The religion of atheists is socialism

[ding]

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?

That socialism is a religion.

 

[Crick]

Where is its creation myth?

What is the purpose of the universe according to socialism?

Who is its divinity?

What constitutes socialism's moral code?

 

[ding]

Where is its creation myth?

What is the purpose of the universe according to socialism?

Who is its divinity?

What constitutes socialism's moral code?

It is the fanatical behavior of its adherents in their social causes and dogma which makes it a religion.

 

[Votto]

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 argue against it.

Both those of faith and socialists understand that we are sheep, like the Bible tells us. Therefore, we both realize that we need a shepherd. Well if you don't believe in a God, then the next best thing is a king or President, etc.

It really does explain a great many things about how socialists approach the world. They don't acknowledge that there is a sovereign God who rules over the affairs of man, so someone must apply for the position. That means we need that god/person to save us from ourselves, whether it be from global warming or "social injustice".

All that can be known is, time is running out and the state needs more power to act to save us.

 

[mamooth]

Both those of faith and socialists understand that we are sheep, like the Bible tells us.

And unlike both, most atheists stand independent, having no need of any sort of daddy figure to run their lives.

That's why we pity the socialist/religionist sheep. We see extreme socialists and religionists as just two sides of the same coin.

That kind of freedom scares the religionists/socialists, which is why they're so hostile towards us.

 

[ding]

Both those of faith and socialists understand that we are sheep, like the Bible tells us.

And unlike both, most atheists stand independent, having no need of any sort of daddy figure to run their lives.

That's why we pity the socialist/religionist sheep. We see extreme socialists and religionists as just two sides of the same coin.

That kind of freedom scares the religionists/socialists, which is why they're so hostile towards us.

You are the socialists. You worship big government and social issues and are easily inflamed by them. I could go down the list.

 

[Votto]

Both those of faith and socialists understand that we are sheep, like the Bible tells us.

And unlike both, most atheists stand independent, having no need of any sort of daddy figure to run their lives.

That's why we pity the socialist/religionist sheep. We see extreme socialists and religionists as just two sides of the same coin.

That kind of freedom scares the religionists/socialists, which is why they're so hostile towards us.

We all love freedom, however, when such freedom infringes upon the freedom of others then there is a problem. I think we can both agree to that.

Where I differ from socialists is, I don't necessarily believe in a government entity telling me what is wrong and what is not, nor do I necessarily agree with them in terms of the consequences for such actions.

For example, I think Christians should give to the poor. It's just the right thing to do. However, I don't agree with forcing people to give to the poor, especially when the government takes most of the tax revenue for themselves.

The Bible refers to us as lost sheep who have all gone their own way. Without a shepherd, sheep will get devoured. Sheep are not all that smart and for the most part, defenseless. This means that if we do wrong to others, someone may devour us in retaliation, or if someone wrongs us, they may devour us without protection. Those on the left turn to collectivism and group protection and those who are religious turns to God.

Your Aryan Rand attitude of self reliance is duly noted.

Good luck with that.

 

[danielpalos]

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 argue against it.

the right wing is too cognitively dissonant to be anything more than, fantastical.

y'all are just a bunch of communists and don't know it; some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

 

[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 argue against it.

the right wing is too cognitively dissonant to be anything more than, fantastical.

y'all are just a bunch of communists and don't know it; some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

And the left who fanatically defend socialism without openly admitting that they are defending socialism have already lost the battle because their own shame convicts them.

 

[danielpalos]

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 argue against it.

the right wing is too cognitively dissonant to be anything more than, fantastical.

y'all are just a bunch of communists and don't know it; some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

And the left who fanatically defend socialism without openly admitting that they are defending socialism have already lost the battle because their own shame convicts them.

shame about what? we have a mixed market, First World economy due to socialism, not capitalism.

 

[Crick]

Where is its creation myth?

What is the purpose of the universe according to socialism?

Who is its divinity?

What constitutes socialism's moral code?

It is the fanatical behavior of its adherents in their social causes and dogma which makes it a religion.

Sorry, but no.

 

[Crick]

I have a number of points here you have not addressed.

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.

 

[Mudda]

What's the religion of agnostics like me?

 

[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 argue against it.

the right wing is too cognitively dissonant to be anything more than, fantastical.

y'all are just a bunch of communists and don't know it; some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

And the left who fanatically defend socialism without openly admitting that they are defending socialism have already lost the battle because their own shame convicts them.

shame about what? we have a mixed market, First World economy due to socialism, not capitalism.

That you defend socialism without openly admitting that you are for socialism. That shame.

 

[ding]

These guys say socialism is a religion.

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.)

 

[danielpalos]

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 argue against it.

the right wing is too cognitively dissonant to be anything more than, fantastical.

y'all are just a bunch of communists and don't know it; some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

And the left who fanatically defend socialism without openly admitting that they are defending socialism have already lost the battle because their own shame convicts them.

shame about what? we have a mixed market, First World economy due to socialism, not capitalism.

That you defend socialism without openly admitting that you are for socialism. That shame.

capitalism lost in 1929. we have a mixed market, First World economy due to socialism, not capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the "gospel Truth" for the Militia of the United States.

 

[ding]

Socialism starts with a social Contract.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the "gospel Truth" for the Militia of the United States.

Would the government regulating prices, wages and profits best serve the general welfare of the people?

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the "gospel Truth" for the Militia of the United States.

Would the government regulating prices, wages and profits best serve the general welfare of the people?

Only for the general warfare, not the general welfare. now you know what the problem is.

 

[ding]

Socialism starts with a social Contract.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the "gospel Truth" for the Militia of the United States.

Would the government regulating prices, wages and profits best serve the general welfare of the people?

Only for the general warfare, not the general welfare. now you know what the problem is.

No. I don't know what the problem is. Other than you seem to be promoting socialism without coming right out and promoting socialism. Why can't you people be up front and actually make a case for socialism?