stuff, heh.

Originally posted by melatonin

Plagiarism, con. You are in no position to make any claims about honesty of other people.

That isn't a story it’s a John Brown account'

This kind of document would be under public domain as a historical event or news story having little to no creative ideas or opinions called the John Brown Account,

"The historical account of John Brown"

"John Brown drove a nice looking brand new car to the store and bought a loaf of bread. After he got home he went to bed”

Re wording the history or what you know about the historical account of John Brown is a matter of what happened and not one of creative license or loss of income. This is true writing about a news story in most cases a general overview is acceptable as long as journalist’s personal opinions or creative Ideas are not part of the story

learning to synthesize what you remember reading in a book to build on ideas, IS NOT PLAGERISM

Writing about commonly held beliefs or specific facts that are common knowledge without documentation is not plagiarism.


www.georgebrown.ca...

"When a single posture is imitated from a historic picture and applied to a portrait in a different dress and with new attributes,


This is not plagiarism,

painting.about.com...

Just don't ever go to Jail,, they kill snitches there I hear but they do worse to

Oh pffft that s right Atheists are the least likely to go to jail or whatever that was you guys were passing off about it.

By the way mel lol "Plagiarism is not a sin."
media.www.dailytoreador.com...

Do you think the below is plagiarism?

Don't tell me words don't matter. "I have a dream." Just words? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"—just words? Just speeches?

… and now, Patrick on the stump in 2006:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words—just words! "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Just words! "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Just words! "I have a dream." Just words!

(Just so you know, I didn't vote for Obama in the Virginia primary and won't vote for him if he makes the November ballot.)

On the conceptual level, nobody can accuse Obama of having stolen from Patrick the ideas or the information that "words matter," a proposition that is self-evident to every educated person this side of Hillary Clinton.

So, did Obama steal the words?

I think not.

Full disclosure. I stole my lede from Slate's Julia Turner and a couple of essential ideas from colleague John Dickerson. I looted Timothy Noah's small cranium for ideas, too.

By Jack Shafer
www.slate.com...

No Plagiarism here either.


In the sciences, "accusations of plagiarism may center on the content of discoveries or the interpretation of data rather than on specific phraseology."

Defining just where influence ends and plagiarism begins can be a difficult question.


Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wanted the American scholar to live in a state of radical originality, ended up conceding that "all my best ideas were stolen by the ancients."

marcambinder.theatlantic.com...

The OED defines plagiarism as the expropriation of the ideas,

That wasn't an idea Mel it was a historical account I read in a book

As for plagiarism,, don’t tell me what it is Mel,,

Till you learn what it isn't



[edit on 2-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Please stay on topic. If anyone has a complaint or issue with another member there are many ways to contact the staff to discuss the issue.

Thanks, Now back to..

Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The OED defines plagiarism as the expropriation of the ideas,

That wasn't an idea Mel it was a historical account I read in a book

As for plagiarism,, don’t tell me what it is Mel,,

Till you learn what it isn't

Con, you can squirm all you like, but that was plagiarism. You took anothers words and ideas and presented them as your own. Sheesh, most of the paragraph was lifted directly from the Harun website. And the same applied for a lot of the rest. Whether you read it in his book, and then lifted it from there, it doesn't matter.

It was plagiarism. If a student lifted anothers words like you did, they would be facing a troublesome time in university.

www.admin.ox.ac.uk...

www.princeton.edu...

When you sort out your own morality and ethics, then I might take lessons from such a good christian as you.

Get over it. Now you can make a humble retraction for your error about Osborn being an atheist. You know how such a christian would hate to be associated with such 'church-burning ebola boys'.

First of all I would like to say that I'm pretty much disgusted that part of this thread has degenerated into some sort of homophobic tirade.

I don't really care if someone is gay or not.
It's irrelevant to spiritual and religious belief.

I personally find the thought of homesexual acts repugnant, simply because I'm hetrosexual.
But what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of there own 4 walls is there business.
And who the hell am I, or anyone else, to deny someone the right to publicly display their affection and commitment to each other?
Who on earth get's hurt by two people entering into any form of union?

As long as no-one tries to force their sexuality and morality upon me or anyone else, wtf? who cares?

What it has to do with religion or spirituality is beyond me?

And what any of it has to do with Atheist conspiracies to overthrow Christianity is beyond me too.

And as for science and religion, come on, take the blinkers off.

Science is a fluid process which is constantly evolving as our understanding grows.
I don't see where the conflict is?
Different interpretations yes, but to deny the scientific process is denying reason and putting blind faith in opinion rather than facts and evidence.

None of us will ever get the unequivocal proof until we die or "Judgement Day", so why all the anger?

Oh, and by the way, it strikes me that Atheists are as opinionated and unopen to alternative arguements as Theists are.

It's not really a run of the mill conspiracy, it's more of a factual Luceferian agenda!

Originally posted by Freeborn
First of all I would like to say that I'm pretty much disgusted that part of this thread has degenerated into some sort of homophobic tirade

Sorry, but this is one of those current hot-button issues that comes to light when you mention atheist vs. theist. Are Christians shoving their religion down theist's throats by wanting a Constitutional amendment, or are atheist forcing the issue on Christians by demanding the right to marry, thus destroying the Christian's perspective of marriage. Saying you're opposed to gay marriage is not homophobic. It's a valid opinion that has sound reasoning. Some Christian, some secular.

I've never said anything against homosexuals, just that the state shouldn't officially endorse their unions. What they do with their life is fine by me.

We're not going to avoid an issue just because it's uncomfortable or not P.C. to talk about. These are heart of the matter issues and pertain specifically to the topic. There are many other examples you can bring up if you wish. Prayer in school (or the lack of), the insistence that only evolution is thought in school, the demands to remove crosses from veterans cemeteries. It's all relevant to the discussion.

reply to post by dbates


I assure you, the last thing anyone can describe me as is PC; I despise everything it stands for.

I just fail to see how the pro's and con's of same sex unions relates to Atheists conspiring to overthrow Christianity.

Are all people entering into same sex unions Atheists who are virulently Anti-Christian?
Is it a concerted effort to undermine Christian values?

Originally posted by melatonin


ABE: and you can call me any cute name you like, I care more about honesty and good scholarship than such things.

Will you accept you were wrong?

Sure Mel,, You were right

I was wrong.

I care more about honesty and good scholarship than such things.

Oh quit acting like I took your damn milk money.

Secondly there is information regarding that guy as a marxist atheist. I read your link and Ill concede that it seems more plausible he was a Christian.

Honesty?? Yeah well Ill tell ya this mel most of us would tell ya they'd take a liar over a tattle tail anyday. Everyone lies and although I know you STILL don't know what plagerism is not. Whether you get them from here or not,, whether they had quotations or not, more then one requires more then one citation. I didn't see you using my name next to one of those quotes you used from my post. Technically If I wanted to act like the kid who got his lunch money taken,, I could say that about everyone.

I didn't lie but I have before,, and perhaps you have an environment or culture at the university I am not aware of and I could care less about.

I Got My Honorable Discharge, I got my Degree, my Divorce, I've lied on Job Interviews, cheated on a test or two, fudged on my taxes and said the checks in the mail when I was overdrawn at the bank. , ,,
You remind me I'd be the kid that stole, your bike.

I may not be the kinda guy you'd wanna be when you grow up and you aren't the kinda kid I wanna act like, after I grew up.

You know the kind, that would see some kid copying off another kids paper in class and saying loud infront of the whole class ""TEACHER!! JOHNNY IS COPYING OFF LISA"".

While you think that's so "University" and all,,

a Good University, would have ripped up Johnny's test paper while you smiled your best Frank Burns grining ear to ear. Then expecting to hear "Good Job there catching Johhny", as class was letting out,,

a Good Proffessor at a place like Harvard or Yale,

Would have said,, oh Mel,, before you leave,,

I just wanted to tell ya,,

You got no class.


- Con













[edit on 2-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


ok..

ota benga: any proof that his captors were atheists?

Haeckel: his drawings may be fudged, but the similarities between embryos exists and is verified by modern imaging techniques

piltdown man: that was a case of many scientists not wanting to make a claim either way until they could properly verify it with a few people becoming early adopters of the idea that it was genuine.

Originally posted by Alxandro
It's not really a run of the mill conspiracy, it's more of a factual Luceferian agenda!

factual?

ok, care to provide those facts?

and luceferian? seriously?

reply to post by dbates


I think you're forgetting about legal issues like ownership of property when couples break up, Wills, joint bank accounts - all the rest of that 'couple stuff' that has serious ramifications, if you are straight or gay. Marriage is a simple way of legally protecting those rights.

J.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Sure Mel,, You were right

I was wrong.

Well done, you get a modicum of respect for that.

Mel,,You got no class.

As if I care what you think on this, con. Go and whine to your Xian groupies about it. I'm sure they'll overlook your lack of integrity.

If you want to question the ethical status of atheists, at least do it from a stable position.

Now move on and get over it.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by melatonin]