The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

You have no distinction between good and evil because your morals are relative and can change. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. Your only distinction is pleasure and primitive needs.

There you go again... You can't just keep repeating stuff in hopes that it sticks. I have already shown to you in this and other threads that my morals don't change. And I have also shown you that your morals do change constantly, based on what the latest and greatest decrees are.

You believe what is accepted and promoted by your religion. And that can literally change tomorrow. And it will again at some point, repeatedly. Your morals are relative to what your religion tells you is good or bad. You do not think for yourself. You follow and believe what somebody else tells you, your morals are a spiritual yo-yo, and then you try to tell us that our morals are relative???

You gotta be kiddin me...

No, you showed that your morals were dependent upon the times and conditions.

The highest standard of conduct (i.e. the upper boundary condition) cannot change as it is a boundary condition.

One does not need religion to be able to figure out the highest standard of conduct. Although you do seem to prove the opposite.

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

 

[Mudda]

And regarding the "highest standard of conduct", no religion can do better than "just be good to people and the world, and don't destroy stuff".

That is the ideal they hold in front of you like a carrot, with idols like Jesus, but they never let you get there in life. They always tell you it is out of your reach until death. Because if you got there during life, you wouldn't need to listen to them anymore, and then they lose power and money flow.

Religions may advertise that they have this so-called "high conduct", but they actually thrive on promoting your sins, and then your subsequent servitude and search for forgiveness.

I don't need no stinkin' forgiveness...

My moral standard will never be breached by some corrupt ruler.

Your moral standard was such that you could not say that it was wrong for one human being to own another human being. I gave you the opportunity to do so and you punted. You claimed that if it were good for society as a whole then it would be moral.

As for your oversimplification on the highest standard possible, it is just that a massive oversimplification. The standard is specific to each conduct. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life or it is wrong for one human to own another human. Just be good to people and the world and don't destroy stuff doesn't cut it because it allows idiots to make morally relative claims such as it is not wrong for one human to own another human as long as it were good for society as a whole.

So "an eye for an eye" is a misprint?

No. It was the highest standard of the day. "An eye for an eye" meant reasonable pecuniary compensation and nothing more.

You read what you want to read into it. You know what? So do I, and it tells me that the whole thing is a scam. So I guess the bible has no universal truth in it. Good to know.

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

 

[Mudda]

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

GW Bush called the invasion of Iraq a Crusade and let priests accompany the soldiers to convert prisoners. And every US government since I've been alive at least swears on a bible, is a Christian, and wages war on his fellow man, often for very flimsy reasons.

 

[ding]

Your moral standard was such that you could not say that it was wrong for one human being to own another human being. I gave you the opportunity to do so and you punted. You claimed that if it were good for society as a whole then it would be moral.

As for your oversimplification on the highest standard possible, it is just that a massive oversimplification. The standard is specific to each conduct. For instance, it is wrong to end a human life or it is wrong for one human to own another human. Just be good to people and the world and don't destroy stuff doesn't cut it because it allows idiots to make morally relative claims such as it is not wrong for one human to own another human as long as it were good for society as a whole.

So "an eye for an eye" is a misprint?

No. It was the highest standard of the day. "An eye for an eye" meant reasonable pecuniary compensation and nothing more.

You read what you want to read into it. You know what? So do I, and it tells me that the whole thing is a scam. So I guess the bible has no universal truth in it. Good to know.

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

 

[ding]

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

GW Bush called the invasion of Iraq a Crusade and let priests accompany the soldiers to convert prisoners. And every US government since I've been alive at least swears on a bible, is a Christian, and wages war on his fellow man, often for very flimsy reasons.

Good Lord, why not bring up the Mexican-American War too? Look, you want to compare tallies? 200 million dead from atheistic rulers in the 20th century. The US takes out a hostile dictator and leaves the whole country. At least in the Mexican American War we kept half of it.

 

[BreezeWood]

There you go again... You can't just keep repeating stuff in hopes that it sticks. I have already shown to you in this and other threads that my morals don't change. And I have also shown you that your morals do change constantly, based on what the latest and greatest decrees are.

You believe what is accepted and promoted by your religion. And that can literally change tomorrow. And it will again at some point, repeatedly. Your morals are relative to what your religion tells you is good or bad. You do not think for yourself. You follow and believe what somebody else tells you, your morals are a spiritual yo-yo, and then you try to tell us that our morals are relative???

You gotta be kiddin me...

No, you showed that your morals were dependent upon the times and conditions.

The highest standard of conduct (i.e. the upper boundary condition) cannot change as it is a boundary condition.

One does not need religion to be able to figure out the highest standard of conduct. Although you do seem to prove the opposite.

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

 

[ding]

No, you showed that your morals were dependent upon the times and conditions.

The highest standard of conduct (i.e. the upper boundary condition) cannot change as it is a boundary condition.

One does not need religion to be able to figure out the highest standard of conduct. Although you do seem to prove the opposite.

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

 

[BreezeWood]

Then why do people of religion often have the lowest standards of conduct?

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

you're the life of the party bing, too bad you are so narrow sided.

 

[ding]

Maybe that is just you confirming your bias.

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

you're the life of the party bing, too bad you are so narrow sided.

It would have been surprising. You are one dimensional.

 

[Mudda]

So "an eye for an eye" is a misprint?

No. It was the highest standard of the day. "An eye for an eye" meant reasonable pecuniary compensation and nothing more.

You read what you want to read into it. You know what? So do I, and it tells me that the whole thing is a scam. So I guess the bible has no universal truth in it. Good to know.

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

 

[Mudda]

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

GW Bush called the invasion of Iraq a Crusade and let priests accompany the soldiers to convert prisoners. And every US government since I've been alive at least swears on a bible, is a Christian, and wages war on his fellow man, often for very flimsy reasons.

Good Lord, why not bring up the Mexican-American War too? Look, you want to compare tallies? 200 million dead from atheistic rulers in the 20th century. The US takes out a hostile dictator and leaves the whole country. At least in the Mexican American War we kept half of it.

So because atheists have killed people then it's ok for Christians to kill people as well? So you're no better than atheists, just like I said. Thanks.

 

[BreezeWood]

Pedophile priests, Christians in the US government that attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands. The GOP, ...

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

you're the life of the party bing, too bad you are so narrow sided.

It would have been surprising. You are one dimensional.

.

It would have been surprising. You are one dimensional.

your evasion of the example ...

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

demonstrates your ineptitude.

 

[ding]

No. It was the highest standard of the day. "An eye for an eye" meant reasonable pecuniary compensation and nothing more.

You read what you want to read into it. You know what? So do I, and it tells me that the whole thing is a scam. So I guess the bible has no universal truth in it. Good to know.

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

 

[ding]

Sure, the Church had a problem. It is largely in the past and was a mirror of society's free love movement and was largely a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. So what? Just because men don't meet standards does not mean the standard should be lowered or not exist.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

What about the GOP?

.

What Christians in the US government attack other countries for no reason and kill hundreds of thousands?

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

Trump signs order suspending entry of Syrian refugees to U.S.

Trump Signs Order Suspending Admission of Syrian Refugees

republicans are cowards, lairs and 4th century devious christians.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

.

I would have been surprised if you saw it any other way.

you're the life of the party bing, too bad you are so narrow sided.

It would have been surprising. You are one dimensional.

.

It would have been surprising. You are one dimensional.

your evasion of the example ...

IRAQI, the disguised sequel to Afghanistan used duplicity by the republican administration for religious and other ulterior motivations that cost millions of unnecessary lives and hardships from that time to the present.

demonstrates your ineptitude.

I don't know, dude, I've done pretty well for myself. How about you?

 

[Mudda]

You read what you want to read into it. You know what? So do I, and it tells me that the whole thing is a scam. So I guess the bible has no universal truth in it. Good to know.

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

 

[ding]

No. I read it in the context of the day which was 3000 years ago or so. I don't read it in the context of today. The Bible is full of universal truths. It is actually a very personal message to each person in this regard. It actually tells the whole story. It doesn't shy away telling the truth. It has too because the personal message is how to live and how not to live. Your vast oversimplifications of what you do not understand demonstrates that you are intellectually dead.

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

 

[Mudda]

So in context, it tells you how to live 3000 years ago, lol. Ummm... no thanks.
One more question, do you make this up as you go along?

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

he never does. and, he knows socialism merely requires social morals for free.

 

[ding]

Again, you are showing your lack of intellect. No, not how to live 3000 years ago. How to live today. Yes, read the verses in the context of 3000 years ago. I'm not making anything up. I am explaining to you how rational logical people read the Word of God.

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

Don't be silly. I have an answer that you either will not be able to comprehend or if you did would fail to acknowledge it for some silly bullshit reason. Tell me how having that conversation makes sense?

 

[ding]

How can it be the word of god if he didn't write the book?

It is complicated. You wouldn't understand it.

So you're stumped. Got it.

No. You are intellectually challenged.

You have no answer so you call me a retard, did you learn that at church?

he never does. and, he knows socialism merely requires social morals for free.

I answer that in my signature line of every comment.