It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
NEW FORUM: Psychology, Philosophy & Metaphysics
Now I'm drooooooling!
The reason groups such as Christians and Masons, and YES they ARE groups (they even have a lable and system of belief that they all follow)
Why is this? It's simple. These theologies are not based on true facts, but mere opinion and knowledge that has been molded over time to fit the agendas of the ever changing religious genus, and you'll find that copious Christians share a multitude of varying ideas about their OWN religion.
I've received a u2u recently from a fanatical member telling me to f off and die!
Yes, you are individuals, a group of individuals all sharing the same ideology
The point is that some members DID feel ganged up on,
This sounds good in theory. Keep the forums nice and tidy, and everybody on topic. However, I feel as though this mandate restrains discussion. I understand the part about discussing conspiracies,scandals etc, however these discussions naturally lead to other aspects. Sometimes you have to go over a little history to make a point. Even without injecting your own opinion into a subject, sometimes you have to stray a little to give people relevant information so they understand your overall point. I guess my question is, how do you define religious discussion outside of conspiracies,scandals etc? And how strictly will this new mandate be enforced? Is there a little leeway ina scenario like I described, or are is there going to be a zero or almost zero tolerance policy? I wouldn't blame you for having a zero tolerance policy though, sometimes people just don't get it, or refuse to get it,
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This forum on AboveTopSecret.com has always been set aside as the dedicated forum to discuss potential conspiracies, scandals, and problems with organized religions and religious personalities. It should not be a place to discuss religion. From this point forward, we will be limiting all threads in this forum to the specific mandate.
Hmm, this almost sounds to me like two groups couldn't play nice, so now they have to be completely seperated. While I certainly agree that the rhetoric between ToE'ists and Creationists has gotten way out of hand lately, I think it's still a very important discussion to be having. And I have a feeling that even if you seperate the two schools of thought, they're still going to seek each other out and go at it. SO where can we debate creationism vs evolution, and all it's ramifications?
The Origins & Creationism Conspiracy Forum (ATS)
It is not a place to debate creationism -v- evolution. Threads discussing science (evolution) should be limited to the Science and Technology forum, and threads discussing religious beliefs (creation) should be limited to the BTS forum discussed below.
Originally posted by jbondo
An agenda to drive Christians from ATS.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
NEW FORUM: Psychology, Philosophy & Metaphysics
This new AboveTopSecret.com forum is for the discussion of a wide range of non-religous topics: Consciousness, Mind, Epistemology, Psychology, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Self-Empowerment, Knowledge and also fringe subjects such as Mind-Control and Psychotronic Manipulation. All in all this will be an "intellectual & philosophical cafe" with a focus on everything from mental relaxing and non-religious personal balance, to conspiracies and speculation related to influencing the mind.
a lot of these people aren't necessarily anti-mason or anti-Christian
they're just pro-fact, pro-intellect, pro-logic and that inevitably ends up clashing with the illogicalities and anti-scientific foundations of Christianity.
I don't consider me to be anything, I use atheism as a means of simplicity to express what I am because I certainly don't subscribe to any God that is described in any religion and I come to that conclusion through heavy research and logic.
Regarding telling anyone to F off, that's just unnecessary and an evident weakness in the ability to debate strongly and stay on topic with facts and logic.
I'm of two minds here: Quite often anti-Masons make posts which are demonstrably not true, or when they cannot within a shadow of a doubt be proven false, they can neither be proven to be true.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I think the point that is being missed, or maybe that I didn't convey well enough is that a lot of these people aren't necessarily anti-mason or anti-Christian, they're just pro-fact, pro-intellect, pro-logic and that inevitably ends up clashing with the illogicalities and anti-scientific foundations of Christianity.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
ATS seems to side with conspiracy theorist, irrational as it may be