Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

[Homeric myth] would not be my area...

Evidently! So, why did you decide to get into it?

I have learnt something from this thread and others like it (thank you, tagteamers!) I have learnt that reactionary Christian activists often seem, at first sight, to have considerable knowledge on a range of specialist subjects you wouldn't expect them to be very well schooled in, such as Marxist dialectics or genetic engineering. They know the terminology and can often quote sources. But closer inspection usually reveals that they really know nothing about these subjects; all they know is what is fed to them by the thought-leaders of their movement -- a salad of lies dressed up to look convincing through the use of the relevant terminology, a few quotations cherry-picked from authoritative sources and a frugal salting of fact. That's their entire coverage of the subject area; they're just repeating what they've been told.

So far on this thread, I've shown you the error of your ways with reference to at least three differing subjects, all of which I do happen to know something about. A wiser man would not have needed to learn the same lesson -- don't spout off about things you really have no knowledge of -- thrice. Once, or at most twice would have done.

All you've really done was to swipe one satiric quote from me, out of context, from a conversation I was having with undo. You then pretended I was making big claims about Homer. Which obviously I was not. The article I posted was about the accuracy of a battlefield lay out. You just build straw men in your area of expertise and then pretend to do something meaningful while all you really do is stroke your own ego.

As for the video, please don't expect me to watch any more that you post. What a waste of time, waiting for the damn' thing to load and then discovering what fiddlesticks it was.Tell me, have you heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Ever heard of United States vs Microsoft? He used mafia tactics against Netscape. His foundation probably costs him about as much as you or I flicking a nickel in a bucket. Plus its a tax shelter. Go ahead and defend your Atheist religious bretheren, you just dig a deeper hole.

Besides, a video documentary is proof of nothing. If you want to substantiate your claims, please use scholarly sources of appropriate authority. Nothing else will convince me, and creationism-promotion web sites do not qualify.

Nothing left to substantiate really. History is History. Atheistic governments always wind up with mass murder situations or horrible human rights violations. Look at Cuba. Castro is an atheist. Funny how communist dictators are always almost always atheists but you guys claim there is no connection to communism. It's laughable. The founders of communism say so. But the atheists on ATS are authorities above Karl Marx and Engels, in their own minds anyway. Maybe there have been no mass murders in Cuba yet, but its hardly a workers paradise. Dialectical materialism is the philosophical basis of Marxism. Everything is materialism, materialism, materialism. It's a brutal ideology, with brutal results. Nice track record atheism has. We know it by its fruit.






[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

this verse sounds rather appropriate here

Rev. 17:17
For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

I dunno if these folks really have any choice in the matter.
I mean, they do in that they can exercise their free will to choose Yeshua,
but I'm thinking that's gotta be pretty hard for anybody who is so completely
convinced there's no God in the first place?

I also get the feeling there's something missing from Revelation. I'm not sure what it is though. Now that I think about it, maybe it's this that's missing:

And when he had cried out, the seven peals of thunder uttered their voices. And when the seven peals of thunder had spoken, I was about to write; and I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Seal up the things which the seven peals of thunder have spoken, and do not write them." (Revelation 10:3b-4)

Originally posted by Conspiriology
To borrow your own BS,,
Right... until someone explains how you evolved. Nothing is absolute.

It's not BS, and well then, now we're in the same boat aren't we? And I never made the claim that someone has explained exactly how I evolved yet. But I know that will eventually be figured out.

What on earth gives you the right to keep using the word "evolved then smart guy.

I'm gunna answer this question literally insatead of from the emotionally distraught context that you originally typed it in. "What on Earth?" My brain, the fact that you used the word evolve before I did. I didn't bring that into our discussion, you did. Now what gives me the right to use the word evolution? Because it's a concept that exists and when I feel as if it fits the scope of what we are speaking about, I will use it at will and your religious idealogy of it will not phase that. Why are you asking me these questions? I think you're smart enough to figure this out. Go look up the word evolve and then ask why on Earth you could ever have the right to use it and/or look it up.

You are just proving my point. You see Atheists THINK they believe in logic and call evolution a fact but for the reason you just describe,, that would be called beliving by faith. They deny that because they hate to see themselves at the mercy of the same faith WE christians admit to use.

Oh really? Do you see what you're doing here? It's natural for the religious kind, now you may or may not be. You're beoming a proselytic didact. First off, let's get something straight. You're arguing with "athiests" here and you're not conversing with me. I am still yet to say that I have faith in evolution, although I will now, at this moment, concede that I do. You are also placing all of Dawkin's personal life values onto me and all other Athiests simply from what you divulged from the 'God Delusion' or transcripts, interviews and paraphrases from and of it. You're throwing around illogical interpolation. And no, I never said that I'd hate to be at the same "fate" 'you Christians have to use'.... in fact if you go back and read my post I said that science and Christianity are explaining the universe exactly the same way but in different variances of terminology. (besides having a beginning, that's impossible and I've shown why, or rather the universe has shown why, or God, w/e you desire to call it) Remember? Natural selection or supernatural selection? What would you like. Gods plan or evolution? It's all the same thing. Evolution is the universe's (God's) plan and natural selection is a mechanism of it... you could also call that supernatural selection for the time being until we figure out the blue prints for the biological driving force in this changing device.
.

I said it was pure logic and if you show me a Science that doesn't use math,, then Ill show you a liar.

Everything uses everything. And again, here I did not say that science does not use math, I said that within their own respective laws and explanations they can seemingly disprove one another while at the same time validating theirselves and one another. Show me a God that doesn't use science and I'll show you a liar. Even logic is only a form of mathematics and science in another linguistic state. So, what are you attempting to state by saying "pure logic"?

No I am not well versed, but I am well read and having just copy pasted your quote to my Stylewriter software,, it seems to indicate that you are the one having trouble with verse. Try losing the circumlocution and you may find you will need to make a point at the end.

Thanks for admitting that because it's showing like a bright colgate invoked smile. Or you may find that the point was made all throughout, that is if you really are well read like you say you are. Your cure to my "problem" only says "Hey, let's fight more! Do it my way because I don't want to comprehend you."

Oh I see,, pffft what was I thinking (bowing) I am in the presence of someone whose amazing and staggering intellect is beyond anything we could begin to understand. Much less wantt to

You're making that evident here beyond any reasonable doubt. The Bible of Christianity is filled with many contradictions and quarrels. This is a well known fact. The God of Christianity is not well understood, it is merely worshipped and obeyed. If God is omnipresent then God believes in all things believed in (including athiesm and evolution) and believing in all things, is the things believing and is the belief itself. This would also mean that Jesus Christ was not the only body of God as he many times tried to tell everyone but they instead bowed at his great intellect and universal insight and bestowed him the glorious lable of God. Think about that and realize that you're talking to God by the logic of the Christian Bible. Now how could I not be a magnanamously superior intellect? The question is, superior to who and what? I, speaking as God, and please do put this in the record books correctly this time, will have you know that I am superior to no one and no zero, nor any singular concept used to represent such. I am simply everything and nothing, all that happens and all that ever happened, and right now I am shaping your Earth for the new phase of your understanding and faith in me.

In the words of Dirty Harry,,

Your Legend in your

own mind

- Con

So is Christ. So is God. So are you. Thank you for acknowledging my legendary status and recognizing that I have found it within myself. I take this as a compliment, afterall I hope that's what it is. The Christ and the Father would only want such things, right?

The Christ and the Father would only want such things, right?

As I explained earlier:

God is like a perfect computer program that functions on a perfect mathematical equation. We are like a random number generator, depicted as an unknown value that is injected into the equation. A safeguard (satan) checks that random number generator constantly, to see if its current value is functional within the perfect program, if it's not, the process reboots, which is usually the case. this is why it's called an unknown value because it's not known till it's checked and once it's checked it's no longer there as the program automatically reboots. perfection is ...well... perfect lol

Christ is a new data set that continuously recalibrates the random number generator so that it fits in the perfect equation, regardless. So it isn't about us at all, anymore. At one time it was, and the safeguard had one heckuva good time constantly rebooting the program and the equation due to our inability to randomly generate the correct number for the unknown value. Concepts like not being able to know the mind of God or comprehend the universe in its entirety, come into play here.

Right, I agree only to an extent - maybe that is the cause of me having trouble relating to the illogicalities of Christianity and the importance they place on their Christ. There are many other religions out there with their own personal prophets and where you place Christ I think you should also be placing those prophets and/or yourself and others. We are all children of God, not only Christ.

The universe itself is the perfection. Think about that. If it imperfectly existed it would cease to exist. The universe is that perfect machine you're explaining. Everything perfectly exists just the way that it does and the way that it "has to". If any single particle, molecule or atoms was out of place or existing imperfectly it would cause a chain effect of imperfection to fluctuate throughout the unentire universe and one of two things would happen - 1.) It would spontaneously cease to exist. 2.) The universe would instantaneously change all of its properties and workings so that it could calibrate to this new "change".

Thus, I am perfect, you are perfect, happen is perfect and these conversations are perfect. What is going on in the world right now is perfect regardless of how immoral it may seem to the Human moral system.

I liked the imagination and thought that you put into your explanation. It gave me a really mentally tangible visual.

Originally posted by melatonin
Another example of what I'm talking about for actions being driven by faith.

An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday.

Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said Madeline Neumann died Sunday.

"She got sicker and sicker until she was dead," he said.

....

They believed the key to healing "was it was better to keep praying. Call more people to help pray," he said. The mother believes the girl could still be resurrected, the police chief said.

That's a craaaacker! No wait, there's more...

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

"They are still in the home," he said. "There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see."

www.madison.com...

Atheism does not speak to neglecting your child or not neglecting your child. Same applies to theism.

Faith/religion? Whole different ball-game.

Have fun!

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Buddha served the same function.
The program kept rebooting, which they and hinduism came to call, "reincarnation."
Buddha claims to have put a stop to that continuous recycling. One can only assume that there's something to this whole "rebooting" of the matrix, if you will.

the universe is a very complex place. if there is a grand, unifying force of everything, it's certainly going to be interesting to find out if it's nothing but another aspect of God's handiwork, or God, himself.

Seems to me the "safeguard" (satan) is the equivalent of the architect and agent smith, in the matrix. apparently, random number generation has alot of slots to fill, which is all part and parcel of that whole "God is perfect" thing. it's like a template with many slots in it for a series of potential unknown values. the equation is already balanced, but the unknown values are provided for (the bridge between God and humankind) on the condition that it always balance the equation properly, which of course it doesn't do unless there's something there to recalibrate it.

So enter the little anomalies, which we represent, running our new data set (Jesus), that begins as an unbalanced value and ends up balanced by the auto-calibration that is Jesus.

buddha, because he believes the end of reboot is "the nothing," probably functions more on the context of removing the random number generator entirely from the equation, rather than recalibrating it so that it is accepted and no longer tagged for reboot.

i think weird thoughts sometimes.

anyway, i guess this has nothing to do with the OP and i better hush up

reply to post by undo


Haha. Nono, I'm sure it's fine. I enjoyed your posts and gave them stars. You don't think weird at all, maybe relative to someone's judgement, even your own. But I think those are nice thoughts and that if you sunk even deeper into them that you may be immersed with complete truth and confidence... and that's an awesome feeling.

Your post did have regard to the O.P. Since you're using Jesus in your equations instead of 'Human morality' etc.

reply to post by melatonin

 

Originally posted by melatonin
Communism is not anything like darwinism.

:shk:Melvin has been asked to report after school for a remedial study hall.

I found a very interesting set of science papers over at Marxist.com. One of them was on Chaos Theory, which I found interesting form my college physics days, but low and behold as I glanced it over to my amazement it contains confirmation of the conspiracy to airbrush the connection of Marxism and science. Note the bolded text is the reason for the concealment and denial.

Dialectical materialism, elaborated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, was concerned with much more than political economy: it was a world view. Nature, as Engels in particular sought to demonstrate in his writings, is proof of the correctness of both materialism and dialectics. "My recapitulation of mathematics and the natural sciences," he wrote, "was undertaken in order to convince myself also in detail…that in nature amid the welter of innumerable changes, the same dialectical laws of motion force their way through as those which in history govern the apparent fortuitousness of events…"
Since their day, every important new advance in scientific discovery has confirmed the Marxian outlook although scientists, because of the political implications of an association with Marxism, seldom acknowledge dialectical materialism

www.marxist.com...

”seldom acknowledge dialectical materialism” is a polite way of saying scientists airbrush history.

There are three laws of dialectics in Marxism.
1. The law of opposites,
2. The law of negation
3. The law of transformation.
www.marxists.org...

In the interest of conciseness I am only going to point out the smoking gun evidence for the connection to evolution, which is the third law the "law of transformation".
I am using an impeccable source of Marxist writings www.marxists.org; This is from August Thalheimer: Introduction to Dialectical Materialism

We now come to the third main proposition of dialectics, the proposition of the transformation of quality into quantity and of quantity into quality. The proposition states that the mere augmentation of a thing or things produces a change of quality, of characteristics, and, conversely, that a qualitative change produces a quantitative one. ….
An additional example from zoology and botany: you know that all plants and animals are composed, in the last analysis, of small elementary units, of cells. Every living being develops from one or several small cells. All differences of living creatures derive from different quantities of cells. If I increase the cells, other organisms emerge with different characteristics and forms.

www.marxists.org...

Wikipedia has a very nice summary for those who do not want to go to Marxist.org to study Dialectical Materialism.

Law of Transformation:
This law states that a continuous quantitive development results in a qualitative "leap" in nature whereby a completely new form or entity is produced. This is how "quantitative development becomes qualitative change" which sometimes happens in reverse with quality affecting quantity.
This theory draws many parallels to the theory of Evolution. The Marxist philosophers concluded that entities, through quantitative accumulations are also inherently capable of "leaps" to new forms and levels of reality. This law illustrates that through a long period of small, almost irrelevant buildup there comes a noticeable change in direction.

en.wikipedia.org...

The connection between communism and evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.




[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Oh need a connection to Stalin?

J. V. Stalin September 1938
Dialectical and Historical Materialism

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

www.marxists.org...

You know the same Stalin that became an atheist after reading Darwin. The same Stalin that killed millions.

Gee perhaps there is a connection between evolution, atheism, communism and mass murder. I think I've presented compelling evidence. You decide.

As Richard Dawkins would say...

"There's an elephant in the room and the elephant is atheism".

originally posted by whammy
Melvin has been asked to report after school for a remedial study hall.

*shouts to back to bridge*

Yes, whammy, as was said numerous times, marx et al attempted to shoe-horn the new trendy darwin into their ideology. But it was wishful-thinking.

We could discuss dialectics, but I don't see the point really. Not like we're going to get anywhere. You trawl documents looking for the word 'darwin' and say 'ah-ha!', I could try to explain how the suggestion was that ideas 'evolve' by dialectic interaction, with marxists seeing their theory as the apex of society, and you'd not get the point.

I suppose this thread could have involved dialectics. But I'd need someone else to provide logical and rational arguments to work with, and asty's gone now.

Have fun!

*strolls away into ATS sunset*

[edit on 26-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
*shouts to back to bridge*

Yes, whammy, as was said numerous times, marx et al attempted to shoe-horn the new trendy darwin into their ideology. But it was wishful-thinking.

Whether you think it was a successful implementation is immaterial you said there was no connection. I am glad you now concede the connection. It being trendy is hardly material. But thanks for coming around form your original denial. As was stated

"Although scientists, because of the political implications of an association with Marxism, seldom acknowledge dialectical materialism "

We could discuss dialectics, but I don't see the point really. Not like we're going to get anywhere. You trawl documents looking for the word 'darwin' and say 'ah-ha!', I could try to explain how the suggestion was that ideas 'evolve' by dialectical interaction, with marxists seeing their theory as the apex of society, and you'd not get the point.

The point was the connection. You conceded the point. No need to dioscuss you're right. But you still make false accusations. Funny I don't see the word Darwin in a single one of those documents above. So this "trawling' you accuse me of is your straw man avoidance technique. Another airbrush of sorts. I was discussing dialectics, you discuss "trawling" for the word darwin.
Classic mel avoidance... I see through you now.

I suppose this thread could have involved dialectics. But I'd need someone else to provide logical and rational arguments to work with, and asty's gone now.

I did discuss dialectics from day one But you evaded the issue with source challenges and straw man canard accusations.

Have fun!

Not really, Godless mass murder in the name of atheism is sickening to me. When certain elitist segments of society try to sweep it under the rug it is even sadder.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


BW....'godless mass murder'...????!!!???

Ever heard of the 'Crusades'?????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ever heard of the 'Crusades'?????

No.

What are those?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

BW....'godless mass murder'...????!!!???

Ever heard of the 'Crusades'?????

I'm not sure but didn't I see on Youtube that the "crusades" are a myth based on the Egyptian persecution of the ancient Israelites?

How many killed in these so called "crusades" you speak of. Have you any evidence of them?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


BW, you are kidding, right?

Knights of the Templar? Ring any bells?

OK...let's jump forward a few centuries to New England, and burning 'witches'....Salem, Mass???

OK...let's see who is 'air brushing' history now!?!?!?

Thanks for proving my point......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Where's your documentation for these crusades? Since you want to talk about these alleged "crusades" weedwhacker put up your data. Just to be fair to you, I am not even going to mention any atheists I have already talked about in his thread.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by riley

..and here is where I first explained that I never said they supported it. They have however proved that they are willing to give it a fair hearing which effects their credibilty. If they are so against Young earth theory.. why post anything on it at all without condemning it? There's no half-way fence sitting when you are talking scientific fact.

Ah, the "fence-sitting" science site. How would science ever get anywhere if there weren't open doors to other ideas *sigh*. But since Reasons is a Christian site, keeping an open door is fence-sitting. I guess that shoe fits on the other foot as well. So if they open the door to evolution, that won't be fence-sitting I guess...THAT will be true science.

I appreciate your appreciation of my effort in finding the article. But your above quote just doesn't make sense to me.





[edit on 3/26/08 by idle_rocker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

BW, you are kidding, right?

Knights of the Templar? Ring any bells?

I was demonstrating the avoidance techniques that Christians consistently face. I was being facetious. Just like the Jesus was Horus line of crap. Or perhaps the new attempt at Nazareth didn’t exist at the time of Jesus. The always favorite : unicorns , fairies and the Bible is made up stories… blah blah blah… ad infinitum. Do you like it?

Of course the crusades were horrible. The point of the OP is Christians do own up for these events while Atheists do not own theirs, --- they avoid, avoid, avoid. I will pick an atheist leader I haven’t discussed yet. Perhaps you couldn’t be bothered with reading the OP. Much less the thread or you would have seen the crusades addressed more than once.

From Twentieth Century Atlas

TOTAL: When I take all the individual death tolls listed here, weed out the duplicates, fill in the blanks, apply Occam ("Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"), etc. I get a very rough total of 1½ M deaths in the Crusades.

users.erols.com...

This was first century. Quite a long time ago. Horrible tragedy, these people clearly were disobeying Christ. When the Romans came to arrest Jesus Peter defended him.

John 18:10-11
"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)
Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Of course they took him and crucified him. Jesus doesn't teach violence even when his life was on the line


OK Atheisms turn!
I promised I would use someone I haven’t discussed yet. He didn’t make the OP but he is a fine example of Atheistic leadership. Atheist leader, Pol Pot from Cambodia.

In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups.

www.hawaii.edu...

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OK...let's jump forward a few centuries to New England, and burning 'witches'....Salem, Mass???

18 killed in Salem as in "Eighteen" the number that is less than twenty.
We discussed his a few pages back in thread. You should try reading the thread before making accusations next time.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...let's see who is 'air brushing' history now!?!?!?

I think we just demonstrated that weedwhacker but great fighting spirit you have.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Thanks for proving my point......

Pol Pot Atheist 3.3 million
Crusades 1.5 million







[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]