New World Order and The Atheist

Originally posted by zzombie
Really I don't see Atheists or the masses of Christians doing much about the NWO.

The Christians have come to replace the old notion that "god helps those who help themselves" with God will come down and rapture you out of this situation....you won't be held responsible for your inaction.

But if that happens Ac already has a docile crowd to rule over all he has to do is tell them he's not God.

To be honest, religious groups have played a big part in resisting authoritarian governments (for example the catholic church against communism in Poland).

I think what we're seeing in this thread is classic divide and conquer, making it seem as if the differences between Atheists and True Believers are reconcilable.

reply to post by Loken68


OK, re-read it now. Fixed it to provide a clearer meaning for yourself and others who may have difficulty in deciphering postings.




[edit on 29-5-2010 by Shine71]

Originally posted by Loken68
You as an ATS regular poster Atheist what do you hope to achieve by teaching your unbelief in God to others? Are you unknowingly moving us towards a New World Order. I think so.

As i don't think that deities are required for the universe to operate, I also don't think such a lofty concept of a "new world order" is possible, despite others who may be trying to bring one to fruition. So to me the idea that atheism is a driving force towards a "new world order" is errant and presumptuous.

Atheism is largely the result of the application of critical thinking. The more critical thinking that exists in the world, the less fanaticism and extremism in the world and therefore the reduction in the need for a semi-utopian "new world order". If anything, more atheism may actually help to prevent such a thing.

The "new world order" by it's nature seems to attempt to thwart human tribalism - something that appears to be indelibly ingrained in our behavior. The application of more humanist principles should presumably increase rational and tolerant approaches to human conflict and increase progressive cooperation between tribes. Thus a grassroots-type "new world order" sources itself to the people rather than the empowerment of an elite class of rulers. Conversely, the sustain of religiosity will further divide tribes and create more of an excuse for elite classes to enable an "NWO". In other words, I believe you have it entirely backwards.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by chaosinorder


Hi, please study the Book of Enoch to clear up the fog.
The Bible has been well edited in order to confuse us further.

reply to post by BlankSlate


There's a bullseye.

Yes there another secret holding back the NWO but I want to see if anyone else gets it first.
After watching Dawkins I realized he could actually be a sort of Press secratary for the NWO.

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by BlankSlate

 

There's a bullseye.

Yes there another secret holding back the NWO but I want to see if anyone else gets it first.
After watching Dawkins I realized he could actually be a sort of Press secratary for the NWO.

You should also examine Kissinger. HUGE player. This is one of the beasts who sets the rules for the game being played, & he isn't on the pawns' side. Isn't it funny how we can't vote this monster in or out of our government? He just stays around to influence those we "vote" into office.

Originally posted by Shine71

Anything to shift the populations view from something that causes so much VIOLENCE, HATRED, and KILLING is a noble objective. Religious folks seem to be unable to get along with others, so something has to educate them.

Is this what your refering too.
So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.
President Obama, Westpoint 05-22-10

So you as an Athiest are ok with NWO









[edit on 29-5-2010 by Shine71]

reply to post by Loken68


I don't think anyone, or at least I am not, saying there is no place for 'God' but rather no place for an intolerant religion. If fundamentalist Christians can come to a point where they do not feel the need to have THEIR 'God' as the only 'God' of the world, leading them to justify the killing of others in THEIR 'God's' name, the policy enactment in THEIR 'God's' name, the invasion of others personal rights in THEIR 'God's' name, the disregard for scientific and historical fact in THEIR 'God's' name, then I see no need to say anything bad about them or encourage any law that denies them the rights to practice religion. The same goes for Islam and Judaism, so it is not just a Christian thing.

If Christians followed and learned from Jesus's teachings as Buddhists follow and learn from Siddhartha Gautama's teachings, this would be no debate. The problem is, most Christians follow the Bible's teachings, which totally brainwash and confuse humans about what Jesus really wanted. He did not say kill anyone. He did not say force this on anyone. It was his disciples and the Judea, Roman and Greek elitist's who said all that. Why are you confused?

Loken68 Your onto something!!! I wondered why Dawkins spent £140,000 on his London Bus, "There is probably no God" posters. www.dailymail.co.uk...
After all with that kind of money Dawkins could probably have created a whole Church of Atheism, complete with a Choir, book burning festivals, and of course a children's "Wednesday School".
Otherwise why not spend it on himself? I mean its not like God is going to reward him for his public education efforts! As a good atheist, he's better of spending more time, impregnating women, as its the only way to immortality!!!

Why...
China hates religion because most attempts of regime change came from movements that started of as faiths, and then took on a political identity. Stalin figured much the same (he only allowed it during W2, for moral reasons).
Government control, has always Hated the existence of community. Hence it's one thing Western society has lost, a lot of, over the last 60 years.
We see "anti-community" in government approved, housing design. We see it in how the news organisations are allowed to scare parents into e.g. not letting kids play outside. And it's probably no accident that many primary school children are sent to different secondary schools (at least in the UK, state funded, system).

Darkins has worked for years as a professional writer. He's made money by promoting NWO propaganda-interpretations, and that's why he's always had the contacts & wisdom to promote his books, so very successfully. After all he's hardly the only atheist, good at writing, and keen to pick up a pen!

My first impulse was to stay out of this one, but I think that impulse is a major component of why we as a society are so fractured. The old adage goes something to the effect that polite conversation should be devoid of religion and politics. This is a crucial warning flag. Politics and it's product policy without conversation is totalitarianism. Similarly, if religion cannot be discussed then there is nothing to it but dogma, and in many cases it is thus. So I am throwing myself into the fray, as this is the only responsible course of action.

Sam Harris wrote a book called "The End of Faith," and in this book he lays out his argument that being a moderate of any faith is just as damaging to society as extremism, if not more so, in that it legitimizes the actions of the extremist. In order to be moderate you have to cherry pick the parts of your respective scripture that you agree with and explain away the rest as allegory or anachronistic. Much as a ransom note constructed of clippings of letters from a magazine lends to anonymity, you can say "here look, God told me this is how he wanted me to live" when actually your own brain is the source. There's another problem:

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. - Deuteronomy 12:32

God agrees, at least the God of the Old Testament does.

For a long time people have been writing books and claiming they are written by a deity, whether directly or by divine inspiration. This is an unverifiable claim. It might be true, but the concept of truth is a complicated one. The best we have been able define truth is thusly: that which is not false. I could tell you that I am able to speak ancient Sumerian with perfect diction and grammar, but since nobody from ancient Sumeria lives to test this claim, it is unverifiable. Christopher Hitchens is quoted as saying "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Good point there.

I'm getting off topic though. You asked how everyone just dropping the whole religion thing would help the world. Here is an abridged list:

Stem cell research begins unabated allowing unprecedented medical advances. Spinal regeneration, brain damage reversal, amputees regain their limbs, the end of donor lists, black market organ trade, etc...

Suicide bombings end with the realization that there are no 72 virgins and no rivers of milk and honey. Sectarian violence ends as Shia and Sunni stop arguing about who is the proper successor to Muhammed, Prophet of the One True God.

Abstinence-only education ceases to be a moral imperative and millions are prevented from contracting STDs, HIV included.

Diseases such as Polio are eradicated as religious leaders stop telling their followers that vaccines are actually sterilization programs.

Medical facilities cease to be firebombed by protesters. Doctors cease to be murdered by fanatics.

Artists cease to be attacked for drawing pictures of people long dead.

People stop fighting proxy wars for control of holy sites in Jerusalem.

History and Science textbooks gain a modicum of objectivity.

Most importantly, however, people start conversing frankly and productively without being constrained by topics considered taboo or impolite.

Now, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what advantage the stagnation of religiosity provides.

reply to post by Loken68


I am not familar with any such Order, but hearing that any such Order does not favor religion, then I am in favor of it.

What, if any, are the negatives of this Order you mention? I could better answer that question if I could understand the actual negatives of such an Order. Thank you in advance.

Originally posted by Loken68
I've read other people's like Dawkins idea's and principles and I understand where he's taking his unbelief with funding for childrens camps and teaching seminars for the brain washing of children. I also understand that in a New World Order there will be no place for God.

You as an ATS regular poster Atheist what do you hope to achieve by teaching your unbelief in God to others? Are you unknowingly moving us towards a New World Order. I think so.

No, I'm not, I don't believe in God because I see no evidence to, if you decide to become atheist simply because others are, then you're a sheep and would be a slave to the NWO anyway, I don't teach my unbelief to others as thats preaching, and I don't like to see or do that.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Loken68 Your onto something!!! I wondered why Dawkins spent £140,000 on his London Bus, "There is probably no God" posters. www.dailymail.co.uk...
After all with that kind of money Dawkins could probably have created a whole Church of Atheism, complete with a Choir, book burning festivals, and of course a children's "Wednesday School".
Otherwise why not spend it on himself? I mean its not like God is going to reward him for his public education efforts! As a good atheist, he's better of spending more time, impregnating women, as its the only way to immortality!!!

So what...him NOT starting a massive book burning bible hating church and instead spending the money on a measly billboard is some evidence that hes working for the NWO?
Whenever the NWO is involved speculation is not only encourged but demanded.
And let me just say for the record, I've heard alot more about a one religion one world system NWO than a no religion NWO.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy



Great. Again thats the kind of info I'm looking for. Good reasoning skills.

In regards to my post above, nobody here has any negative aspects to mention about this new Order? Everyone speaks about this new Order, yet it seems nobody even knows what, if any, the negatives are! I was hoping to understand it better but nobody seems to know. Quite odd.

reply to post by Zelun


Good post but in doing so you ushered in the NWO. Again as was brought up earlier in this thread. A world without God becomes a world without diversity. When one Idea rules over all others you start getting serious problems such as other countries have already experienced, Former USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, North Korea.

reply to post by hippomchippo


Great that was one of the questions, thanks for your honesty.

Originally posted by Loken68
A world without God becomes a world without diversity.

The differences between individuals and cultures will always be a source of diversity. Religious ideologies are more apt to destroy diversity by homogenizing cultures.

When one Idea rules over all others you start getting serious problems such as other countries have already experienced, Former USSR, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, North Korea.

Associating the tragedies of totalitarian regimes with atheism is absurd. Statism was the source, not lack of belief in deities. Also, Hitler was far from being an atheist: you can exclude Germany from your list.

reply to post by Loken68


You wrote: A world without God becomes a world without diversity.

We have diversity EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING. There is INFINITE diversity all around us! What does a God have to do with diversity??

You would have been correct if you typed: "A world without God becomes a world without the senseless HATRED, VIOLENCE, and KILLING."

I am also waiting on the negatives of this new Order that everyone speaks of. I truly am curious to understand it. Thanks.