The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

 

[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.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

I never claimed to be a saint. Just trying to become one.

 

[RWS]

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

In the land of the free and the brave won through blood and sacrifice supposedly dedicated to protecting and promoting truth justice and liberty how is it that so many people are subjugated and enslaved by ignorance if not because scamming the gullible has become enshrined and protected by law and the source of national pride has degenerated into celebrating the freedom of ignorance, deception, and the delusions of religious numbskulls...

The question is not whether God can see, its whether people can see. The question is not why God hasn't done something to stop evil being blindly perpetuated in his name, the question is why people who claim to see haven't stopped it whether God exists or not.

I agree 100%. It was a rhetorical question.

Those people definitely don't see, they just follow blindly, based on their brainwashed-from-birth religions. And they ignore all logic and reason, and history and science, and rules of good and bad.

 

[RWS]

Don't let truth be buried, and then lies used against you. Question everything.

Fools like ding will continue to use lies and false links to continue their agenda. But be careful, his links are likely soon going to get worse, and possibly virulent due to his increasing frustration with reality.

Jus sayin, be careful.

Because I think he's realizing the truth, and is gonna pop soon...

Just breathe ding....do the right thing... just breathe.



You can either go worse or better from here on... so really take the time to consider it. I'm here to help you either way.

You don't know what truth is.

Well, we know it's certainly NOT what you have been saying and quoting! As I've proven many times now. Lies and deception, is the way you roll.

And since I'm saying things that contradict your lies, I would think that the odds tilt slightly towards my favor when it comes to truthfulness.

Your brand of truth is promoting stuff that you are not very knowledgeable in, but have believed since birth. And you'll use any tactic to do so...

 

[RWS]

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.

Again, you are providing false information and lying, in order to further your argument.

See what you originally asked here: If God doesn't exist...

My answer is a page later, here: If God doesn't exist...

And I'll quote it here:

You had asked:

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

I replied:

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

So I had said that slavery is not moral with humans (insects, yes). You said that if we answered "no" to all 3 questions, and my answer is "no" to all 3, then you proved that our morals are not relative.

Yet you keep saying that non-believers morals are relative.

Again, I don't think you know what that word means. Our morals don't change.

But at one point people like you thought slavery was cool and beneficial and financially rewarding. Maybe you don't think so anymore, but that's because everyone else changed your ruler's mind about it. Your religion succumbed to public outcry, and changed its mind and said slavery was no longer cool. But that still hasn't trickled down to all you fanatics yet, that seem to think slavery is a god-given right. Either way, your morals are supposed to change based on what a ruler tells you. Not what you truly think.

Religious morals are relative to the whims of their leader.

You left out some of the conversation.

Again, you're being deceptive to try to raise doubt in people that don't research things.

Exactly what part of our conversation did I leave out? Nothing has been deleted, the posts are there for everyone to read. And I provided them.

So what did I leave out of our conversation?

 

[RWS]

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.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

I never claimed to be a saint. Just trying to become one.

You're not on the right path then... You are following the evils of religion, not the good.

You follow mantras, and blinded point-of-views. You promote things that are not true, and deny things that are. You are following the institutionalized ideas that make people ultimately do bad things and make wrong choices, in the name of their religion.

If you want to go towards the idea of being a saint, go help somebody in person. Feed someone that needs food. Buy some clothes for someone who needs clothes. Personally help someone who needs your help. Do something physical to help others, and on a consistent basis, instead of relying on prayers and donations to the church to cover it for you.

 

[RWS]

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

 

[Mudda]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

Why? I'm not religious and I'm not a socialist.

 

[Mudda]

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.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

I never claimed to be a saint. Just trying to become one.

You're headed in the wrong direction.

 

[ding]

Don't let truth be buried, and then lies used against you. Question everything.

Fools like ding will continue to use lies and false links to continue their agenda. But be careful, his links are likely soon going to get worse, and possibly virulent due to his increasing frustration with reality.

Jus sayin, be careful.

Because I think he's realizing the truth, and is gonna pop soon...

Just breathe ding....do the right thing... just breathe.



You can either go worse or better from here on... so really take the time to consider it. I'm here to help you either way.

You don't know what truth is.

Well, we know it's certainly NOT what you have been saying and quoting! As I've proven many times now. Lies and deception, is the way you roll.

And since I'm saying things that contradict your lies, I would think that the odds tilt slightly towards my favor when it comes to truthfulness.

Your brand of truth is promoting stuff that you are not very knowledgeable in, but have believed since birth. And you'll use any tactic to do so...

What exactly am I not telling the truth about? That your morals are based on your earthly happiness? How are they not?

 

[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.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

I never claimed to be a saint. Just trying to become one.

You're headed in the wrong direction.

Maybe.

 

[ding]

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.

Again, you are providing false information and lying, in order to further your argument.

See what you originally asked here: If God doesn't exist...

My answer is a page later, here: If God doesn't exist...

And I'll quote it here:

You had asked:

Sure. That is moral relativity. My question was directed to you. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Do you believe there was a time in the past it was moral? Do you believe there is a time in the future it will be moral? If you answered no to all three questions we have just proven that morals are not relative.

I replied:

And btw, slavery is not moral when it comes to humans. Because we are using other humans for financial gain.

In the insect world, slavery is rampant, but it is done so for the good of the population, and is how they survive.

Humans use slavery so they can be lazy and make money, based on other people's efforts. Just like religion does.

Religion is just a colony of human slaves, donating their money and lives for the benefit of individuals who get richer and more powerful.

The problem, unlike insects, is that it is not good for the rest of the population.

So I had said that slavery is not moral with humans (insects, yes). You said that if we answered "no" to all 3 questions, and my answer is "no" to all 3, then you proved that our morals are not relative.

Yet you keep saying that non-believers morals are relative.

Again, I don't think you know what that word means. Our morals don't change.

But at one point people like you thought slavery was cool and beneficial and financially rewarding. Maybe you don't think so anymore, but that's because everyone else changed your ruler's mind about it. Your religion succumbed to public outcry, and changed its mind and said slavery was no longer cool. But that still hasn't trickled down to all you fanatics yet, that seem to think slavery is a god-given right. Either way, your morals are supposed to change based on what a ruler tells you. Not what you truly think.

Religious morals are relative to the whims of their leader.

You left out some of the conversation.

Again, you're being deceptive to try to raise doubt in people that don't research things.

Exactly what part of our conversation did I leave out? Nothing has been deleted, the posts are there for everyone to read. And I provided them.

So what did I leave out of our conversation?

The part where you dodged my question. Id society deemed that slavery was in the best interest of society, would it be moral? Yes or no. It really is a simple question.

If God doesn't exist...

 

[ding]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

Why? I'm not religious and I'm not a socialist.

You are less intelligent, so it doesn't say much for you.

 

[Mudda]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

Why? I'm not religious and I'm not a socialist.

You are less intelligent, so it doesn't say much for you.

I'm less intelligent that a guy who has an invisible friend he can't prove?

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

no it doesn't. only fools and horses should have to work under Capitalism.

Just unplug the bananas from your ears, and try to come up with valid arguments instead of having nothing but repeal.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

you don't aspire to a divine Commune of Heaven? how capitalist of you. are You that rich.

Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

The left does not believe it is immoral, to simply Tax the rich into Heaven.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

But the same god that rules you now, ruled the church in the past. And allowed (or ignored) these things. Back then, it was morally acceptable for those pedophile/homosexual relations in the church. Obviously, priests need to let loose once in a while, so it was cool back then. But now, it's not cool.

It's the same God. Why did He allow it back then, and shuns it now? Did He change his mind?

Doesn't he keep watch over the peeps that are supposed to be representing him here on Earth? Doesn't he see the bad things they have been doing in his name?

Either he doesn't see it, or he doesn't care... Meanwhile, back on Earth, we have to deal with you deviant, perverted buttheads that want to take over the world, using His name as your excuse for your sins, with nothing but lies and threats to back you up.

The other answer is He does see it, and He promotes it... In which case, you are following the personification of evil, rather than good.

In terms of what "god" is based on in ancient pre-bible history, you are following Enlil, and not Enki.

We all have free will. We are free to choose good or evil. That doesn't mean He doesn't see it or doesn't care. It means we are free to choose between the two. Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous.

" Forcing someone to be virtuous does not make them virtuous." you're proof of that.

I never claimed to be a saint. Just trying to become one.

You're headed in the wrong direction.

Ding has nothing but diversion while alleging to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

 

[ding]

socialism requires social morals for free, capitalism doesn't. it really is, that simple.

Socialism requires idiots.

no it doesn't. only fools and horses should have to work under Capitalism.

Just unplug the bananas from your ears, and try to come up with valid arguments instead of having nothing but repeal.

"As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his... then he will understand. But not before that. That's the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization." Yuri Bezmenov

 

[ding]

Socialism requires idiots.

So does religion.

That doesn't say much for you then.

Why? I'm not religious and I'm not a socialist.

You are less intelligent, so it doesn't say much for you.

I'm less intelligent that a guy who has an invisible friend he can't prove?

Let's put it this way, I don't believe that intelligent people behave like you do. How's that?

 

[ding]

A socialist and two militant atheists walk into a bar.

The socialist says, "ok, whose got money." They leave.