Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Wry Catcher]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?
Wrong, you must be stupid to draw that conclusion!
Tell me, Scamp... from where does the word 'Sophist' originate? What was the original work which described such?
Don't know, Early, probably the 5th or 6th Century BC

And just to show ya that I'm fair... I'll give ya a clue. It's not in the dictionary where ya 'learned' that fascists are right-wingers.

Earlier than Socrates, obviously, and if I'm not mistaken the word Sophist is from the Greek, "Learned one". Oh, and BTW Asshole, **** you.

 

[bripat9643]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?
Wrong, you must be stupid to draw that conclusion!
Tell me, Scamp... from where does the word 'Sophist' originate? What was the original work which described such?
Don't know, Early, probably the 5th or 6th Century BC

And just to show ya that I'm fair... I'll give ya a clue. It's not in the dictionary where ya 'learned' that fascists are right-wingers.

Earlier than Socrates, obviously, and if I'm not mistaken the word Sophist is from the Greek, "Learned one". Oh, and BTW Asshole, **** you.

So you are conceding that you're ignorant of the origins of the word you advanced?

LOL!

COLOR ME: SHOCKED!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FYI: It was Socrates, in his account of: "The Sophist".

 

[Skylar]

The point is, religion informs our conscience on issues like murder, whether it be the high priests in Ur who organized the first society, or Hammurabi and his Code of Laws, or Moses and the Ten Commandments, all were were based off religious belief in a deity who provides an objective moral code.

And again, you're offering us religion as a vehicle for information. Once the information has been imparted, what's the need for the vehicle?

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong. The creation myth, the dogma, the arbitrary dietary restrictions, the holy days, the dress code, the animal sacrifices, the religious rites aren't the morality. Rejecting the religion doesn't mean you reject the morality.

Nor is religion the exclusive method of transmitting moral systems. Its simply a vehicle. Not the vehicle. Further dissociating the rejection of religion and the rejection of morality. They aren't the same thing.

They were all god fearing. You may no believe in God personally but like I said before your objective moral code(if you have one) is informed by theism. Without an overarching authority, or arbiter of justice eternally, there exists no objective morality, just opinions.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what its 'informed' by. Its the information that is important per your own argument. Not the delivery method. It would be like insisting that if you refuse to use an Apple Iphone 6, you're rejecting your parents. As they might want to talk to you one day.

There's many more ways to communicate than just cell phones. There's many more phones than just the Iphone. There are many more Iphones than the Iphone 6. Your argument consistently combines the method of delivery with what is being delivered. And they aren't the same thing. They aren't even particularly related.

I am a theist, I used to be agnostic, one of the reasons is because I haven't heard a convincing take down of the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument has zip to do with morality. As you can have an utterly sadistic, immoral, piece of celestial shit as your 'first mover' and satisfy all cosmological argument requirements. There's nothing to say a 'first mover' was moral or wise or even sentient.

Or.....singular. There's nothing to say that there need be only one. There could be 2. Or infinity plus 2. Nor anything to require that it care that we exist. Or even be aware we exist. Or even have the capacity for awareness. Rendering the cosmological argument pristinely irrelevant to any discussion of morality.

Causation does not equal morality.

A world where there isn't an overarching arbiter of justice in the cosmic sense, where there is no difference objectively between Pope John Paul II inspiring the solidarity movement in Poland and Stalin putting millions in Gulags, no difference between Mother Theresa and the most wicked and brutal third world sweat shop owner, no difference between an honest a good family man and an adulterer, that it all ends up the same in the end, is a very depressing place.

Here's the problem: your first mover isn't enforcing anything. It isn't interpreting anything. It isn't telling us who is correct and who is incorrect. We do all of that. And we disagree. We can't all be right. Nor is there anything that requires that any of us are right. Reducing any moral system based on appeal to authority merely another flavor of subjective interpretation unless the authority being appealed to is RIGHT THERE, immediately enforcing its rules.

Which it doesn't. No first mover broke the tie between Torquemada and Theresa.

Also, a place without moral objectivity is logically a place with more moral excess(immorality) as there is no objective argument against. So not only is the secular outlook more depressing, its logical conclusion is a debased quality of living in my view

But who, other than we, is interpreting the will of the first mover? Its subjective interpretation in either case. The defining factor of morality isn't WHICH leviathan you subscribe to. But that you recognize transcendent truths. And even that is super slippery.....as we don't live in a transcendent world. But a very, very messy one.

And there's no one but very fallable us to try and implement these 'truths'. Which we don't agree on in principle. Or in implementation. And that's assuming an utter lack of hypocrisy and perfect integrity, where we aren't hip checking the 'truths' to match our personal agenda and benefit us disproportionately.

And how often does that happen? History is rife with absolute assholes telling others that they had to do what the asshole told them because the asshole speaks for God. The concept of God is a superb bludgeon and tool of control for the very reason I mentioned earlier:

God isn't here enforcing these moral codes. We are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong.

With bated breath, I read your entire response ... in hopes of finding your reasoning which provided the answer to 'why' killing is wrong, in the absence of God, Creation, responsibilities, etc... .

Imagine my disappointment when I came to the end, finding not a whit, n'er a trace... not so much as a scintilla of reasoning which would on ANY LEVEL sustain your assertion.

So... (and this is gonna hurt... but "inquiring minds" GOTTA KNOW):


Why is killing wrong?​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is the really hard part kids... there's a whole Wiki-search to 'find the answer', then when that fails, there's the host of anti-theist sites, and they're SO disorganized... and everyone has a different reason for not giving an answer... (Such is the nature of Relativism) so, give her some time, before ya laugh.

 

[Skylar]

Your concession, through your failure to demonstrate a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality in the absence of God, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing....the summary declaration of victory schtick again? You don't need an excuse to run. Just run. My points remain unrefuted or even relevantly addressed. You don't need religion to be moral. Making a rejection of religion irrelevant to a rejection of morality.

For the sake of this discussion, the two of us are 'society', in its entirety. In our scenario, there is only us, no God, and no law except what I say the law is. I am therefore solely responsible for you.

Nothing you've posted in any way establishes the requirement for religion in a moral system. You simply begin with your assumption that it must and offer that assumption as evidence of your conclusion. Which is.....your assumption.

Its a perfect circle of an argument. Where your hypothesis, evidence and conclusion are all the same thing.

Why would religion be required to have morality? Remember, religions don't agree. They can't all be right, as they contradict one another. Nor is there anything that requires that *any* of them be right.

Religion has been used to justify some of the most horrible acts of murder, genocide, mutilation, and whole sale atrocity that the world has ever seen. Forced conversions, slaughter of entire continents, clitoral castrations, the obliteration of entire civilizations.

If these are acts of morality, just say so. If these are acts of perversion of religion, then you have century long demonstrations of the lack of objective standards. As fallable people like us are interpreting the 'will of God'. God isn't here to do the interpreting for us.

And as the myriad of conflicting religions that exist and have existed demonstrate, as the changes in doctrine within the same faith over time demonstrates, at least some of us got it wrong. And quite possibly, all of us did. Since there is obviously a powerfully subjective component to any religion, why then would subjectivity be a deathnell to a moral system?

There's no such thing as a religion that is being practiced that doesn't involve subjective interpretations.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your concession, through your failure to demonstrate a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality in the absence of God, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing....the summary declaration of victory schtick again? You don't need an excuse to run. Just run. My points remain unrefuted or even relevantly addressed. You don't need religion to be moral. Making a rejection of religion irrelevant to a rejection of morality.

For the sake of this discussion, the two of us are 'society', in its entirety. In our scenario, there is only us, no God, and no law except what I say the law is. I am therefore solely responsible for you.

Nothing you've posted in any way establishes the requirement for religion in a moral system. You simply begin with your assumption that it must and offer that assumption as evidence of your conclusion. Which is.....your assumption.

Its a perfect circle of an argument. Where your hypothesis, evidence and conclusion are all the same thing.

Why would religion be required to have morality? Remember, religions don't agree. They can't all be right, as they contradict one another. Nor is there anything that requires that *any* of them be right.

Religion has been used to justify some of the most horrible acts of murder, genocide, mutilation, and whole sale atrocity that the world has ever seen. Forced conversions, slaughter of entire continents, clitoral castrations, the obliteration of entire civilizations.

If these are acts of morality, just say so. If these are acts of perversion of religion, then you have century long demonstrations of the lack of objective standards. As fallable people like us are interpreting the 'will of God'. God isn't here to do the interpreting for us.

And as the myriad of conflicting religions that exist and have existed demonstrate, as the changes in doctrine within the same faith over time demonstrates, at least some of us got it wrong. And quite possibly, all of us did. Since there is obviously a powerfully subjective component to any religion, why then would subjectivity be a deathnell to a moral system?

There's no such thing as a religion that is being practiced that doesn't involve subjective interpretations.

So you're conceding AGAIN, through your failure to sustain your reasoning?

LOL! (You should know that once you've conceded to the standing points, you aren't required to concede AGAIN! )

But it's always nice to see ya put forth the effort to answer in terms that ya think will lend you the appearance of being educated... assuming no one reading them actually knows what the words mean. And NEVER more entertaining than where you commit the very sins the words actually identify, even as ya advance 'em.

So don't think that I don't appreciate it.

And with that said... your 2nd concession to the same standing points, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Again Reader... Do ya SEE how easy this is?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which brings us back to your next concession (It's been 20 minutes...):

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong.

With bated breath, I read your entire response ... in hopes of finding your reasoning which provided the answer to 'why' killing is wrong, in the absence of God, Creation, responsibilities, etc... .

Imagine my disappointment when I came to the end, finding not a whit, n'er a trace... not so much as a scintilla of reasoning which would on ANY LEVEL sustain your assertion.

So... (and this is gonna hurt... but "inquiring minds" GOTTA KNOW):


Why is killing wrong?​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again kids... This is the really hard part. There's a whole Wiki-search to 'find the answer' to be done.

Then when that fails, there's the host of anti-theist sites, and they're SO disorganized... everyone has a different reason for not giving an answer... (Such is the nature of Relativism) so, give her some time, before ya laugh.

 

[Skylar]

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong.

With bated breath, I read your entire response ... in hopes of finding your reasoning which provided the answer to 'why' killing is wrong, in the absence of God, Creation, responsibilities, etc... .

Because I've decided that there are transcendent truths, using my capacity for moral reasoning. I decided that human life is precious. And that killing destroys that life. I've decided that I don't have the right or authority to take everything from someone else by ending their life. Except when I can......like in self defense. Or to protect others.

Who says? I do. Who decides when one of these exceptions apply? I do.

And as far as my beliefs are concerned, my conclusions are authoritative over my actions. That you agree or disagree is meaningless, as I don't accept you as having any moral authority or moral relevance over my beliefs or actions.

That you claim God is your source is irrelevant. As God isn't here to tell us if you got it right or wrong. Ultimately, that decision is yours. Over your actions anyway. Over mine, I'm authoritative.

Now I've answered your question. You answer mine: Is murdering infants in their cribs morally wrong?

I can answer that question clearly and without reservation or caveat: yes, it is. Now you try. Realizing of course that I've got 1 Samuel right here where 'God' commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Amelekites down to the children in their cribs.

Was that an immoral act? If yes, then your objective morality just hit a speed bump. If no, ...then you demonstrate the profound folly of religion: it requires you abdicate your capacity for moral reasoning and accept reprehensible acts like slaughtering children as not only acceptable, but good and righteous.

And if you can convince someone that murdering children in their beds is *righteous*, you can convince them to do anything.

 

[bripat9643]

Right wing is defined as ultra conservative and reactionary, there is no actual controversy about that. Over 2100 posts now and the people who want to overturn real history are no closer to substantiating their view.

"Ultra conservative" just means ultra right-wing, and "reactionary" just means right-wing. You don't use the word you are trying to define in the definition, so you have defined exactly nothing. Yet, you believe no one questions your "definition." I'm sure a lot of numskulls who, like you, are incapable of committing logic don't question it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong.

With bated breath, I read your entire response ... in hopes of finding your reasoning which provided the answer to 'why' killing is wrong, in the absence of God, Creation, responsibilities, etc... .

Because I've decided that there are transcendent truths, using my capacity for moral reasoning. I decided that human life is precious. And that killing destroys that life. I've decided that I don't have the right or authority to take everything from someone else by ending their life. Except when I can......like in self defense. Or to protect others.

Who says? I do. Who decides when one of these exceptions apply? I do.

And as far as my beliefs are concerned, my conclusions are authoritative over my actions. That you agree or disagree is meaningless, as I don't accept you as having any moral authority or moral relevance over my beliefs or actions.

That you claim God is your source is irrelevant. As God isn't here to tell us if you got it right or wrong. Ultimately, that decision is yours. Over your actions anyway. Over mine, I'm authoritative.

LOL!

Take a bow Stein!

I'd like to thank the contributor for her time... and in proving that absent God, there is no potential for morality.

(Sadly, for you... "Copying God" is NOT a basis, absent God. But it was SO cool watching ya prove Stein's point! He's SUCH a bright fellow, ain't he?)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Now I've answered your question. You answer mine:

Oh! GOODY!

Is murdering infants in their cribs morally wrong?

Depends... Is the baby a threat to your life or your good health. Then... probably not, it's your call, if ya aren't sure that you can safely subdue the infant, then, again... probably not. But you're gonna REALLY have to sell it in court. Because odds are, you're going down for the long stretch. I mean if the infant is strapped to a bomb, which has a poopy trigger, and if that bomb goes off you're dead. Then I'd say with the poopy trigger bomb in evidence, you're probably good to go, assuming you can prove you didn't strap the poor rascal in the bomb.

Ya know what? You're pretty well screwed either way... But the long game is probably the better strategy, so take his ass down!

Has the Creator of the Universe commanded you to do so? If so, the answer is: No. Otherwise... Yes.

Feel better?

I can answer that question clearly and without reservation or caveat: yes, it is.

And you'd be lying through your rotten teeth.

For instance ... Take the same baby. And instead of it being in it's crib, it's in Mommy's tummy. You are a proponent of establishing as a "RIGHT", the murder of that same baby, for no more substantial reason than the child is an inconvenience to the mother; LESS than that actually... with the basis for murdering that child resting upon nothing more than the whimsy of 'Mommy's Choice'.

Now the coolest part of THAT is THAT is why you couldn't quote the challenge... nor provide the Devine Sanctity of Human Life, as the basis for NOT KILLING "YOU!", when YOU were the baby in our little scenario.

1 Samuel right here where 'God' commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Amelekites down to the children in their cribs.[sic]

Human life is irrelevant to God... as this life is insignificant from God's perspective. He creates human life... takes human life, juggles human life, punts human life, mows human life, raises human life from the deep and sinks it just the same. The point was to teach the Israelites... not to punish the dead.

The simple fact is, that IF the point was simply to kill the babies... God would not have required anyone to do that for him. Now would he?

Was that an immoral act?

No. It was an act of trust in the Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe... who give's life and takes life.

If yes, then your objective morality just hit a speed bump. If no, ...then you demonstrate the profound folly of religion: it requires you abdicate your capacity for moral reasoning and accept reprehensible acts like slaughtering children as not only acceptable, but good and righteous.

False... If yes, then the basis of morality is proven false, as the Creator of the Universe sets the law of the universe. To disregard the law, is to undermine that which sustains humanity.

It is "No"... therefore it recognizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the insignificance of all life, absent God. As absent God, there is no life... as humanity discovers each and every single day, somewhere, as the carnage of Godless, amoral and immoral lives established through their respective failure to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to God's (Nature's) law, having long suffered (being punished) the consequences of those poor choices. Just as Saul was punished for not killing the Amalekite King, despite his having killed everyone else of the tribe, including their cute little Moo-cows and the little baby lambs... .

God's law, is not debatable, it's not subject to your acceptance of such, it doesn't care if you approve or not. It is... and you'll either benefit from having obeyed or you'll suffer as a result of your failure to do so.

You may be forgiven for such, but only through God's path... which first requires you to recognize God, his laws and his supreme authority over you and second that you recognize your violation, then third, that you admit your violation, that you were wrong in doing so and that your desire is to not do so again; at which point you must ask to be forgiven... and you will be so... .

In so doing you are freed from the shackles of your ignorance and set yourself on the path to personal fulfillment. Which, despite the secular rumors to the contrary, is not possible, absent the recognition of your Creator.

And if you can convince someone that murdering children in their beds is *righteous*, you can convince them to do anything.

LOL! Any child that god want's dead, is dead at the moment of that divine whim.


Besides, how many people have you convinced that they have a RIGHT to murder the children inside Mommy's tummy? And FTR: how's that workin' out for ya?

 

[Unkotare]

The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...

You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So... now that the easy parts done, let's move on to refuting your premise, entirely. Shall we?

Because I've decided that there are transcendent truths, using my capacity for moral reasoning. I decided that human life is precious.

Based upon what?

There's 7 billion examples of such...with an endless train of MILLIONS of replacements coming every single DAY!

Therefore, by volume alone, human life is something well short of precious.

So, absent God, how does human life rise to anything remotely akin to 'precious?

And to be fair, I am going to provide you with the definition of the word:

Precious: (of an object, substance, or resource) of great value; not to be wasted or treated carelesslyrecious works of art |my time is precious.• greatly loved or treasured by someone.

You've got one play and, sadly, for you, it's not going to hold up very well... .

(And FYI: You should know, that it gets worse... much, MUCH worse, from here on out.)

 

[Steinlight]

The point is, religion informs our conscience on issues like murder, whether it be the high priests in Ur who organized the first society, or Hammurabi and his Code of Laws, or Moses and the Ten Commandments, all were were based off religious belief in a deity who provides an objective moral code.

And again, you're offering us religion as a vehicle for information. Once the information has been imparted, what's the need for the vehicle?

We don't need to believe in An or Enki anymore than we do Jesus or Buddha to be able to recognize that killing is wrong. The creation myth, the dogma, the arbitrary dietary restrictions, the holy days, the dress code, the animal sacrifices, the religious rites aren't the morality. Rejecting the religion doesn't mean you reject the morality.

Nor is religion the exclusive method of transmitting moral systems. Its simply a vehicle. Not the vehicle. Further dissociating the rejection of religion and the rejection of morality. They aren't the same thing.

They were all god fearing. You may no believe in God personally but like I said before your objective moral code(if you have one) is informed by theism. Without an overarching authority, or arbiter of justice eternally, there exists no objective morality, just opinions.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what its 'informed' by. Its the information that is important per your own argument. Not the delivery method. It would be like insisting that if you refuse to use an Apple Iphone 6, you're rejecting your parents. As they might want to talk to you one day.

There's many more ways to communicate than just cell phones. There's many more phones than just the Iphone. There are many more Iphones than the Iphone 6. Your argument consistently combines the method of delivery with what is being delivered. And they aren't the same thing. They aren't even particularly related.

I am a theist, I used to be agnostic, one of the reasons is because I haven't heard a convincing take down of the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument has zip to do with morality. As you can have an utterly sadistic, immoral, piece of celestial shit as your 'first mover' and satisfy all cosmological argument requirements. There's nothing to say a 'first mover' was moral or wise or even sentient.

Or.....singular. There's nothing to say that there need be only one. There could be 2. Or infinity plus 2. Nor anything to require that it care that we exist. Or even be aware we exist. Or even have the capacity for awareness. Rendering the cosmological argument pristinely irrelevant to any discussion of morality.

Causation does not equal morality.

A world where there isn't an overarching arbiter of justice in the cosmic sense, where there is no difference objectively between Pope John Paul II inspiring the solidarity movement in Poland and Stalin putting millions in Gulags, no difference between Mother Theresa and the most wicked and brutal third world sweat shop owner, no difference between an honest a good family man and an adulterer, that it all ends up the same in the end, is a very depressing place.

Here's the problem: your first mover isn't enforcing anything. It isn't interpreting anything. It isn't telling us who is correct and who is incorrect. We do all of that. And we disagree. We can't all be right. Nor is there anything that requires that any of us are right. Reducing any moral system based on appeal to authority merely another flavor of subjective interpretation unless the authority being appealed to is RIGHT THERE, immediately enforcing its rules.

Which it doesn't. No first mover broke the tie between Torquemada and Theresa.

Also, a place without moral objectivity is logically a place with more moral excess(immorality) as there is no objective argument against. So not only is the secular outlook more depressing, its logical conclusion is a debased quality of living in my view

But who, other than we, is interpreting the will of the first mover? Its subjective interpretation in either case. The defining factor of morality isn't WHICH leviathan you subscribe to. But that you recognize transcendent truths. And even that is super slippery.....as we don't live in a transcendent world. But a very, very messy one.

And there's no one but very fallable us to try and implement these 'truths'. Which we don't agree on in principle. Or in implementation. And that's assuming an utter lack of hypocrisy and perfect integrity, where we aren't hip checking the 'truths' to match our personal agenda and benefit us disproportionately.

And how often does that happen? History is rife with absolute assholes telling others that they had to do what the asshole told them because the asshole speaks for God. The concept of God is a superb bludgeon and tool of control for the very reason I mentioned earlier:

God isn't here enforcing these moral codes. We are.

You so callously throw off religion, even while admitting it was necessary for codifying law in and thus organizing our first societies. Civilization as we know it is built off god fearing people organize a rule of law and a society based on faith and divine justice. Because they recognized without overarching arbiter, moral statements and legal pronouncement lack objectivity and intrinsic value from person to person to recognize and respect them.

I guess you are content with anarchy, or think civilization is overrated?

I think you have it wrong on religious rites. They don't in any way negate the validity of religion, rather they strengthen it, buy building a sense of tradition, reverence and community among believers, and continuity from generation to generation. Religion isn't merely faith, but it also guides us in how we live our daily lives. These rites, this could gives people purpose and meaning as well. It instills discipline and serves as a connection to the spiritual realm by helping us realize their are things beyond material earthly pleasures.

You say we don't need religion because it served its purpose, but how can you anything is objectively wrong without a God? You honestly can't. The "information" as you so callously put it in an autistic and robotic matter is irrelevant without the "vehicle", it has no objective meaning outside of the overarching deity who commands it so as the arbiter of universal justice.

For example, why is murder wrong if God doesn't exist? I contend you can't say it is wrong. You can say you don't prefer it and others shouldn't. But at that point, every choice is just a preference, and if someone prefers to kill you and can get away with it that's it.

I think you misunderstand my argument. I am not saying if we become an atheist society and tomorrow no one believes in God, that murder will be legalized. What I am saying is without objective moral standards there will be a rise in moral excesses. Immoral acts will be more prevalent as no argument would exist against them objectively speaking. As our society becomes more secular, I think you can see the consequences. There are more people in prison than ever, more corporate fraud than ever, more children born out of wedlock than ever, more divorced couple than ever, among other thing.

Like I said before, the "truth" of whether God exists or not is irrelevant. You argue that the existence of multiple religions discounts the existence of God. While I think this question is irrelevant to the merits of religion, I contend that universally people believe in some divine being would affirm my position that a Divine Being exists. Obviously different cultures will interpret it differently but I think it speaks to a universal truth of a Deity.

You can't have multiple gods if there is a first cause, logically there can only be one creator in the cosmological argument.

God doesn't enforce things in this world, as he created us in his image and thus gave us free will. The point is, he enforces justice in the eternal realm. As to the rest, you are simply wrong You spent the first part of this post admitting religion informs our morality and was responsible for the first legal codes that organized civilization as those who wrote the codes were inspired by faith, than you claim the Divine Being interprets nothing and doesn't tell us what is correct or incorrect. So which is it? Does religion give us nothing or does it inform our morality?

A moral system can only exist on an appeal to an overarching authority, otherwise it is subjective. But there you prove my point, only in rejecting the authority from where does it become subjective and a matter of preference.

 

[francoHFW]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Well if the "idiot rich" are "robbing you", than how low does that make you?

Retired teacher and businessman, just another citizen getting screwed by your greedy idiot heroes, dumb ass.

If you are getting screwed by idiots than that makes you the dumb one.

W, Boehner, McConnell, Cheney, Cruz, Wall St. cronies, Countrywide etc cronies. You hear about the 2nd Pub World Depression? Only cost us 6-7 trillion, dingbat.

 

[francoHFW]

The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...

You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.

Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You...?

First of all, you're full of shit. Second, no degree makes your idiotic opinion anything other than the empty nonsense that it is. Finally, I've been teaching history for more than 20 years, and it is easy to see that you are a weak-minded fool who cannot distinguish between fact and partisan bullshit.

You said you were a tutor last time. What happened? Plus,you're useless Pubtroll with nothing to contribute in your career here. Any actual argument, troll?

 

[Wry Catcher]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?
Wrong, you must be stupid to draw that conclusion!
Tell me, Scamp... from where does the word 'Sophist' originate? What was the original work which described such?
Don't know, Early, probably the 5th or 6th Century BC

And just to show ya that I'm fair... I'll give ya a clue. It's not in the dictionary where ya 'learned' that fascists are right-wingers.

Earlier than Socrates, obviously, and if I'm not mistaken the word Sophist is from the Greek, "Learned one". Oh, and BTW Asshole, **** you.

So you are conceding that you're ignorant of the origins of the word you advanced?

LOL!

COLOR ME: SHOCKED!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

FYI: It was Socrates, in his account of: "The Sophist".

History of the name
"The term sophist (Greek sophistes) had earlier applications. It is sometimes said to have meant originally simply “clever” or “skilled man,” but the list of those to whom Greek authors applied the term in its earlier sense makes it probable that it was rather more restricted in meaning. Seers, diviners, and poets predominate, and the earliest Sophists probably were the “sages” in early Greek societies. This would explain the subsequent application of the term to the Seven Wise Men(7th–6th century bce), who typified the highest early practical wisdom, and to pre-Socratic philosophers generally. When Protagoras, in one of Plato’s dialogues (Protagoras) is made to say that, unlike others, he is willing to call himself a Sophist, he is using the term in its new sense of “professional teacher,” but he wishes also to claim continuity with earlier sages as a teacher of wisdom."

Sophist philosophy Encyclopedia Britannica

BTW Keys, You're a complete asshole. Complete 'cause you're arrogant and full of bull shit.

 

[francoHFW]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Some,mainly in the 20's and early 30's, before the world figured out the USSR was a sham, or were pro-USSR during WWII...and yes he ruined their lives, at least for years. The definition of hater demagogue. Your hero, fool.