Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Calling sin, sin is not judgemental, except of the act, not the person.
Without the Law, you can't know right from wrong.

Who says we ALL concede that there is NO conspiracy against Christianity by atheism????



[edit on 7-4-2008 by Clearskies]

I believe that would be me.
My reasons for saying so, rested more so on my choice of words in the title in the thread than any other basis. The thread seemed to have stalled on that issue alone. I was sick of the argument. I never said that there was nothing to be concerned about.
There were two members in particular, who wanted to pick apart two words in the thread title, and nothing else. The two words, Atheists and overthrow. And the thread stalled in a vicious cycle of; prove which group of Atheists...
Whaddaya mean overthrow???
Over and over and over and over and over.
So, I conceded on those grounds. Nothing else. But I am still sorry about opening this thread in the first place. Nothing will change my mind about that.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Foxy, you may not have seen the first thread linked to in my signature but you might want to take the time to read it before referring to Whammy as an ignorant backwoods savage.

I don't think it would have given me much pause. I regard his opinion to be grossly ignorant and backwards. He staunchly stands by his opinion, and so what does this make him? I would respond the same to him if he were saying that it's impossible for me to understand Emily Dickenson because I'm not white, or because I'm not a woman.

I have enough faith in you to believe that you would agree with me in either such case, as well.

As a former Christian, I am sure you realize what Whammy is referring to: a lack of Holy Spirit guided discernment- not 'stupidity' (the term you used) in what a previous member described as an effort to misdirect and incite Jerry Springer-like drama.

I realize it quite well. My response is exactly the same.

You are incapable of understanding Aesop because you lack the proper understanding of Hellene religious beliefs? You can't comprehend the music of Matisyahu because you aren't an Orthodox Jew? You can't possibly appreciate the rich flavors of a good curry, because you were not raised Hindu?

The statement being made is that you are deficient, lesser, and incapable of looking at something and understanding it. Now maybe you can re-package it into some namby-pamby feelfood "Christians would never use a word like 'stupid' to call you stupid!" nonsense... but that's exactly what it is.

The statement that a person cannot understand a religious text unless they are a member of that religion, is a method of deflection. It is a statement that unless you are in agreement with him, your opinion is meaningless. Obviously, if we were Christian, we wouldn't be arguing against the bible - but that's the criteria we have to meet to make any argument against the bible valid?

'Man on a stick.' Nice bait but I'm not taking it.

Well, isn't he? Would you prefer "man on two sticks?"

You chastise others for not believing what you do

Isn't lying a sin, Ashley? Better say a quick "sorry Jesus" for that one there. I don't chastise anyone for not believing as I do. I don't want people to believe as I do. I've seen what you people have done to your own religion, and I want you to stay as far away from mine as I can possibly keep you.

I chastise them for attacking the beliefs of others - and I do so by delivering the same attitudes they present, back to them. Curious how our illustrious moderators accept one and not the other, but besides the point, I suppose.

all the while not taking the time to notice just how condescending and hostile you sound while looking down your own nose at everyone else. I have noticed this is a pattern for you ever since first encountering you on ATS.

My hostility is carefully worded and planned, Ashley. I know precisely what I'm doing and what I'm saying. And it's not everything else. If you paid as much attention to my posting as you claim you do (clearly you don't, as there have been many instances where you clearly responded without reading a damn thing I had written...) you would notice that it's only a certain group of attitudes, and the posters that express them that draw my hostility.

I suppose you're expecting me to feel some shame or remorse for this, of course? Maybe you should post another thread about how evil another religion is, using a racist hate site as your source, then get back to me.

Who needs a conspiracy when there are people who bully and insult their debate opponents into submission? Take care.[edit on 4/9/2008 by AshleyD]

Heads of concrete require a jackhammer.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Please be advised that while I take pleasure in reading most of your posts filled with dry wit and sparkling intelligence, I am also obliged to respond to member complaints concerning a breaking of the aforementioned Terms and Conditions, in this case having been a direct insult of a fellow member. There is no doubt that I or other staff will manner similar transgressive posts from the other side of this discussion. A brief look at my thread history will reveal that my personal stance is anti-christian. My moderator stance however, must be neutral.

Thank you for your understanding. Any further complaints regarding my person can be made toward staff using the complaints button.

Have a nice day.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hopefully the need won't arise further.

I'm out of dryly polite departing platitudes. So, er... Peace out, dawg?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

I'm out of dryly polite departing platitudes. So, er... Peace out, dawg?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

I'm out of dryly polite departing platitudes. So, er... Peace out, dawg?

One liner. Deducting 20 points.

This is not a one liner.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You are proving the point. You are unwilling to comprehend. You are just freely associating and projecting your own ideas into the word to create interpretations to suit your purposes. If you were to get a Bible and read the passage in context (what a concept!) you might be able to rule out your own ideas.

1 Corinthians 2

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

"what God has freely given us" can be so many, many things and yet you're going to say it's the bible?

It refers to this:

"We speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began."

Which is the wisdom contained in the scriptures.

according to christianity god gave us everything... including our lives and the physical universe.

He did.

here are some interpretations that are equally as valid as yours:

1:the holy spirit is helping us understand the gift of human reason which god so freely gave us

2:the holy spirit is helping us understand the gift of life itself, which god so freely gave us

3:the holy spirit is helping us understand the natural world, which god so freely gave us

Some of those statements are right Madd. I knew there was still hope for you. Maybe God will change you too one day. I was 37.

"The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. "

See I did not need to interpret, the context is very clear.

also, you're talking about paul's letters, which are most likely the oldest parts of the new testament. the canon wasn't established yet and quite a bit of it hadn't been written.

The fact that you do not accept the cannon is inconsequential when you do not even believe in God.

You asked for where th Bible said you need the spirit to understand it. I provided it.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Nothing left to say.









[edit on 4/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]

comment removed by poster.
comment was off-topic and was offensive to staff, although unintentional. Sorry mods. I'll do better.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by sizzle]

Originally posted by sizzle
I am a bit curious about something.
I have seen evidence that we have at least three moderators monitoring this thread, that are anti-Christian. Do we have any pro-Christians monitoring here?

Plenty. However, moderators dont moderate according to their beliefs but according tot he T&C.

This is the last call to post on topic, folks.

It looks like we're getting somewhat on topic again so I suppose I can reply.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I would respond the same to him if he were saying that it's impossible for me to understand Emily Dickenson because I'm not white, or because I'm not a woman.

This appears to be apples and oranges. Race and gender are physical, material attributes. What Whammy mentions is a Biblical principle dealing with spiritual discernment and Holy Spirit guided 'enlightenment,' if you will. No one is being limited by their race or gender. It is a spiritual matter you are comparing to a physical matter.

Well, isn't he? Would you prefer "man on two sticks?"

No, as I told you before when you referred to Jesus as God on a stick: Psst, Foxy. He got off. And please don't tell me you did not use that wording with any other intention than to be condescending. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Again, it was attempt to bait and cause drama.

Isn't lying a sin, Ashley? Better say a quick "sorry Jesus" for that one there. I don't chastise anyone for not believing as I do. I don't want people to believe as I do. I've seen what you people have done to your own religion, and I want you to stay as far away from mine as I can possibly keep you.

So is hypocrisy. Stay tuned for the next paragraph. As for staying away from your religion: I do plan on it unless you can convince me rocks and vegetables and the paper clip lying two inches away from me have a soul.

I chastise them for attacking the beliefs of others - and I do so by delivering the same attitudes they present, back to them. Curious how our illustrious moderators accept one and not the other, but besides the point, I suppose.

Foxy, I have seen you bash into other people who were minding their own business just replying to a post. So, please stop criticizing others for doing what you do ten times worse. And the other member failed to mention they had called BW a bigot right before in their reply- only that author updated their comment to look innocent. Yes, I saw their comment before it was updated at the time. I don't know why they are upset now when they get called the very term they used but I have had them do the same thing to me with updating their comments after I reply. It's a game and I'm not going to play.

My hostility is carefully worded and planned, Ashley.

But why be hostile?

I know precisely what I'm doing and what I'm saying. And it's not everything else. If you paid as much attention to my posting as you claim you do...

No, I really don't. Starting to learn the ropes around here finally and am starting to figure out how to tune out the noise.

(clearly you don't, as there have been many instances where you clearly responded without reading a damn thing I had written...) you would notice that it's only a certain group of attitudes, and the posters that express them that draw my hostility.

Again, why be hostile? And it is true, I typically only read the first couple of lines to your comments if at all. As you once told me before, I need to look through your comments for 'points' but sometimes I don't have the energy to root through ten inflammatory pounds of vulgarity and insults to find the .001 carat of a diamond of whatever point you are trying to make. More people are inclined to hear what you have to say when it is phrased eloquently (which I do know you are capable of) and without the condescending remarks.

I suppose you're expecting me to feel some shame or remorse for this, of course?

Of course not. I know you better than that.

Maybe you should post another thread about how evil another religion is, using a racist hate site as your source, then get back to me.

See, there you go again. 1) You openly tear down another person's faith but then criticize others for doing the same. 2) Yet more drama-inducing bait as my Islam thread made it very clear the topic of discussion was not Islam but the taboo against speaking out against the radical factions. Sorry you missed the point even after a repeated explanation.

Hope that helps clarify some things. I'm not trying to shame the shameless- I'm trying to deny ignorance. Take care.

sizzle,

I am watching this thread because it is one that was randomly assigned to me when I became a moderator.

I am not an atheist, nor a Christian, and I have no idea why that would be important to anyone. If you have a problem with my moderating here, please feel free to submit a complaint that can be reviewed by the whole board.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by NGC2736]

reply to post by sizzle


Well, Intrepid, Skyfloating....and....who?

I'm not anti-christian. I'm not anti-atheist.
I'm also not pro-christian nor pro-atheist.

Who's your third?

Cuhail

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

You are incapable of understanding Aesop because you lack the proper understanding of Hellene religious beliefs? You can't comprehend the music of Matisyahu because you aren't an Orthodox Jew? You can't possibly appreciate the rich flavors of a good curry, because you were not raised Hindu?

The statement being made is that you are deficient, lesser, and incapable of looking at something and understanding it. Now maybe you can re-package it into some namby-pamby feelfood "Christians would never use a word like 'stupid' to call you stupid!" nonsense... but that's exactly what it is.

The statement that a person cannot understand a religious text unless they are a member of that religion, is a method of deflection. It is a statement that unless you are in agreement with him, your opinion is meaningless. Obviously, if we were Christian, we wouldn't be arguing against the bible - but that's the criteria we have to meet to make any argument against the bible valid?

Madd didn't resort to personal insults and vulgarity so I expained it quite thoroughly. Just refer to my exchange with Madd. None of it is my opinion. It comes straight from the Bible.

here

and here

Originally posted by AshleyD
And the other member failed to mention they had called BW a bigot right before in their reply- only that author updated their comment to look innocent. Yes, I saw their comment before it was updated at the time. I don't know why they are upset now when they get called the very term they used but I have had them do the same thing to me with updating their comments after I reply. It's a game and I'm not going to play.

That is a lie.

I called what he said biggoted. I did not call him a biggot. I'm asking you AGAIN to NOT discuss my behaviour.. don't even refer to me as 'the other member'. You put your own spin on it and I'm getting very tired of it.. and I'm getting tired of having to come back and defend myself. STOP ATTACKING.

Edit to clarify.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by riley]

As I stated before;
My question was one of curiosoty. Not a complaint.
I have seen no misbehavior by any mods here.
I am very fond of most of you that I have had interaction with. Sorry if my question was misinterpeted.

Most Atheist I know don't really care. Unless you get into a direct debate over religion. Right or wrong people are going to defend their beliefs. So long as you stay true to your beliefs, nothing'll be overthrown.

reply to post by Cuhail


Cuhail,
I would say you were the third.
But you are #1 in my book. Actually I did think you were Atheist. Thanks for clearing it up.
I don't know why I was curious. Sometimes, I guess folks just wonder what goes on behind the scenes in mod-land. I don't know. I need to quit thinking out-loud. :dnn me.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This appears to be apples and oranges. Race and gender are physical, material attributes. What Whammy mentions is a Biblical principle dealing with spiritual discernment and Holy Spirit guided 'enlightenment,' if you will. No one is being limited by their race or gender. It is a spiritual matter you are comparing to a physical matter.

It's not like I "decided" to follow the religious path I'm on. It is, in fact, a physically and psychically compelling need. I did not convert. I became. For me, my religion is every bit as part of my physical makeup as my skin color or my genital arrangement.

Even if it weren't however, a statement that because of my religion, I am unable to understand something is still ignorant and bigoted.

What Whammy is describing is secret revelation that runs counter to everything taught in all three branches of Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism all teach that the Holy Word is revealed and open to all people, not just a privileged few who "have what it takes"

No, as I told you before when you referred to Jesus as God on a stick: Psst, Foxy. He got off. And please don't tell me you did not use that wording with any other intention than to be condescending. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Again, it was attempt to bait and cause drama.

Then why is he still on it when you guys worship? Why are naughty children sometimes told their behavior is hammering the nails into him? I can accept he got off the cross - Part and parcel in my belief in Jesus as a historical figure is that he faked his death and got spirited the hell out of there by his family. But, in Christian worship, it's either him on the stick, or the stick itself that everyone's looking at when they pray.

Absolutely it's condescending. I belittle stupidity. There's much more to Chrisitanity that deserves venerarion besides the crucifixion. Personally I'm a fan of the statues of Jesus in many Latin American countries representing his sermon on the mount.

So is hypocrisy. Stay tuned for the next paragraph. As for staying away from your religion: I do plan on it unless you can convince me rocks and vegetables and the paper clip lying two inches away from me have a soul.

Why would I want to convince you? I already told you I don't want you over here.

Foxy, I have seen you bash into other people who were minding their own business just replying to a post. So, please stop criticizing others for doing what you do ten times worse. And the other member failed to mention they had called BW a bigot right before in their reply- only that author updated their comment to look innocent. Yes, I saw their comment before it was updated at the time. I don't know why they are upset now when they get called the very term they used but I have had them do the same thing to me with updating their comments after I reply. It's a game and I'm not going to play.

And I could care less, because that's their argument. I was replying to something else Whammy was talking about.

But why be hostile?

Because the other option is acquiescence. Talking politely to a Christian gets one spoken to like a favored housepet.

No, I really don't. Starting to learn the ropes around here finally and am starting to figure out how to tune out the noise.

Snarky today. I'm a bad influence.

Again, why be hostile? And it is true, I typically only read the first couple of lines to your comments if at all. As you once told me before, I need to look through your comments for 'points' but sometimes I don't have the energy to root through ten inflammatory pounds of vulgarity and insults to find the .001 carat of a diamond of whatever point you are trying to make. More people are inclined to hear what you have to say when it is phrased eloquently (which I do know you are capable of) and without the condescending remarks.

Why put effort into something that won't be appreciated? Frankly it's easier and more natural to respond to the filth so often posted here with anger and hostility, than it is to bite one's fingers and hope upon hope that maybe someone will give a crap. If nothing else, it's venting about hte crazy piles and piles of junk and nonsense I keep seeing here.

See, there you go again. 1) You openly tear down another person's faith but then criticize others for doing the same. 2) Yet more drama-inducing bait as my Islam thread made it very clear the topic of discussion was not Islam but the taboo against speaking out against the radical factions. Sorry you missed the point even after a repeated explanation.

And when it was shown that your premise was not only a logical fallacy (begging the question) but also factual fallacy (as numerous posters demonstrated that the immense array of criticisms brought up by you and those who agreed with you were in fact, counter to your claims) you turned to slime. You back-patted other slime peddlers and bigots. And you attacked those who tried to counter their "arguments."

Hope that helps clarify some things. I'm not trying to shame the shameless- I'm trying to deny ignorance. Take care.

Then I would suggest that if you want to worship the god you say you worship, you convert to Judaism or Islam. Christianity is to YHWH what Mormonism is to Jesus.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

What Whammy is describing is secret revelation that runs counter to everything taught in all three branches of Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism all teach that the Holy Word is revealed and open to all people, not just a privileged few who "have what it takes"

Wrong Fox!

It comes directly form 1 Corinthians 2:

4The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Originally posted by riley
I called what he said biggoted. I did not call him a biggot. I'm asking you AGAIN to NOT discuss my behaviour.. don't even refer to me as 'the other member'. You put your own spin on it and I'm getting very tired of it.. and I'm getting tired of having to come back and defend myself. STOP ATTACKING.

Contradiction. Can't help but deny ignorance with this one. So you called someone out on their 'behavior' as being bigoted but it's acceptable because it is just their behavior and not them.

But when I point out your behavior and say nothing about you, you take it as a personal attack? But you don't expect BW to take your comments towards him the same way? However, my original point still stands: What is left of your comment now stating BW's actions were bigoted is your edit- not your original post that I was able to see. I'm not discussing this any further with you and will not play your game.

Good bye.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You back-patted other slime peddlers and bigots. And you attacked those who tried to counter their "arguments."

Prove it, Foxy. With quotes and all. Send them to me in a U2U or on the other thread if you have to. I never once- not once- stooped to attacking a single member on that entire 22 paged thread although several comments were directed towards me. You're not going to be able to back up your claims but it would be very easy for me to refute your accusation by quoting the many times I told my opponents and 'buddies' to knock off the garbage between each other. Nice try.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by AshleyD]