People have been basically 'lying' about the return of Christ for decades. Why should anyone believe that crap now?
Christ is coming, make no mistake. Will you be ready? Must admit though, organized religion is just a little off on their beliefs about what will actually take place.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
But religion is an invention of man for the express purpose of controlling other men. God is just the scapegoat.
Watch the video.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Can you be specific a bit here? I am curious because I don't understand the origins of religion at all. Maybe you can enlighten me.
The website others have pointed to does an okay job at poking many holes in the religion portion. Should be enough for some serious doubt to be cast on that portion.
Interesting isn't it....
Not a particularly well written essay either. Christianity's celebration dates have been adopted from some pagan dates, I thought that was fairly widely known though. The rest just seems suspect to the max.
If someone is interested in reading why Christianity might be bad for life, for humanity, then they should read Friedrich Nietzsche who is in my opinion the most convincing and insightful writer on that subject.
"Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" both contain a lot of anti-Christian sentiment which is also to be found in almost any of Nietzsche's works.
Saw some Christopher Hitchens talks and he doesn't even hit up some of the most important points. Dawkins was a bit better in the interview I've seen of him and I've been meaning to read some Dawkins. Those guys are the most famous of the current anti-God polemicists.
But philosophers have been attacking religion and Christianity for well over 150 years now and a lot of their arguments outshine the crap known as "Zeitgeist". Being anti-God is hip these days, but that doesn't mean you have to settle for the worst formulated arguments against it that there are.
I took a course called the Critique of Christianity at University a couple years back and the books we read were...
Ludwig Feuerbach - "The Essence of Religion"
Karl Marx - "On the Jewish Question" and "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction"
Sigmund Freud - "The Future of an Illusion"
Friedrich Nietzsche - "The Antichrist" and "Twilight of the Idols"
Notably the 2nd Marx reading contains his oft-quoted line that "religion is the opium of the people." Which is funny since these little quotes that get remembered hardly do justice to the complicated ideas that accompany them.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 06-14-2009 at 06:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Wow what in the hell did I miss? I take a nap this afternoon and this thing makes it from 2 pages to 6 pages. In no way am I going back and reading 3 pages of conspiracy theory rhetoric just to get caught up.
Can you be specific a bit here? I am curious because I don't understand the origins of religion at all. Maybe you can enlighten me.
I already posted a link to one site that goes through many of the claims.
The problem is that every single claim is complex... many of the Biblical claims would require an actual scholar or historian to do justice to.
But these movies shoot off these things rapid fire one after the other, not really caring if any of them actually has any merit.. they build a whole set of beliefs through these rapid fire claims presented in a specific way.
By that time the viewer has bought in. So if someone comes along and presents contrary evidence (like the chemtrail barium thing), it doesn't matter because the idea is now in place and that's the "Truth", knocking out a supporting pillar doesn't affect it anymore (this is called confirmation bias).
Do yourself a favor and take a break from infowars and read The Demon-Haunted World by Sagan. It will give you the tools to see the logical fallacies and rocky foundation so much of the stuff they and others like them present.
Then you might start being as skeptical of their claims as you are of government's claims..
The website others have pointed to does an okay job at poking many holes in the religion portion. Should be enough for some serious doubt to be cast on that portion.
Interesting isn't it....
Not a particularly well written essay either. Christianity's celebration dates have been adopted from some pagan dates, I thought that was fairly widely known though. The rest just seems suspect to the max.
If someone is interested in reading why Christianity might be bad for life, for humanity, then they should read Friedrich Nietzsche who is in my opinion the most convincing and insightful writer on that subject.
"Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" both contain a lot of anti-Christian sentiment which is also to be found in almost any of Nietzsche's works.
Saw some Christopher Hitchens talks and he doesn't even hit up some of the most important points. Dawkins was a bit better in the interview I've seen of him and I've been meaning to read some Dawkins. Those guys are the most famous of the current anti-God polemicists.
But philosophers have been attacking religion and Christianity for well over 150 years now and a lot of their arguments outshine the crap known as "Zeitgeist". Being anti-God is hip these days, but that doesn't mean you have to settle for the worst formulated arguments against it that there are.
While I would disagree with you on the validity of Nietzche's argument, you are totally right. This man is the modern philosopher and any attempts to mimic simply pale by comparison. Dawkins, Hitchens et al don't even come close.
But remember that with Nietzche almost certainly comes nihilism and even he knew that was a bad thing.
But remember that with Nietzche almost certainly comes nihilism and even he knew that was a bad thing.
Speaking of complicated claims that would take a scholar to dispute...
Nietzsche was very worried about the problem of nihilism. It sounds like you are suggesting he promotes it (either directly or indirectly)? I don't believe that to be the case based on my reading of him.
This movie was so one sided.... makes all the ######s out there believe its true...
Of course it is one sided, just as the creators of this material point out that mainstream media is one sided as well, and all the ######s just follow whatever the 6 o'clock news tells them.
Of course it is one sided, just as the creators of this material point out that mainstream media is one sided as well, and all the ######s just follow whatever the 6 o'clock news tells them.
See, that is a logical fallacy. It assumes that both extremes are necessarily false, when in fact they may not be. The truth lies where the evidence points, if it happens to be at one extreme of the other or in the middle.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
See, that is a logical fallacy. It assumes that both extremes are necessarily false, when in fact they may not be. The truth lies where the evidence points, if it happens to be at one extreme of the other or in the middle.
Well we have found today that the truth doesnt lie 100% with the government and certainly not 100% with Alex Jones either...........that is why I said the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Well we have found today that the truth doesnt lie 100% with the government and certainly not 100% with Alex Jones either...........that is why I said the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
And the poster above was questioning why you view it as a 2-dimensional spectrum with Alex Jones near one end, and the gov't near the other, and the truth in the middle.
If what Alex Jones is presenting isn't the truth, and what the gov't is presenting isn't the truth, the truth does not necessarily have to be somewhere in between them.
See, that is a logical fallacy. It assumes that both extremes are necessarily false, when in fact they may not be. The truth lies where the evidence points, if it happens to be at one extreme of the other or in the middle.
On a separate note, I would completely disagree with this statement when applied to questions not of the natural sciences. In certain human circumstances, whether dealing with text or other, there almost always completely irreconciliable positions where the evidence is vague or conflicting.
In cases like Mikey's, the evidence or situation is so completely misunderstood that the level of discussion in this thread is either incredulous skepticism or very low brow analysis which seems to take all evidence at face-value.
So actually I probably agree. I don't really know. I just know things seem to be more complicated than the ridiculous notion that we are all puppets on the stage.
No issue ever brought up involving more than one person are trivial, and to project it on a line with 100% at one end and 100% at the other end limits things.. BOTH could be right, both could be wrong, or most likely there's a large combination of correct and incorrect on various issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I just know things seem to be more complicated than the ridiculous notion that we are all puppets on the stage.
That's the key issue, the complexity.
The reason it's a logical fallacy is the whole "the truth doesnt lie 100% with the government and certainly not 100% with Alex Jones either". The subtlety there is that by saying this it's implicitly discounting what the government says and what Alex Jones says.
When in reality, any broad claim about chemtrails or shadow governments involve hundreds or thousands of claims, each one which would have its own merit.
That's why it's a powerful fallacy IMO, because it removes that complexity, satisfied with government being 20% right and Alex Jones 80% right.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The website others have pointed to does an okay job at poking many holes in the religion portion. Should be enough for some serious doubt to be cast on that portion.
Interesting isn't it....
Not a particularly well written essay either. Christianity's celebration dates have been adopted from some pagan dates, I thought that was fairly widely known though. The rest just seems suspect to the max.
If someone is interested in reading why Christianity might be bad for life, for humanity, then they should read Friedrich Nietzsche who is in my opinion the most convincing and insightful writer on that subject.
"Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" both contain a lot of anti-Christian sentiment which is also to be found in almost any of Nietzsche's works.
Saw some Christopher Hitchens talks and he doesn't even hit up some of the most important points. Dawkins was a bit better in the interview I've seen of him and I've been meaning to read some Dawkins. Those guys are the most famous of the current anti-God polemicists.
But philosophers have been attacking religion and Christianity for well over 150 years now and a lot of their arguments outshine the crap known as "Zeitgeist". Being anti-God is hip these days, but that doesn't mean you have to settle for the worst formulated arguments against it that there are.
I took a course called the Critique of Christianity at University a couple years back and the books we read were...
Ludwig Feuerbach - "The Essence of Religion"
Karl Marx - "On the Jewish Question" and "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction"
Sigmund Freud - "The Future of an Illusion"
Friedrich Nietzsche - "The Antichrist" and "Twilight of the Idols"
Notably the 2nd Marx reading contains his oft-quoted line that "religion is the opium of the people." Which is funny since these little quotes that get remembered hardly do justice to the complicated ideas that accompany them.
Dude, philosophers have been questioning religion since Socrates. This isn't some new thing that moderns dreamed up. Besides, out of all those the Nietzche reading is the only worthwhile one, but I would go with Beyond Good and Evil.
That's why it's a powerful fallacy IMO, because it removes that complexity, satisfied with government being 20% right and Alex Jones 80% right.
Well, Alex Jones does not stand alone from what I can tell. It seems their are many investigative journalist types that happen to think along the same lines about world government and big business political corruption. I guess I was using Alex as the representative of all the "conspiracy" types.
Just wanted to clarify that as of course there are more trains of though than just Jones vs. the government.
