your favorite religious propaganda

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
There's been so much talk of Bill Maher in this thread I thought I'd post his movie Religulous, but they took the full movie off YT. Here's a clip of his monologue at the end of the movie, it sums up his position on religion and magical thinking. He sincerely believes that it is ultimately harmful to humanity, and states the reasons why. It's very similar to Sam Harris' position in his book A Letter to a Christian Nation -

[video=youtube;A2Dzt_Tp5VE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Dzt_Tp5VE[/video]
 
My favorite part in Religulous

[video=youtube;6uL7zjRsO1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uL7zjRsO1w[/video]

EDIT
atheist declares "There simply is no god, and you're a fool to believe otherwise."
You can keep telling yourself this all you want but that doesn't make it true. Most atheists are agnostic and are aware that they don't know for certainty that there is no god. Atheism also makes no claim that others are fools for not believing.

You are constantly redefining atheism to suit your own preconceived notions in attempts to make a simple lack of belief into so much more than that.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Do you have a problem with people stating their opinion?
when stated as OPINION, it's fine, when stated as a simple indeniabel FACT by persons who are noted physicists, celebrities etc, and requoted again and again is stops being opinion and becomes a slogan and slogans dont have the "just my opinion" label

when posted as a quote out of context and left standing alone as a statement, it no longer has the tone of opinion,, but becomes an appeal to authority, and a claim of FACT.




this is the quote in question. as presented by zahet strife. it was accompanied by no "context" save it comes from the "atheist meme base". when a quote is used without anny commentary or context the assumption is, the poster agrees with the statement and accepts it's conclusion.

it looks pretty declarative. it conveys a simple message, einstein didnt believe in fairy tales and neither should you. this quote even goes so far as to include ALL concepts of life after death including the hindu/buddhist/taoist reincarnation ideas, the concept of the "soul" as described in the west, the "Ka" of the ancient egyptians and the "Spirit" as found in many primitive societies. this single quote pulls the rug out from under every religious, spiritual, or supernatural believe in existence, leaving only atheism as a logical choice based solely upon the assertions of one physicist.

I too am of the opinion that there is no god. I do not, however, insist I know or claim any certainty about my opinions.
uhh huh... thast cool. you can believe that. you can believe that all week long and twice on sunday. i never even hinted that you couldnt, or shouldnt.

I also have good reason to believe that the world's religions are all bullshit,
right right, still with you. many religions are pretty fucked up, and some stopped being religions centuries ago and have become businesses. and some always were businesses, ever since they were invented in the 60's by a science fiction writer...

but once again, that doesn't make the possibility of some sort of deity, maybe one I haven't been exposed to could be real.
yeah... i feel that. you been reading my diary?


Every single one of those quotes were directed either at specific gods (like Einstein's, Russel's, Randi and Maher's), religions or superstitious thinking in general (Sagan and Beecher). I cannot see how you think that every one is making a claim that it is impossible for ANY type of god to exist. Everyone should doubt the existential nature of things that have never been demonstrable shown to be true. I can reject the idea of gods as easily as I reject faeries, unicorns, dragons and crockaducks almost all the same. Not all possibilities in nature have equal probabilities. Things that have no evidence for existence can be dismissed without much thought, but it appears you would argue - except when discussing god because it might insult someone.
Aaaand... ya lost me. lets take an example. a noncontentious example, an example that allows us to examine a faith which is centered around NOT getting butthurt. a faith that has NEVER endorsed violence, and a faith that doiewsnt loose it's damned mind ever couple centuries: Buddhism. not new age Buddhism, but good old fashioned Buddhism, the way mother use to make.

you can argue that Buddha may or may not have existed. some say he was a real dude, others say he is just a MacGuffin. either way this doesnt bother the adherents at all. his existence as a live historical person is clearly the cornerstone of his elevation to enlightenment as the Buddha. if he in fact never existed, then he could hardly have meditated under that banyan tree right?

therefore, if he never existed, and thus was incapable of meditating, and thus also incapable of achieving enlightenment then Buddhism must be based upon a lie. thi sis fairly straightforward logical thinking yes?

if therefore, buddhism is based upon a lie, then it is specious and phony. however, many rational persons (you might prefer "Otherwise Rational" but im sticking with this) do in fact embrace buddhism, and they do it without a profit motive. my favorite uncle was a devout buddhist, and he never made a dime off it. he simply embraced it and it brought him great comfort. he didnt have to buy $5000 in icons, statues, shrines, special robes, strings of beads or any such shit. his temple never passed about a collection plate, and when i went to the temple with him i was never exhorted to join, nor criticized for my heresy. cuz buddhists dont roll like that.

if you say i doubt the person buddha ever existed, buddhists wont get butthurt, and they wont throw bombs into any schoolyards or stab any filmakers for offending their faith(no matter how much steven segall deserves it),, and no matter how much you insist Buddha never lived, he was never a man, he never meditated under a banyan tree, and never attained enlightenment, it still remains an unproveable statement. you cannot disprove the existence of a man who is reputed to have lived some 2500 years ago, any more than i can prove to you that he did exist. so we both have an assertion, and niether can be proved. if however, you go on TV, declare that buddhism is bullshit, Siddartha was never a real person, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying thieving bastard who sells poison milk to schoolchildren, well then thats entirely different.

if somebody takes a quote from you and shaves off the "in my opinion" clause leaving only : "any belief in the supernatural, the soul, anything which persists after death, and any assertion of anything not proved by science is only the fears and cowardice of feeble souls" then puts that phrase on a pretty picture of you, and waves it around outside a funeral would be making an unequivocal statement.

the exact same statement made by the phelps assholes when they wave their "GOD HATES FAGS!" signs.

imagine how hard you would hyper-rage if, those dinguses protested the funeral of some person you know, and when you cornered one of the rats, he smugly insisted "you just dont know the context!" and pointed to the microprinting on the bottom of the sign that says "so you should not smoke! this message brought to you by the Ad Council and the American Lung Association". thats what youre claiming here.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
when posted as a quote out of context and left standing alone as a statement, it no longer has the tone of opinion,, but becomes an appeal to authority, and a claim of FACT.




this is the quote in question. as presented by zahet strife. it was accompanied by no "context" save it comes from the "atheist meme base". when a quote is used without anny commentary or context the assumption is, the poster agrees with the statement and accepts it's conclusion.

it looks pretty declarative. it conveys a simple message, einstein didnt believe in fairy tales and neither should you. this quote even goes so far as to include ALL concepts of life after death including the hindu/buddhist/taoist reincarnation ideas, the concept of the "soul" as described in the west, the "Ka" of the ancient egyptians and the "Spirit" as found in many primitive societies. this single quote pulls the rug out from under every religious, spiritual, or supernatural believe in existence, leaving only atheism as a logical choice based solely upon the assertions of one physicist.
Not to speak on Z's case, but sometimes people post quotes as a way to convey an idea without appearing to steal the idea. If a quote sums up my feelings on a post I am apt to post it without commentary. Doesn't mean I am relying on the authority of the speaker. People like Sagan and Hitchens just happened to have said a lot of things that neatly refute many nonsense ideas.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
This is the quote in question. as presented by zahet strife. it was accompanied by no "context" save it comes from the "atheist meme base". when a quote is used without anny commentary or context the assumption is, the poster agrees with the statement and accepts it's conclusion.

it looks pretty declarative. it conveys a simple message, einstein didnt believe in fairy tales and neither should you. this quote even goes so far as to include ALL concepts of life after death including the hindu/buddhist/taoist reincarnation ideas, the concept of the "soul" as described in the west, the "Ka" of the ancient egyptians and the "Spirit" as found in many primitive societies. this single quote pulls the rug out from under every religious, spiritual, or supernatural believe in existence, leaving only atheism as a logical choice based solely upon the assertions of one physicist.
This is where you seem to go off the rails. Einstein's quote isn't as declarative as you make it out. Not to belabor the point but you also seem to fail to get the point that atheism is a stance on one and only one thing, the existence of gods. If a person's quote implies he doesn't believe in the supernatural, or life after death, or Buddha, or whatever, that has nothing to do with being an atheist. They are only superficially related if they come to those conclusions using the same, skeptical methodology, but there are plenty of supernatural believers that are atheistic.
Once again though, even with Einstein's quote here, you seem to discount that he is referring to a specific type of god, a personal god, he makes absolutely no declaration about all gods, in fact he was an adherent to the pantheistic god of Spinoza. The only thing he said about life after death is it is beyond comprehension, not that he denies its existence or making a positing claim to its non-existence. He's making a comment about people that latch onto these things when we have no reason to believe them to be true is very likely out of fear or self-importance (something that appears to be common in the mindset of the theists, while simultaneously accusing the atheist of this). So when you say things like, "any belief in the supernatural, the soul, anything which persists after death, and any assertion of anything not proved by science is only the fears and cowardice of feeble souls" what you end up creating is straw man since you changed the literal meaning of the quote to suit your contention that is what is actually being claimed.

Not exactly sure what you want me to say about the Buddha analogy except that it fails because of the basic concept that not all claims are equally probable. There is much less reason to doubt that a Buddha character existed as we know that men with all sorts of ideas have existed. Just like it is not hard to believe that there may have been an actual person that Jesus is based on. There is pretty good evidence from different sources that support the historicity of Saint George yet I am pretty confident that the story about the dragon slaying is bullshit. So whether Jesus or Buddha existed is not the problem, the problem comes from the additional claims.
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
Adam&Eve

Adam is derived from the "Adamu" that was created by the Annunaki using red clay in ancient Sumerian mythos.They even made deformed humans several times before they got it right.I personally believe some elements of truth of this mythology that predates Genesis by some 4,000 years (depends were you look).

Eve to me looks like the ancient Greek story of Demeter,and Persephone.

Demeter is the goddess of harvest,sometimes depicted with sheifs of wheat,and serpents in each hand (serpents often depict renewel of the season with the shedding of skin,and sometimes referenced as a trickster taking long life from man).Demeter has a daughter named Persephone that was of exceptional beauty.One day Hades the lord of the underworld came,kidnapped,and raped her (sounds like Nephilum/fallen angels of the Bible to me).Demeter in her grief of her missing daughter would not let the crops grow.Helios (sun God) told her what happened,and she went to get her daughter.Hades tricked Persephone into eating some pomegranate seeds wich bound her to him for part of the season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Persephone

This Pagan (country dweller) story is about the seasons,and the importance of agriculture.The Bible among other obvious things just rewrites past knowledge,and uses it for mind control.

This threads a mess,and I am about debunking The Bible with vids....Skip,or enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfqPUwD3pU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxisnJ39U5o
 

Attachments

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Eve to me looks like the ancient Greek story of Demeter,and Persephone.
Eve, "mother of all living", comes from Jaganmata, which was Kali Ma's title. Also known in India as Jiva or Ieva, the Creatress (and fuck spelling control for not approving that word) of all manifested forms. The original Eve had no spouse, merely a serpent, basically her own living dildo she manifested for sexual pleasure. "They" gave birth to a man (according to historical finds that proves the existence of that older "story"). All twisted to fit man's need to repress and control women.

Src.: The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets.

Another obvious one that would fit in your post is the story about Mozes. Quite a few babies were dropped in rivers to return as saviors for their people. :roll:

But really, there's no point in pointing those out to believers. It's the devil that went back in time and made those earlier stories up to push people away from the truth. :spew:
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
Eve, "mother of all living", comes from Jaganmata, which was Kali Ma's title. Also known in India as Jiva or Ieva, the Creatress (and fuck spelling control for not approving that word) of all manifested forms. The original Eve had no spouse, merely a serpent, basically her own living dildo she manifested for sexual pleasure. "They" gave birth to a man (according to historical finds that proves the existence of that older "story"). All twisted to fit man's need to repress and control women.

Src.: The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets.

Another obvious one that would fit in your post is the story about Mozes. Quite a few babies were dropped in rivers to return as saviors for their people. :roll:

But really, there's no point in pointing those out to believers. It's the devil that went back in time and made those earlier stories up to push people away from the truth. :spew:
Thanks for your input.I did not know about the Hindu story,and just goes to show the Bible is a consolidation of a bunch of beliefs.Women get a raw deal in the Bible.

I do not put this info out for the believers.I know they are under thought control with a constant state of adult equivalency of Boogie Man,and Santa Clauss.

I know a reasoned mind is enough to destroy the Bible,but this is not enough.Keep in mind that religion is throw logic away,and breed in numbers so they get more populace than the logical of mind.

I just want to spread awareness of the history than just the "Oh it's bullshit" credo.Religion has no place in an advancing society.

I am not atheist,nor am I religious,and spirituality is fine minus the dogma of fictional bullshit.Being alive here,and now is what matters.Belief or nonbelief does not mean a thing,and only drags our destiny in the mud fighting over it.

Thanks again for your input,and here is my core research into the nonexistence of Jesus for those that are willing to drop the intelluctual banter,and get educated.Jesus binds two psychotic religions,and we cannot expect someone like Bill Maher to come out with this.

Judge for yourself,and what you glean to be true,please pass on to like minds.Thank you.


Jesus clearly states that one is exempt from judgement when one believes in him.When Christians say that no scholar refutes the existence of Jesus they are lying.
The Christogram "Chi Ro" is actually the "Julian Star" that Constantine used.This symbol is actually Caesar's comet.44 B.C.E. comet in the sky during Divus
Iulius Christos's funeral games.Julius Caesar was a Christos to his celestial mother the Goddess Venus (God of love).Christos is a title (annointed with oil).


The Tropaion is a sacred trophy for victory.The cross like symbol was a stick or tree with armor/weaponry placed on it mimicking an upright person.This was
reserved for the spirits of there Gods.Prisoners would allways be bound at the base,and would be sacrilegious to put anything not of divinity on it.The Civic Laural Crown was a symbol of high honor reserved for honorable,or holy citizens.Creation,Adam&Eve,the Flood etc are rewrites of Sumerian mythos. wiki/Alulim


Crucify replaced the homophonous translation of Latin "cremo" cremate,Greek kremo "to hang".Caesar was cremated (cremo),and a wax effigy was hanged (kremo) on a Tropaion.Pontifex Maximus aka Augustus Caesar formed the imperial cult of Caesar wich lasted for over 200 years.Augustus was Julius's adopted son Octavian who was the son of the God Apollo thru a virgin birth by a night visit by a serpent.Holy Trinity is plagiarism by 175-225 C.E.Theologians of the the Osiris mythos.


The Christian symbols the "crown of thorns",and the "cross" prove historically that the crucifixion is pure myth.The "Civic Laural crown",and the "Tropaion",are sacred symbols to the ancient Romans.Any ancient Roman citizen,or soldier using these symbols,or resemblence of said symbols in the manner described in the fictional gospels would not happen.This is just like Muslims having a petting zoo filled with pigs. The Christian,and Muslim delusion is a detriment to the whole planet.


Richard Carrier,David Fitzgerald,Robert M Price,Alvar Ellegard are scholars that refute existence.Romans made burnt offerings for there Gods took up the smoke.
Image search "tropaion" "caesar's comet" "chi ro" "caesar coin" "divus iulius" Youtube search "wax imago" "Deception & Lies Built Christianity" "skepticon"
"the god that wasn't there" "caesar's comet" "gospel of caesar" "crown of destiny" The continued belief that Jesus was real by anybody is perpetuation of lies.

Remember that the epigraphy of the Tropaion clearly shows it's sacred use at the time of the mythological Jesus,and would not be used in such a manner till the middle ages.

Epigraphy wins,and Jesus turns to dust outside the Bible.


http://forum.grasscity.com/pandoras-box/1201905-religion-has-get-f-ck-out-here.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVAUcFj3Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzU4bPkWVyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ty6-WtH1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91O1IqzHJN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH_xD9cMDzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWWtIVQlrc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfqPUwD3pU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cOKXxn1NU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwfY069iPVI
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your input.
You are welcome, and likewise.

Speaking of religious propaganda, I guess Sinterklaas has to be my "favorite"

I know they are under thought control with a constant state of adult equivalency of Boogie Man,and Santa Clauss.
Unfortunately that comparison is not just a funny way of pointing out what you call thought control (and what I bluntly call being brainwashed). Santa Claus is from Saint Nicolas, or as we call him in Dutch Sint Nicolaas or shorter "Sinterklaas". A catholic, supposedly from Turkey but they tell kids here he's from Spain, who cut off half his robe with a sword and gave it to a freezing homeless guy out of sympathy (that's where the generosity factor comes from). On 5 December, Sinterklaas-day, kids get presents. About two weeks prior kids start putting their SHOES near a chimney hoping Sinterklaas will fill it with a present.

That tradition was brought to the US and Saint Nicolas became Santa Claus, he moved to the Northpole, his "black Piets" became elves, shoes became socks, and his white horse became flying reindeer. They tell kids if they don't behave they will be put in a bag and taken to Spain. Ironically it's freedom of religion that caused the changes in those appearances. Sinterklaas looks like the pope, but in red. It's used to pre-brainwash kids with a sort of kiddy religion (nowadays it's just about getting money from consumers).

Obviously wouldn't 'fly' in the US. Neither would the helpers :lol: Looks like blackface and minstrel show right? Fucking racists... they tell kids it's from climbing up and down chimneys and working on the ship that brings Sinterklaas from Spain to Holland. By now Xmas is so commercial that kids here have both Santa and Sinterklaas giving them presents.

So next time you see Santa... he's just a fairytale figure based on the original of this guy and fooling your kids there is a man on the Northpole that gives presents if you behave is just a small step from claiming there's man in the sky controlling everything.

Btw, that's not the bible in his hand but a book with all the bad things kids have done. Sinterklaas is all knowing, sees everything you do...
 

Dalek Supreme

Well-Known Member
LOL!!! ^ Thanks for further clarity on the historical distortion for the kids.

To specify my point,and I am sure people here realise is this:Religion has people so wound up that they can be taken away by God at any second.They cannot afford to engage in something that will for the slightest second make them doubt the Holy Spirit,Jesus etc.If they doubt for one second,and die that second they risk eternity in hell fire.

This is why they will never look at images that cast doubts on there faith.If West Baptist church protests near you?
I highly suggest making a sign with using image examples I give below,and stand with them making sure they see it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tropaion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropaion
 

Attachments

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Well-Known Member
i grew up as a jew boy and got kicked out of sunday school for asking questions, i was a big fan of Bill nye the science guy and carl sagan's cosmos, so i asked too many questions in class and was seen as a troublemaker. fuck religion, it is just human animal training.
 

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman

Well-Known Member
The propaganda the jews vomit out and feed their children about the holocaust is fucking ridiculous, reproduce reproduce reproduce, never again, seclude yourself. its baffling they go from teaching about the holocaust then move onto talking about how god ordered the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites, women children and cattle, just like the nazi's had done to them but that was "moral and just", its fucked everything up for the jews these secret kind of politics that go on inside the community, they don't try to be aggressive for the most part because they are afraid of another holocaust.
 
Top