What is the purpose of the universe?

[Mudda]

I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them.

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

 

[ding]

I don't need to try again. Science is on my side. But thanks for proving my point that atheists are the first to reject science when it suits them.

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.
Dr. Ron Paul

So what? A couple of quotes versus what's happening in the Middle East today? You lose brah. Again.

lol, the testimony I posted has nothing to do with the middle east, dumbass. It has to do with your idiotic beliefs.

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Nope. The world you imagine without God would be bad, but that is because your imagination is limited by your need to create a God. It has blunted your intellect so that you cannot even tell the difference between a religion, and a political ideology.

You see, the world I imagine, without God, is a world of equality, and freedom. It is a world that respects, and encourages scientific pursuit. It is a world that encourages personal responsibility. Is it socialist? Sure. To a point. It is a world that recognises that we are made stronger together, and recognises the importance of protecting, and giving aid to the weakest among us. However, it is also a world that understands that healthy competition is the catalyst for growth, and prosperity.

I could go on, but the point is that God is not necessary for harmony, and, in fact, has proven, historically, to be the cause of conflict, and discord.

Your world is fantasy. History shows what your world looks like:

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

 

[Czernobog]

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

I would dispute that claim. Catholicism is a religion. A theocracy is a formal government that is directed by a religious order. Most Middle Eastern Countries - Iran, Iraq, etc, - are Islamic Theocracies. To my knowledge, since the advent of the Age of Reason, there have been no Christian Theocracies. Christianity lost its hold on Western civilisation, after people decided they were tired of things like the Inquisition, and the Burning Times.

 

[Mudda]

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx

The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

George Washington
Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The Will of the People: Readings in American Democracy (Chicago: Great Books Foundation, 2001), 38.

Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage.
Dr. Ron Paul

So what? A couple of quotes versus what's happening in the Middle East today? You lose brah. Again.

lol, the testimony I posted has nothing to do with the middle east, dumbass. It has to do with your idiotic beliefs.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Nope. The world you imagine without God would be bad, but that is because your imagination is limited by your need to create a God. It has blunted your intellect so that you cannot even tell the difference between a religion, and a political ideology.

You see, the world I imagine, without God, is a world of equality, and freedom. It is a world that respects, and encourages scientific pursuit. It is a world that encourages personal responsibility. Is it socialist? Sure. To a point. It is a world that recognises that we are made stronger together, and recognises the importance of protecting, and giving aid to the weakest among us. However, it is also a world that understands that healthy competition is the catalyst for growth, and prosperity.

I could go on, but the point is that God is not necessary for harmony, and, in fact, has proven, historically, to be the cause of conflict, and discord.

Your world is fantasy. History shows what your world looks like:

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

I have real proof of life with god, the Middle East. All you have is a couple of quotes. You're a major loser. And god knows.

 

[Mudda]

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

I would dispute that claim. Catholicism is a religion. A theocracy is a formal government that is directed by a religious order. Most Middle Eastern Countries - Iran, Iraq, etc, - are Islamic Theocracies. To my knowledge, since the advent of the Age of Reason, there have been no Christian Theocracies. Christianity lost its hold on Western civilisation, after people decided they were tired of things like the Inquisition, and the Burning Times.

Catholicism is set up as a communist government, from selecting the supreme leader to all the rules that govern one's life, like dingbat's. Deviation from the established doctrine, like dingbat does, is against the rules and would get one excommunicated.

 

[Czernobog]

Your world is fantasy. History shows what your world looks like:

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Solzhenitsyn

Except that is the problem. In the case of the USSR, and Marxism in general, atheism is an after thought. Russia wasn't an Atheist government that happened to be Communist. It was a communist, totalitarian government that happened to be Atheist.

We tried Communism. It was a dismal failure. We have tried totalitarianism. It, invariably devours itself. What has worked is democratic Socialism. I would submit that a Democratic Republic that happened to be atheist would have an entirely different look, and result from Communist Totalitarianism.

 

[ding]

They are trying something but aren't all the way there. Next time get a proper link if you want me to agree with you. And up your critical thinking brah, that would help.

I don't give a fuck if you agree. You are a dumb ass. You are like almost every other atheist I have met, you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Here is how I imagine a world without God or religion would look like... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

You will pull any dumbass thing out of your ass to deny the reality that you only see the bad that men have committed, you don't weight the good. It is not the fault of religion or God. You are literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You don't have to imagine what the world would look like, we have ample examples of the 20th century of what a society without God looks like. You are a dumbfuck for arguing against the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and you are a dumbfuck for agreeing with the founding fathers of communism.

I don't see any church trying to govern every aspect of my life. I only see your religion of socialism doing that.

 

[Czernobog]

Of course you care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't be so upset, lol!
If you want an example of a world with god, just look at the Middle East. Add all the hate in the US towards gays and people who don't agree with you about a fantasy world run by an invisible overlord that no one has ever seen or knows where it is.

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

I would dispute that claim. Catholicism is a religion. A theocracy is a formal government that is directed by a religious order. Most Middle Eastern Countries - Iran, Iraq, etc, - are Islamic Theocracies. To my knowledge, since the advent of the Age of Reason, there have been no Christian Theocracies. Christianity lost its hold on Western civilisation, after people decided they were tired of things like the Inquisition, and the Burning Times.

Catholicism is set up as a communist government, from selecting the supreme leader to all the rules that govern one's life, like dingbat. Deviation from the established doctrine, like dingbat does, is against the rules and would get one excommunicated.

I don't disagree, but Catholicism controls no formal government. It's a religion, not a theocracy. Th Holy Roman Empire (the Theocracy ruled by the Catholic Church) did rule most of Europe until the mid 1600's. Britain was the first nation to demonstrate to the world that there was another way, with the formation of the Church of England. After that, the theocracy rather fell apart. The last Holy Roman Emperor - Francis II in Germany - abdicated his throne in 1806. The catholic church has steadily lost its political influence since Britain left.

You mention excommunication. The problem is that, while that may make other Catholics shit themselves, politically excommunication really has little effect these days. It's why the Church gave up the practice, except under the most extreme circumstances. The point of excommunication was that it had immense political ramifications for political leaders, which allowed the Church to maintain control over them. When it lost that political influence, the Church kinda tumbled as a political influence in the world.

 

[ding]

Except that is the problem. In the case of the USSR, and Marxism in general, atheism is an after thought. Russia wasn't an Atheist government that happened to be Communist. It was a communist, totalitarian government that happened to be Atheist.

We tried Communism. It was a dismal failure. We have tried totalitarianism. It, invariably devours itself. What has worked is democratic Socialism. I would submit that a Democratic Republic that happened to be atheist would have an entirely different look, and result from Communist Totalitarianism.

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism..." Alexander Solzhenitsyn Harvard Address

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

 

[Czernobog]

Except that is the problem. In the case of the USSR, and Marxism in general, atheism is an after thought. Russia wasn't an Atheist government that happened to be Communist. It was a communist, totalitarian government that happened to be Atheist.

We tried Communism. It was a dismal failure. We have tried totalitarianism. It, invariably devours itself. What has worked is democratic Socialism. I would submit that a Democratic Republic that happened to be atheist would have an entirely different look, and result from Communist Totalitarianism.

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism..." Alexander Solzhenitsyn Harvard Address

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

I read it all the first time. Solzhenitsyn over steps when he talks about "Humanism", because he does not have experience with Humanism; he only has experience with Communism, as practised in the USSR. As I pointed out, the USSR was not an atheist society that developed into a communist regime; it was a Communist regime that employed atheism as one of its tools for totalitarian control.

I'm sorry that you cannot conceive of atheists who are not interested in totalitarian control, although it is understandable. After all, religious zealots live their lives under totalitarian rule. They cannot conceive of a reality wherein humans are allowed self-determination without some authoritarian (in their case God) determining their every decision.

 

[ding]

Except that is the problem. In the case of the USSR, and Marxism in general, atheism is an after thought. Russia wasn't an Atheist government that happened to be Communist. It was a communist, totalitarian government that happened to be Atheist.

We tried Communism. It was a dismal failure. We have tried totalitarianism. It, invariably devours itself. What has worked is democratic Socialism. I would submit that a Democratic Republic that happened to be atheist would have an entirely different look, and result from Communist Totalitarianism.

"...boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism..." Alexander Solzhenitsyn Harvard Address

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

I read it all the first time. Solzhenitsyn over steps when he talks about "Humanism", because he does not have experience with Humanism; he only has experience with Communism, as practised in the USSR. As I pointed out, the USSR was not an atheist society that developed into a communist regime; it was a Communist regime that employed atheism as one of its tools for totalitarian control.

I'm sorry that you cannot conceive of atheists who are not interested in totalitarian control, although it is understandable. After all, religious zealots live their lives under totalitarian rule. They cannot conceive of a reality wherein humans are allowed self-determination without some authoritarian (in their case God) determining their every decision.

Since history has recorded that communism is naturalized humanism and since the founding father of communism stated that communism is naturalized humanism and since Solzhenitsyn actually lived through those times and spent fifty years working on the history of the Revolution, read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and contributed eight volumes of on this subject... I am going to have to go with him on this over a dumbfuck who knows next to nothing about this and is biased against religion and condemns respect for anyone who believes in God because he is a militant atheist.

 

[Mudda]

I would disagree with you, there Mudda. The Middle East isn't an example of a world without God; rather it is a perfect example of what happens in a theocracy.

I agree theocracies are bad. Just as bad as the world you imagine without religion and God.

Catholicism is a theocracy, trying to govern every aspect of your life.

I would dispute that claim. Catholicism is a religion. A theocracy is a formal government that is directed by a religious order. Most Middle Eastern Countries - Iran, Iraq, etc, - are Islamic Theocracies. To my knowledge, since the advent of the Age of Reason, there have been no Christian Theocracies. Christianity lost its hold on Western civilisation, after people decided they were tired of things like the Inquisition, and the Burning Times.

Catholicism is set up as a communist government, from selecting the supreme leader to all the rules that govern one's life, like dingbat. Deviation from the established doctrine, like dingbat does, is against the rules and would get one excommunicated.

I don't disagree, but Catholicism controls no formal government. It's a religion, not a theocracy. Th Holy Roman Empire (the Theocracy ruled by the Catholic Church) did rule most of Europe until the mid 1600's. Britain was the first nation to demonstrate to the world that there was another way, with the formation of the Church of England. After that, the theocracy rather fell apart. The last Holy Roman Emperor - Francis II in Germany - abdicated his throne in 1806. The catholic church has steadily lost its political influence since Britain left.

You mention excommunication. The problem is that, while that may make other Catholics shit themselves, politically excommunication really has little effect these days. It's why the Church gave up the practice, except under the most extreme circumstances. The point of excommunication was that it had immense political ramifications for political leaders, which allowed the Church to maintain control over them. When it lost that political influence, the Church kinda tumbled as a political influence in the world.

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

 

[Mudda]

I don't see any church trying to govern every aspect of my life.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

 

[ding]

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

I never claimed to be a good Catholic or a saint, dumbass.

 

[Mudda]

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

I never claimed to be a good Catholic or a saint, dumbass.

You can't get into heaven if you're an admitted sinner. You have to clean up your act first. Good luck with that.

 

[ding]

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

I never claimed to be a good Catholic or a saint, dumbass.

You can't get into heaven if you're an admitted sinner. You have to clean up your act first. Good luck with that.

Sure I can. Did you forget my hall pass?

 

[Czernobog]

Since history has recorded that communism is naturalized humanism and since the founding father of communism stated that communism is naturalized humanism and since Solzhenitsyn actually lived through those times and spent fifty years working on the history of the Revolution, read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and contributed eight volumes of on this subject... I am going to have to go with him on this over a dumbfuck who knows next to nothing about this and is biased against religion and condemns respect for anyone who believes in God because he is a militant atheist.

Wow...dumbfuck? Quite a mouth you have you for a Christian. You pray to your God with that mouth? LOL

 

[Mudda]

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

I never claimed to be a good Catholic or a saint, dumbass.

You can't get into heaven if you're an admitted sinner. You have to clean up your act first. Good luck with that.

Sure I can. Did you forget my hall pass?

If you get into heaven, then the standard must be so low as to render hell completely empty.

 

[ding]

Since history has recorded that communism is naturalized humanism and since the founding father of communism stated that communism is naturalized humanism and since Solzhenitsyn actually lived through those times and spent fifty years working on the history of the Revolution, read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and contributed eight volumes of on this subject... I am going to have to go with him on this over a dumbfuck who knows next to nothing about this and is biased against religion and condemns respect for anyone who believes in God because he is a militant atheist.

Wow...dumbfuck? Quite a mouth you have you for a Christian. You pray to your God with that mouth? LOL

Yep, everyday. Isn't this what you wanted? Because when you condemn respect for people for no other reason than they don't believe the same things as you do, you shouldn't really be surprised when you get a fight. Now I know that you want to fight over theology, but that will never shut your dumbass up. So I am going to shove history down your throat because that sure does seem to do the trick.

 

[ding]

The Catholic government of the Vatican mean anything to you? With the pope as its head? Laying down the law not only for their own sovereign territory, but also for real Catholics worldwide, not fakers like dingbat.

That's because you're not a real Catholic, just a faker. And that your beliefs don't line up with anyone else's, that's a given.

I never claimed to be a good Catholic or a saint, dumbass.

You can't get into heaven if you're an admitted sinner. You have to clean up your act first. Good luck with that.

Sure I can. Did you forget my hall pass?

If you get into heaven, then the standard must be so low as to render hell completely empty.

For all I know it is. But as I have already told you at least 5 times, hell is being separated from God.