The religion of atheists is socialism

[Mudda]

So what's wrong with my conduct?

You have lowered it.

Nope. I just checked, it hasn't budged in a long time.

Which is exactly why it will be a surprise to you, lol.

You've lowered your conduct since coming here.

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

 

[ding]

You have lowered it.

Nope. I just checked, it hasn't budged in a long time.

Which is exactly why it will be a surprise to you, lol.

You've lowered your conduct since coming here.

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

 

[Mudda]

Nope. I just checked, it hasn't budged in a long time.

Which is exactly why it will be a surprise to you, lol.

You've lowered your conduct since coming here.

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

 

[ding]

Which is exactly why it will be a surprise to you, lol.

You've lowered your conduct since coming here.

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

As safe as a snowball in hell.

 

[Mudda]

You've lowered your conduct since coming here.

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

As safe as a snowball in hell.

The snowball is safe, you haven't proven hell either.

 

[ding]

I don't believe I have. I wasn't a saint then and I'm not a saint now.

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

As safe as a snowball in hell.

The snowball is safe, you haven't proven hell either.

Heaven is order. Hell is disorder. You know about disorder, don't you.

 

[Mudda]

Same here.

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

As safe as a snowball in hell.

The snowball is safe, you haven't proven hell either.

Heaven is order. Hell is disorder. You know about disorder, don't you.

You cant prove either. Even you know that.

 

[ding]

That's for certain. Militant atheists don't stand a chance.

Then I'm safe.

As safe as a snowball in hell.

The snowball is safe, you haven't proven hell either.

Heaven is order. Hell is disorder. You know about disorder, don't you.

You cant prove either. Even you know that.

Sure I have. Can you prove I haven't?

 

[Clement]

There is by definition no "religion of atheism". Atheism is simply the rejection of Theism.

I call bullshit. Atheists can't even define themselves without dragging us into it. Ask them what they are for and what will they tell you? They will tell you they are "for" all of the political causes mentioned in the OP.

None of which has jack friggety squat to do with socialism or any other economic ideology. But if you wanna see something that does --- check Acts 2 - 4.

I call bullshit again. When atheists start PRAYING together, taking communion, and performing miracles in God's name then I will believe that those passages from Acts are "socialism". Until then, atheists are just more greedy leftist thieves who think socialism is "You've got it, I want it".

 

[Crick]

First, liberals, depending of course on your definition, could easily include half the US population. So well over a hundred million individuals. Those individuals are all unique. Claiming that characterizations such as you provide here accurately describe all of them is simple bigotry.

Second, your use of broad terms which you do not define: liberalism, socialism, morality, good and evil, makes this diatribe nearly worthless. Or, so vague as to be impossible to address, which seems more likely to have been your aim. Let's start out getting some definitions for "liberalism":

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual,parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy.

Most liberals already have the same beliefs you claim: that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of Jahweh and that he died for our sins. You state that socialism worships big government and social policy. Obviously, socialism doesn't worship anything. Let's see what it is and if it's attached to either:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

While I don't see any antipathies there, I don't see any overlap. Liberalism seems most concerned about the rights and well being of the individual. Socialism sits in opposition to free market capitalism, assuming that the benefit from the government's operation of production and distribution in a non-profit and customer-centric modality outweigh the costs in inefficiency likely to take place with the elimination of competition. So, there's nothing preventing a liberal from also advocating socialist, capitalism, communism or anarchy if he or she thought that would provide maximum individual freedoms, unrestricted human development and the strongest protection of individual rights and liberties.

The rule of law can be made to serve several different goals. Laws may be written to control the populace or laws may be written to free the populace. They are both social policy. I personally find the latter preferable but the former the goal of most conservatives. By their rejection of humanism, they assume all humans are tarnished by innate evil that must be controlled by an external authority. Thus we get laws that "crack down" on crime. Same sex marriage and elective abortion are banned.

A government that controls all production and distribution is going to be larger than one that doesn't. No question. One that provides free medical care and free education for all its citizens will also be larger. But I, personally, wouldn't mind. I can't think of two more valuable things a government could do with our tax money than educate us and maintain our health

It is based on atheism and deification of man.

It certainly shares several tenets with simple humanism, but that is not the deification of man (unless you're one of those folks that thinks humanism defies the church). It most certainly is not based on atheism. The majority of liberals are Christians. Many are Jewish, some are Hindus, Muslims and a small percent are atheists. I'm sure more liberals are atheists than conservatives, but it is not all of them by any means. Why does their religion matter so much to you?

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.

The advocation of the use of individual freedoms, unrestricted human development and the free exercise of individual rights and civil liberties put the lie to that idea.

They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure.

Really? I have to assume that this stems from your belief that all liberals are atheists. And you believe that it's impossible to have morals without a god to give them to you. That's pretty sad. Morals are simply the rules that allow us to live together in peace - to form societies and cultures. They don't come from god. There are no absolute morals. And the picture you try to paint is seriously flawed. To suggest that half the US population can't tell the difference between good and evil, have no values and are completely amoral is beyond absurd. But you had to add that little extra - "save pleasure" - to make the picture as ugly as you could. Of course, valuing pleasure is to assign "good" to that sensation. And the absence of pleasure becomes "bad" and you've tossed your own argument on the trash (where it belonged in any case).

Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality.

Did your parents feed you this bullshit? Can you give us some examples of liberals attempting to abolish private property, families, religion and equality? How would you go about doing that? Buy land and put it in the public domain? Kidnap random individuals and relocate them across the country? Burn down churches? Get elected on the basis of discriminating against Muslims, Mexicans and women?

The religious nature of socialism

Socialism is an economic theory. It is not a religion. It has no deity. It requires no faith in the supernatural.

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.

Almost all of Europe has socialist governments. What individuals do you see inflamed? What popular movements are created (and what's wrong with a popular movement)? And where do you see disrespect for Christianity developed in the course of operating a socialist state? Were you perhaps thinking of Marxism?

They practice moral relativity

Moral relativity is not the same thing as being amoral.

indiscriminate indiscriminateness

I would have thought a little voice in the back of your head would have said "delete".

multiculturalism

And what is wrong with multiculturalism? The interpretation anyone would make at that term is that you're a racist and ethnic bigot. Show me that isn't so.

cultural marxism

Feel the Bern, eh?

and normalization of deviance.

I got news for you son. Time does that all on its own, no matter who's in charge. The world is always changing whether or not you can handle it.

Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion.

Most liberals are Christians and there are atheists on both sides of the Seine, so that doesn't work. Whatever conflict I can see along these lines isn't due to hostility towards religions but the many attempts by Christians to violate the separation of church and state and hang on to what some Christians perceive as a deserved social superiority. That the Constitution is getting enforced more these days than it has in the past is, as far as I and every other non-Christian is concerned, progress.

They can be identified by an external locus of control.

Like, your god?

They worship science but are the first to argue against it.

Is that how you see the debate over AGW? Cause, if it is, you need to see a shrink about your radically distorted perception of reality.

And soon.

 

[ding]

These guys disagree with you.

Charles Fourier. La Theorié des quatre mouvements et des destinées générales. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Teoriia chetyrekh dvizhenii i vseobshchikh sudeb. In: Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. I, Moscow, 1938.)

Michail Bakunins sozial-politischer Briefwechsel mit Alexander Ivanovitsch Herzen. Stuttgart, 1895.

G. Le Bon. Psychologie du socialisme. (Quotations refer to Russian translation, Psikhologiia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

S. Frank. "Etika nigilizma" ("The Ethics of Nihilism," in Russian). In: Vekhi (Landmarks), Moscow, 1909.

S. Bulgakov. Pervokhristianstvo i noveishii sotsializm (Early Christianity and Modern Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1911.

S. Bulgakov. Khristianstvo i sotsializm (Christianity and Socialism, in Russian). Moscow, 1917

W. Gurian. Der Bolschewismus. Freiburg, 1931 giia sotsializma, St. Petersburg, 1908.)

H. Marcuse. Eros and Civilization. A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston, 1955[/QUOTE]

 

[Crick]

Disagree with me about what? Hard to tell when none of these are functioning links. And are you actually going to imply that you read French, German and Russian? Why don't you give us a few pertinent quotes from Kristianstvo i Sotsializm?

Then, perhaps, you could address some of those points in your own words. That is YOUR sig, is it not?

 

[hobelim]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

 

[Crick]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

It is not logical to accept any form of supernatural. If you once assume the supernatural exists, you can no longer rule out any event or accept any event. Existence becomes meaningless. On the basis of "Cogito ergo sum", you must assign a probability to everything based on your experience and the experience of others of which you are aware. You must act and choose on the basis of those probabilities. On that basis, I assume there are no gods.

 

[hobelim]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

Ok, so you are not sure whether God in theory exists or not absent evidence either way.

Are you uncertain whether a God as depicted by a literal interpretation of scripture exists or not?

 

[Mudda]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

Ok, so you are not sure whether God in theory exists or not absent evidence either way.

Are you uncertain whether a God as depicted by a literal interpretation of scripture exists or not?

The god of scripture can't exist because there are way to many contradictions with science, common sense and rationality. The proof is in the pudding on that invisible superhero.

 

[hobelim]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

Ok, so you are not sure whether God in theory exists or not absent evidence either way.

Are you uncertain whether a God as depicted by a literal interpretation of scripture exists or not?

The god of scripture can't exist because there are way to many contradictions with science, common sense and rationality. The proof is in the pudding on that invisible superhero.

Agreed.

Have you ever tried to see if there was something deliberately hidden in secret places by rational and literate people in an irrational and illiterate world through the use of figurative language - metaphors, allegories, parables,homonyms, sarcasm, hyperbole etc.?

in other words have you ever tried to find a rational way to interpret stories in scripture about the supernatural power of God that conforms to reality, does not require the suspension of disbelief, can be seen in action to this day, and has nothing whatever to do with anything supernatural??

If you don't understand scripture or the power of God and are looking for evidence of the supernatural you be looking in all the wrong places and will never find confirmation.....

 

[Mudda]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

Ok, so you are not sure whether God in theory exists or not absent evidence either way.

Are you uncertain whether a God as depicted by a literal interpretation of scripture exists or not?

The god of scripture can't exist because there are way to many contradictions with science, common sense and rationality. The proof is in the pudding on that invisible superhero.

Agreed.

Have you ever tried to see if there was something deliberately hidden in secret places by rational and literate people in an irrational and illiterate world through the use of figurative language - metaphors, allegories, parables,homonyms, sarcasm, hyperbole etc.?

in other words have you ever tried to find a rational way to interpret stories in scripture about the supernatural power of God that conforms to reality, does not require the suspension of disbelief, can be seen in action to this day, and has nothing whatever to do with anything supernatural??

If you don't understand scripture or the power of God and are looking for evidence of the supernatural you be looking in all the wrong places and will never find confirmation.....

The bible is what it is, if you make it something else because you don't like what you've found, yes, you can deduce another outcome of the stories if you want. Still doesn't prove anything though.

 

[Crick]

Actually, my position is that neither side has been proven, which they haven't. Making agnosticism the only logical position to hold.

You are not sure whether or not snakes can talk, dead people will come out of their graves, good people will float up into the clouds, bad people will burn forever in sulfurous flames, or if you have an invisible magic friend in the sky who has a thing for virgins?

You sit on the fence because you need proof one way or the other?

You can call it logical, I call it cowardly.

Hob, I never said that I'm in the middle on every question you can come up with, you made that part up. Please try again.

Ok, so you are not sure whether God in theory exists or not absent evidence either way.

Are you uncertain whether a God as depicted by a literal interpretation of scripture exists or not?

The god of scripture can't exist because there are way to many contradictions with science, common sense and rationality. The proof is in the pudding on that invisible superhero.

Agreed.

Have you ever tried to see if there was something deliberately hidden in secret places by rational and literate people in an irrational and illiterate world through the use of figurative language - metaphors, allegories, parables,homonyms, sarcasm, hyperbole etc.?

in other words have you ever tried to find a rational way to interpret stories in scripture about the supernatural power of God that conforms to reality, does not require the suspension of disbelief, can be seen in action to this day, and has nothing whatever to do with anything supernatural??

If you don't understand scripture or the power of God and are looking for evidence of the supernatural you be looking in all the wrong places and will never find confirmation.....

If you believe a god created the universe and that it now rules it in any way, you have accepted the supernatural.