The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. 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. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

same Thing.

You have a funny way of talking.

You have a funny way of listening.

No. I'm pretty sure it's you.

not me; i have valid arguments.

If that were the case you would have social morals for free.

i don't have any money; so i guess i should practice for free.

 

[ding]

You have a funny way of talking.

You have a funny way of listening.

No. I'm pretty sure it's you.

not me; i have valid arguments.

If that were the case you would have social morals for free.

i don't have any money; so i guess i should practice for free.

Blessed are the poor.

 

[danielpalos]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

 

[WillReadmore]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

According to the bible, they are supposed to do it voluntarily.

Matthew 19:24: "Verily I say unto you a rich man (except for Trump) can no more get to heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle."

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Understand this... ding is of the belief that you have to have a religion in order to have morals. So you must sacrifice freedom, and money and children, in order to have morals.

He doesn't understand that morals are a part of natural selection. He thinks they are intrinsically tied to his religion. And he also doesn't understand that the morals they preach are not necessarily what is good for humanity. Just what's good for his religion.

So, if you have no religion, then you can have no morals... And thus, you have no meaning in ding's world. We are less than the devil, in his view...

You have to understand the psychosis...

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. 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. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

 

[ding]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

Yes. It can be.

 

[ding]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

According to the bible, they are supposed to do it voluntarily.

Matthew 19:24: "Verily I say unto you a rich man (except for Trump) can no more get to heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle."

We have free will to know of the knowledge of either tree.

 

[ding]

.

No. You have morals. They are just relative. They can change. Maybe you need social morals for free!

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. 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. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

I get that a lot from socialists.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The funny thing about christianity today is it believes in allowing their brother to die on the side of the street. Not very christ like I'd say!

Social democracy works well world wide and makes sure our old, disabled and poor are treated the way jesus wanted...Time to wake up or you will find yourself in a lake of fire.

 

[ding]

The funny thing about christianity today is it believes in allowing their brother to die on the side of the street. Not very christ like I'd say!

Social democracy works well world wide and makes sure our old, disabled and poor are treated the way jesus wanted...Time to wake up or you will find yourself in a lake of fire.

Be patient, Matthew, the standard of living bubble is just beginning to burst. We have much further we can still go. It is the fastest way to the behaviors you seek.

 

[danielpalos]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

According to the bible, they are supposed to do it voluntarily.

Matthew 19:24: "Verily I say unto you a rich man (except for Trump) can no more get to heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle."

we have States and statism now.

 

[danielpalos]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

Yes. It can be.

why?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"Just relative"???

Yes.

We do not accept the morals of the old testament.

In fact, the NT made improvements.

And, we have improved from there.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. 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. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

I get that a lot from socialists.

,

I get that a lot from socialists.

No. Socialism becomes more than ...

nothing better than a 4th century christian lecturing about what something could become ...

 

[ding]

.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. 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. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

I get that a lot from socialists.

,

I get that a lot from socialists.

No. Socialism becomes more than ...

nothing better than a 4th century christian lecturing about what something could become ...

Not could... has.

 

[ding]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

Yes. It can be.

why?

Because to be moral it must be done the right thing, for the right reasons done the right way.

 

[danielpalos]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

Yes. It can be.

why?

Because to be moral it must be done the right thing, for the right reasons done the right way.

getting the rich into Heaven, is the right reason; solving simple poverty, is the right way.

 

[ding]

can it be immoral to simply and merely, tax the rich into Heaven?

Yes. It can be.

why?

Because to be moral it must be done the right thing, for the right reasons done the right way.

getting the rich into Heaven, is the right reason; solving simple poverty, is the right way.

Not if they are forced to do it.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

No, socialism is the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. So, socialism has nothing to do with this discussion, because we don't have that. Not even our military has its own means of production!

And, moral relativism is in contrast to moral absolutism and is about whether the context of an act matters. It pertains to questions such as whether you would shoot someone if it IS certain that doing so would save innocent lives - or would you abide by the absolute that taking a life is wrong. This is only one example of course. It could also address issues such as what should be our response if a civilian drives in a reckless manner while transporting a critically injured person to a hospital, or what our statutes of limitation should be, etc.

Multiculturalism has to do with whether we accept other cultures. You should explain what you mean by decrying multiculturalism in a discussion of religion. Remember that the acceptance of multiple religions was explicitly stated in our constitution.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

I get that a lot from socialists.

,

I get that a lot from socialists.

No. Socialism becomes more than ...

nothing better than a 4th century christian lecturing about what something could become ...

Not could... has.

.

Not could... has.

you mean modern Europe and the US without the tyranny of your religion, yes that became ... the example though must hearten you for the past and for what you would like the modern societies to again be for your vision of the future.

 

[ding]

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

.

No. Socialism becomes more than the ownership of means of production by the state or otherwise by the population as a whole. At the heart of socialism is a vague rosy notion of goodness where all of one's wildest dreams will come true. Socialism is vague by design. Indeed there is no formal socialism of socialism. It is shrouded in legend and secrecy. It dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism transcends simple economic models and makes the leap to a full blown religion. One with a special religious exemption that no other religion is allowed to possess. The right to push their "morals" as law. No wonder you won't acknowledge the religious aspect of socialism.

you are a loony - tic ...


.

I get that a lot from socialists.

,

I get that a lot from socialists.

No. Socialism becomes more than ...

nothing better than a 4th century christian lecturing about what something could become ...

Not could... has.

.

Not could... has.

you mean modern Europe and the US without the tyranny of your religion, yes that became ... the example though must hearten you for the past and for what you would like the modern societies to again be for your vision of the future.

Don't be silly. I don't have a preference for what will be. I only know that what was wasn't as you say. I know this because I know what you just accused me of is unfounded and untrue. You don't have the ability to speak the truth.