Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

reply to post by Bigwhammy
You're disagreement with Darwinism is all fine and good. So is my disagreement with your notion that a God gives us morals. Nobody can prove without a shadow of a doubt that their theory is 100% true, so pick whatever suits you best.

reply to post by Gigatronix


do we have to keep the scary dragon? just curious. ya know, some angels are nice.

Okay, i'm gonna have to come clean with my thoughts on this subject. To be honest, atheism has been around since the dawn of civilization. There's nothing new about it, nothing cutting edge about it. Most of the leaders of the world have been atheists, so it's not an invention of Darwin. They didn't get to be leaders by being shining examples of humanity, but by being convincing liars who didn't believe a single word of the religions they insisted the people follow. The snag here is, some of their people actually began to believe the religions when it was no longer a requirement for the leaders to keep their power. When the sciences had progressed enough or were alllowed to be revealed enough that we could all just see it for ourselves. They were shocked when half the world just said, "What in the hell are you talking about?" They were that use to people just believing whatever they said.

All you have to do is crack open a history book to find this out. Many popes were atheists. One even called christianity a splendid lie that they had successfully used to keep the people in line. He was an atheist. These people down threw history who have done these horrible things in the name of this god or that god, didn't believe in the god to begin with (unless it happened to be a god of war, and even that's arguable). They believed in their own superiority, and to hell with everyone else. History is your teacher. Ignore it at your own peril.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. The bible calls this unbelief. Let that sink in. We have a nice long bloody history to show for it.

Now this doesn't mean that all atheists are like those leaders. Oh heck no. But what it does mean is, you are not on the cresting edge of some new idea. f half the decision makers in the world actually followed and believed the religions they crammed down everyone else's throats, nine tenths of your complaints about the religion itself (which is actually filled with people that wouldn't hurt you if their life depended on it) and our history would be totally different or void. your anger should be aimed at the leaders who were themselves the same brand of religion as yourself -- atheist. Religion isn't used to make war, it's used to keep order, to encourage the rest of the people to behave civilily. And while we're out here behaving civily, they are doing whatever they want and blaming the backlash on us! IT's a brilliant shell game

TRUTH.






[edit on 21-6-2008 by undo]

Please stay ON topic.

Thanks
FredT

fred,

no problem.

---

And to continue my thoughts above, after sleeping on it and pondering it a bit more, i need to add that the problem is, there ARE supernatural forces and gods and God is very real. it's just the leaders (most of whom i theorize were or are nephilim) who don't follow the same set of moral guidelines the rest of us are encouraged/required to follow. This is primarily because they are accustomed to thinking they are above the laws of morality. they've been convinced that they are in control of their decisions, which i think would be impossibly hard to do in the first place, if they are nephilim, not to mention how hard it would be if they were totally unaware of that manipulation. their unbelief has made them unsuspecting pawns in an even bigger game.

So it all boils down like this:

Leaders (nephilim hybrids) who are accustomed to being in charge, are completely convinced they are in charge of their own destiny and above the laws they enforce on the rest of the population. in this capacity they are a necessary element of civilization. they believe in their own superiority, essentially because they are different biologically (They are, afterall, nephilim) and this they believe is due to some genetic providence of the universe and not the result of a supernatural or hypernatural force. but if the scriptures are correct, such unbelief makes them perfect manchurian candidates. i believe this unbelief is a requirement for anyone who seeks or is assigned an earthly throne of power. i don't think satan would let them have it otherwise. it's all part of the grand design.



[edit on 22-6-2008 by undo]

I really do pity Christians or anyone who follows organized religion as it is a main cause for warfare on this very fragile planet.

Yes, Atheism in some cases has lead to violent acts against those who claim to be Religious and those who claim to be Religious have lead violent acts upon Atheists and those who aren't "pro-life." Religion has caused more harm and death than Atheism ever will.

Sorry, facts are facts : Religion causes Harm.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

No its not. By Darwinian standards it make sense to kill off the defective gene pool i.e. eugenics.

Complete nonsense.. evolution is just change triggered by natural enviroment.. not human interference in a lab. and what of darwinian standards? Why assume he'd approve of eugenics? You are inferring that he'd be into culling the weak when he was merely a scientist who made observations about nature. You obsess over him.. ToE has evolved since his day yet you keep insisting it's the atheist religion and related to nazism. It's getting really old and you're beginning to sound fenatical about it.. even going so far as to make propoganda videos in order to fight an evil that only really exists in your mind.

Life is not sacred we're just animals...

Who said animals aren't important?

We don't keep handicapped cows alive- then why humans? Why allow the weak genes to continue in the population?

This is your reasoning.. not mine. Everyone has something to offer society and should be recognised for their worth. Being handicapped does not make someone a waste of space or 'defective'.. besides which many 'healthy' people can pass on bad genes.

It also doesn't explain people that give their lives for a higher good.

People like mother teresa and ghandi certainly proved how compassion can be for the greater good of the species.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

Complete nonsense.. evolution is just change triggered by natural enviroment.. not human interference in a lab. and what of darwinian standards? Why assume he'd approve of eugenics? You are inferring that he'd be into culling the weak when he was merely a scientist who made observations about nature. You obsess over him.. ToE has evolved since his day yet you keep insisting it's the atheist religion and related to nazism. It's getting really old and you're beginning to sound fenatical about it.. even going so far as to make propoganda videos in order to fight an evil that only really exists in your mind.

Canard city as usual riley .Dawinism =/= ToE Sorry 2 different things.

Darwinian standards says the weaker orgainisms do not survive so the species improves by natural selection i.e. superior genetics gets to live. Human civilization is against "selection" because we protect the weak. That is anti- evolution.

Who said animals aren't important?

Yes we eat them and do lab experiments on them. I guess you would do that to people to? Funny how Dawinists say we are just animals but think eating human flesh like Jefferery Dahmer did is wrong. That's an inconsistent position as well. We eat other animals like cows - so atheists should have no problem with cannibalism by their ethics.

This is your reasoning.. not mine. Everyone has something to offer society and should be recognised for their worth. Being handicapped does not make someone a waste of space or 'defective'.. besides which many 'healthy' people can pass on bad genes.

Then you are a hypocrite. You are not logically consitent with your stated beliefs.

People like mother teresa and ghandi certainly proved how compassion can be for the greater good of the species.

You are being a hypocrite and logically inconsistent again. Evolution talks about "the selfish gene". Dawkins wrote a book about it. It goes against their own evolutionary programming for survival!

Sorry can't have your cake and eat it too.

R.I.P. Terry Schiavo

www.terrisfight.org...

www.sacramentolifechain.org...

Terri FAQ

i'm posting this because it was a case of disbelief in the basic human right to life, something that didn't use to be questioned. it was assumed, automatically. It's also pertinent to note, those who don't view life as sacred participated in covering up the details of the case that could've saved her life/ Instead they forced the entire world to stare dumbfounded, while a human being was starved to death on TV.

Was Terri dying?

No. Terri suffered from no terminal disease or condition and her cognitive disability did not jeopardize her life in any way. She was simply a physically healthy woman with a brain injury.

Was Terri brain dead or in a coma?

No. Brain death is not a catch phrase used to describe a persons condition but rather an authentic medical diagnosis determined when respiration and other reflexes are absent. Coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Terri was neither brain dead, nor was she in a coma.

Were there any machines keeping Terri alive?

Absolutely not. Contrary to media reports, Terri did not require life sustaining equipment such as a ventilator. The only thing keeping Terri alive was the same thing that keeps every one of us alive – food and water.

Was this an “end-of-life” issue?

No. Terri’s case should not be confused with legitimate end-of-life cases in which patients are terminally ill and imminently dying. As already stated, Terri was neither ill nor dying.

Was Terri in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. Despite Judge Greer’s ruling, and in keeping with the 40 medical affidavits submitted to the court, all evidence proves that Terri was not in a PVS. Terri’s behavior and ability to interact with her surroundings did not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Did the autopsy prove that Terri was in a Persistent Vegetative State?

No. The autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, on three separate occasions, the report stated that an autopsy is unable to determine if a person is in a persistent vegetative state because the person must be alive in order to make such a diagnosis. The autopsy did prove that that, prior to Terri's death, she was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks.

Were Terri’s parents able to make any decisions regarding her medical care or well being?

No. From 1993 until her death, Terri’s parents were not allowed to participate in her care. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had 100% control over Terri. He refused to allow her parents to help their daughter in any way. In fact, during the final weeks of her life, Terri’s parents were informed that if they so much as tried to give her a drop of water, or provide comfort care in any way, they would be arrested by the armed police officers who guarded her room 24 hours a day.



Was Terri receiving any rehabilitation in the years prior to her death?

No. Terri was essentially warehoused and abandoned from 1992, when Michael Schiavo ordered all rehabilitation and therapy stopped, until her dehydration death in March of 2005. This was in spite of the fact that countless doctors said Terri’s condition could have improved with continued rehabilitation and therapy – and that her condition had been improving while she was receiving therapy.

Why did the court allow Terri to be killed?

Permission to starve and dehydrate Terri to death was granted based on hearsay evidence that surfaced almost eight years after her collapse, alleging that she wanted to die.

Did Terri have an advance directive?

No. Terri had no written advance directive that indicated her wishes. The court allowed her to be killed based only upon hearsay evidence provided by Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law – ignoring testimony by Terri’s biological family and lifelong friends to the contrary.

Was there money involved?

Yes. A trust fund of nearly $800,000 was established and earmarked for Terri’s rehabilitation and therapy, with Michael as the inheritor in the case of Terri’s death. Tragically, the bulk of this money was instead used to pay Michael Schiavo’s attorney fees in his quest to end her life.

Did the court recognize the money Michael Schiavo stood to inherit as a conflict of interest?

No. In fact the court failed to acknowledge that not only was Schiavo’s monetary interest a conflict, but that he had moved on with his life, was engaged to be married to another woman, and already had children with the other woman. In short, his role as guardian was rife with conflicts of interest.

Did Terri have her own attorney?

No, she did not. In fact, the judge in this case defaulted as her guardian/attorney.

Was it appropriate for Congress to step in to assist in Terri’s case?

Absolutely. Congress has every right to pass laws that prevent the deaths of innocent persons.

Was this a private family matter?

No. Michael Schiavo chose to take the matter out of the realm of privacy by introducing it to the courts in 1998. It was Terri’s family who reached out to Congress for help in saving her life. Michael had essentially already started a new family with his fiancé and children.

What did the law passed by Congress actually do?

It gave Terri the right to a federal review – for a federal judge to make sure that her due process rights had not been denied. This is the same right given to all prisoners on death row.
---

Are atheists air brushing history? There's more than one way to hide the facts and one of those is most certainly omission as Terri's case certainly proves.

www.terrisfight.org...



[edit on 23-6-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Are atheists air brushing history? There's more than one way to hide the facts and one of those is most certainly omission as Terri's case certainly proves.

I beg your pardon? Just because I am an atheist does not mean I condone someone being starved to death.

Not about to argue the case itself.. just getting a bit sick of people making ignorant generalisations about our collective morality.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by riley]

reply to post by undo


Great example undo!

I remember when that case was in the news. I knew a lot of folks that were concerned and praying for Terry. This is the murderous legacy of Darwinism and the relative morality fostered by atheism.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by undo

 

Great example undo!

I remember when that case was in the news. I knew a lot of folks that were concerned and praying for Terry. This is the murderous legacy of Darwinism and the relative morality fostered by atheism.

Thsi story had nothing to do with Atheism or Darwinism, and everything to do with greed and misinformation.If you're going to persist in labeling all Atheists and ToE believers as evil immoral murderers, I will just start calling all religious folks the root of all evil and ignorant dark age peasants. Fair enough?

I mean really BW, can you at least make the distinction that Atheism and Darwinism leads SOME people to be immoral? Just like Religion leads SOME people to be immoral? Regardless of what people believe in, they still make a personal choice to do what they do, and should be held accountable. WHat they believe is just a tool for them to rationalize their behaviour.

Either make the important distinction Whammy, or accept the fact that people are going to label all believers as sheeple. Because you lose the right to be offended and upset when you are guilty of the same behavior.

reply to post by Gigatronix


We're already labeled that all the time... that's the point. There's a whole thread by the Atheist Tag Team here dedicated to the fact we are destroying ATS just because we believe the universe was created by God instead of a random accident.

I've always said Atheists can and do exhibit moral behavior but to do so they must smuggle in the Moral Law that they argue doesn't exist through the back door.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

We're already labeled that all the time... that's the point. There's a whole thread by the Atheist Tag Team here dedicated to the fact we are destroying ATS just because we believe the universe was created by God instead of a random accident.

I've always said Atheists can and do exhibit moral behavior but to do so they must smuggle in the Moral Law that they argue doesn't exist through the back door.

So it's still a backhanded compliment coming from you. You can't just simply admit that Atheists can be moral and decent people, you have to assert that they're being hypocrites by doing so. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the concept that people who don't believe in God can be good people at the same time can you? No matter what we say, you will find a way to shove God down our throat.

I don't appreciate it.

Whatever happened to do unto others...?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

How about until you can say you're life is without sin, that you are perfect, and that you love thy neighbor 100%, you desist with the judgements. You are not fit to judge, you have no right to judge, and it is increasingly clear that your judgements are flawed.

As far as offensive threads go, I wasnt too fond of the evolutionists are gullible thread. If you really wnat to keep score, let me go find all the anti-atheist anti-ToE threads. There aren't as many of those as anti-religion threads, but they are out there. And how many of those do you suppose you posted on backing up the OP? Want me to go check? Or will get off your high horse and admit that the ignorance and hypocrisy goes both ways?

what a ridiculous idea. religion has easily caused more deaths worldwide than atheism ever could.
all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning and even an inkling of world history to be able to see this.

as far as "air brushing" history goes, most world leaders are and always have been affiliated with one form of religion or another...atheists hold little if any power to distort history in the whole scheme of things.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by mpriebe81]

reply to post by mpriebe81


Are you kidding? Russia, China, N Korea, Vietnam all are atheist governments. How can you say that?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Russia, China, N. Korea, ok, that's all very recent history. Got anything further to back up your claims? What about the thousands of years of murder in the name of god preceeding the modern era?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by mpriebe81

 

Are you kidding? Russia, China, N Korea, Vietnam all are atheist governments. How can you say that?

just need to read the history books to fnd christians murdering non-belivers over the centuries

reply to post by Fett Pinkus


Fellows try to read the thread some time before you stick your foot in your mouth. There have been more people killed in the 20the century by secular regimes than by anything else in history. The stats are in the the thread. There's no point in discussing it if you can't bother to read it.

From the BBC channel 4

So what who cares?

Read a history book

If you look back well then in relation to how many people lived on earth and were killed