Atheism is Evil - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15014280
SSDR wrote:This is not a political statement.


Actually, it is.

Equality of opportunity is less important than extent of opportunity. Socialism achieves equality of opportunity by depriving everyone of opportunity equally.
You are opinionating about the false characteristics of a socialist economy.

No, I am identifying the logical consequences of socialism for an economy, consequences that have been observed in practice every single time socialism has been tried on a societal scale.
In a non socialist economy, inheritance is a privilege because not everyone can have inheritance in a non socialist economy.

No. That is merely an advantage, like being born more intelligent, beautiful or talented than others, not a privilege, because it doesn't take anything away from others. Privilege must deprive the underprivileged of what they would otherwise have. Inheritance per se doesn't do that any more than being born with exceptional beauty, talent or intelligence does.
Some people also get more than others (rich children versus children born in homelessness).

Merely getting more than others is just an advantage, not a privilege. Benefiting from deprivation of others is privilege.
That's because you're not in a Nazi country.

Non sequitur.
It's social norms and you don't realize that because you're a Nazi.

Name calling is not an argument. The science is very clear: it's genetic, not social.
Socialism is the most advanced form of economics.

No, it is absurd garbage -- even more absurd than capitalism -- that ignores the facts of economics.
In socialism, no woman's life is dependent on a man's.

It isn't in capitalism or most other systems, either.
You believing that women prior to the 20th century being smarter than now is very alarming and reactionary.

I didn't say they were smarter. Wiser, perhaps, because men did not insulate them from the reality of their biological nature.
Non socialist politics is demanding because of its money oriented atmosphere and due to higher rates of testosterone.

Isn't testosterone just social manipulation...?
This is not a political statement.

If you understand it, it is.
You're not engaging in a political discussion by calling someone "wrong."

Sure I am, especially when I explain how and why they are wrong.
Human trafficking is a type of slavery you Nazi.

Only if it involves labor compelled by force. Some human traffickers are paid by those they traffic to traffic them.
How do you feel about Nazism?

I find it incomprehensible that an educated and supposedly civilized people could have been seduced by such obvious absurdities. But then, a lot of educated and supposedly civilized people have been seduced by socialist absurdities, while others have actually sunk so low as to vote for Trump, or even to watch, "Keeping Up With the Kardashians."
This is not a political discussion. This is an aggressive statement.

Oh, really?
What ideology do you need to motivate you to work?

Just some self-respect.
You believing that humans are chimpanzees or rats is not realistic.

You are again just makin' $#!+ up about what I plainly wrote.
This is a Nazi, human trafficking supporting viewpoint on what reality is.

Name calling.
You believing that humans are rats is not a political statement.

It's also something you made up. My point was that socialism makes them behave like rats.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15014316
@Truth To Power,

Equality of opportunity is less important than extent of opportunity. Socialism achieves equality of opportunity by depriving everyone of opportunity equally.

There is no "achieving" because that is a capitalist notion. Depriving doesn't exist in socialist economics because everyone has access to natural resources and labour, since there is no currency nor debt to limit them.
No, I am identifying the logical consequences of socialism for an economy, consequences that have been observed in practice every single time socialism has been tried on a societal scale.

Why do you think that lower crime, more stability, more education, and more opportunities for women are "bad?"
Benefiting from deprivation of others is privilege.

With socialist economics, nothing is deprived from currency, nor debt.
Name calling is not an argument. The science is very clear: it's genetic, not social.

Why do you find the term "Nazi" to be so offensive to you?
No, it is absurd garbage -- even more absurd than capitalism -- that ignores the facts of economics.

Socialism is a type of economy. How could a car ignore automotive characteristics if a car is an automobile?
It isn't in capitalism or most other systems, either.

In capitalism, married women have to listen to their families or they will get kicked out and be homeless. You don't recognize homelessness because you lack real consciousness.
Isn't testosterone just social manipulation...?

Some men having to act all tough and cool hides their realities. It oppresses them, and some men can't even say that because they will be mocked by those who should be questioned.
Sure I am, especially when I explain how and why they are wrong.

You have never explained why I am "wrong." All you have done so far is gave angry rants of the false characteristics of socialism, and they are not factual.
Some human traffickers are paid by those they traffic to traffic them.

In some cases, human trafficking is only a financial trap. Those they traffic are forced to pay them, or they'll be homeless or starve or be stalked dangerously.
I find it incomprehensible that an educated and supposedly civilized people could have been seduced by such obvious absurdities. But then, a lot of educated and supposedly civilized people have been seduced by socialist absurdities, while others have actually sunk so low as to vote for Trump, or even to watch, "Keeping Up With the Kardashians."

Socialism wasn't created by Jews. Jews stole socialism so they had an excuse to rule the people around them, like in the Russian Empire. You thinking that socialism was created by Jews to full fill their Zionist Occupation Government is a Nazi like standpoint.
Oh, really?

All you have done is give angry rants of something you don't understand.
Just some self-respect

That's not a political ideology.
You are again just makin' $#!+ up about what I plainly wrote.

Read what you wrote. You claimed that humans are rats.
My point was that socialism makes them behave like rats. [KS mod edit: Quote corrected. Don't deliberately misquote other users.]

That is not realistic since humans cannot be converted into rats.
By Truth To Power
#15014518
SSDR wrote:There is no "achieving" because that is a capitalist notion.

Nonsense.
Depriving doesn't exist in socialist economics because everyone has access to natural resources and labour,

Wrong: they are deprived of the fruits of their labor upon those resources.
since there is no currency nor debt to limit them.

Currency does not limit, it enables. And debt does not limit as long as it is not created by privilege.
Why do you think that lower crime, more stability, more education, and more opportunities for women are "bad?"

Because to the modest extent that socialism achieves lower crime, it does so by imprisoning and killing the innocent even more than the guilty; it achieves stability by stagnation rather than steady improvement; it achieves indoctrination more than education; and it removes opportunities for men rather than expanding opportunities for women.
With socialist economics, nothing is deprived from currency, nor debt.

Incoherent.
Why do you find the term "Nazi" to be so offensive to you?

Because it is calculated dishonesty.
Socialism is a type of economy. How could a car ignore automotive characteristics if a car is an automobile?

Huh?
In capitalism, married women have to listen to their families or they will get kicked out and be homeless.

No; but under socialism, they have to obey those who claim to represent the workers or get kicked out and be homeless.
You don't recognize homelessness because you lack real consciousness.

Let me know if you ever have anything factual to contribute.
Some men having to act all tough and cool hides their realities. It oppresses them, and some men can't even say that because they will be mocked by those who should be questioned.

Their wounded feelings are their responsibility, not anyone else's.
You have never explained why I am "wrong."

Yes I have.
All you have done so far is gave angry rants of the false characteristics of socialism, and they are not factual.

They are most certainly factual.
In some cases, human trafficking is only a financial trap. Those they traffic are forced to pay them, or they'll be homeless or starve or be stalked dangerously.

Not all exploitation is slavery.
Socialism wasn't created by Jews. Jews stole socialism so they had an excuse to rule the people around them, like in the Russian Empire.

Oh, dear...
You thinking that socialism was created by Jews to full fill their Zionist Occupation Government is a Nazi like standpoint.

I didn't mention Jews.
All you have done is give angry rants of something you don't understand.

I understand it better than you.
Read what you wrote. You claimed that humans are rats.

I know what I wrote. That wasn't it.
That is not realistic since humans cannot be converted into rats.

At this point I will just ask readers to confirm that you deliberately altered the text you purport to be quoting in order to make it look like I wrote something I did not write.

I know it is no kind of worthy thing, but I do take a kind of perverse satisfaction in the relentlessly dishonest and despicable behavior of my opponents. It reassures me that I am indeed on the side of good, and against evil.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15014543
@Truth To Power,

Wrong: they are deprived of the fruits of their labor upon those resources.

In socialism, those who make the wealth, get the wealth.
Currency does not limit, it enables. And debt does not limit as long as it is not created by privilege.

Currency does limit because if a nation wants to build a large city, and there's "not enough money." But there is enough labour and natural resources. And debt is even more dangerous. If a currency does exist, it is better if the currency was debtless because debt is the ultimate stopping power of labour.
Because to the modest extent that socialism achieves lower crime, it does so by imprisoning and killing the innocent even more than the guilty; it achieves stability by stagnation rather than steady improvement; it achieves indoctrination more than education; and it removes opportunities for men rather than expanding opportunities for women.

"Innocent people" are abusers, rapists, slackers, criminals, liars, and traitors. In socialism, there is nothing to indoctrinate. That is a very far right wing view point, and it is also not a political statement either. Men had more opportunities in socialism because they didn't have to worry about paying for school, paying for retirement, nor relying on their families economically, thus making them prone to arranged marriages. Women had more opportunities in socialism than they did in any other economy. I would be very concerned for any woman who would have to rely on men who pay their bills because the men control their lives and personal destinies.
No; but under socialism, they have to obey those who claim to represent the workers or get kicked out and be homeless.[/quote
In stronger cases of capitalism and pre capitalism/non socialism, there are Private Property Rights. Families do not have to provide because it's THEIR money. So if a woman refuses to listen to them, via arranged marriages, unreported domestic abuse, or being forced to go to weddings or funerals, their families can kick them out. They need the women to do those oppressive things to motivate them to pay her bills because they lack real consciousness, and they're teaching their children to be like that. Be like spoiled pigs.

So if they're upset, what should they do? Act tough? And abuse their wives? And abuse their workers or slaves if they owned companies?

They're angry rants of what they believe is "socialism." Your out of context terms are preventing you from gaining real consciousness.

Jews didn't create socialism. They stole some socialist movements, like the Russian Revolution, so they could have an excuse to exploit labour. Being free from slavery is not Jewish. The jews stealing anti slavery movements and people supporting those jewish movements IS jewish.

You didn't need to.

This is not a political statement.

You don't know what you wrote. Because if you did, you wouldn't be calling humans "rats."

I am not "evil." I am just going against your false conscious modes of productions, and that being in that position conditions me to be labeled "evil."
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15024062
SSDR should move to Cuba, or better yet, North Korea, two of the most idyllic socialist countries on earth, by his reckoning.

But on to the Big Lies by Atheists of their goodness and intellectualism...

The Ivy League Colleges of America all have Christian Charters. Is there a single Atheist college with such a charter in America, or even Europe for that matter? No.

I was born in a Catholic Hospital as were my wife and daughters, in a different state than me. There are Baptist hospitals, Lutheran hospitals, Methodist, Jewish, Presbyterian, you name it. One atheist hospital? Ha ha ha ha ha. No, not one. Wherefore their goodness and mercy and intellectualism, these atheists?

Any atheist soup kitchens, orphanages? Who Really Cares by a college statistics professor documents how greedy atheists really are. They can only answer these facts with verbal spin and lies. Don't bother to respond to them. It's futile.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15024089
MrWonderful wrote:The Ivy League Colleges of America all have Christian Charters.
You could attribute any charter to religion or lack thereof. That's not an argument.

MrWonderful wrote:I was born in a Catholic Hospital as were my wife and daughters, in a different state than me. There are Baptist hospitals, Lutheran hospitals, Methodist, Jewish, Presbyterian, you name it. One atheist hospital? Ha ha ha ha ha. No, not one. Wherefore their goodness and mercy and intellectualism, these atheists?
The Royal Alexander hospital, where I was born about 50 years ago. - Not religiously based. I can name a great many more hospitals like that, like The Royal Columbian. The Misericordia Community Hospital, etc. There are also public schools in Canada, that are not religious.

MrWonderful wrote:Any atheist soup kitchens, orphanages? Who Really Cares by a college statistics professor documents how greedy atheists really are. They can only answer these facts with verbal spin and lies. Don't bother to respond to them. It's futile.
Because they don't plaster their names all over it means that atheists are not altruistic? Please... :roll:

My friends and I, none of whom are religious, recently built(and paid for) a house for an elderly lady in the area. She had fallen on hard times after her house had burned down. No, we didn't go to the media and get attention for it. We did it quietly, and anonymously.

Your arguments are very childish and ridiculous. Morality exists despite religion.

Elon Musk is atheist.
Elon Musk, Superintelligence, and Maximizing Social Good: A Weekend at History’s Largest Gathering of “Effective Altruists”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-mus ... _b_7929960
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15024304
Who Really Cares:
America's Charity Divide,
Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why It Matters
by Arthur C. Brooks
Basic Books
New York
2006


P 12 But I am talking here about averages, not special cases. It is simply undeniable that today, conservatives are most congenial to the four forces of charity.
(Ten years ago, in graduate school) I lived in a world largely characterized by the kind of impressionistic stereotyping offered by President Carter at the beginning of this chapter. Do rich people want tax cuts? I would have told you it's because they are uncharitable. Europeans care more than Americans about the world's poor. Socialism is more compassionate than capitalism. And so on. My personal views about "charity" amounted to little more than unquestioned liberal political beliefs.

When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals - who I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did - would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran the analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.

P 13 Indeed, the irresistible pull of empirical evidence in this book is what changed the way I see the world.

P 34: but the evidence leaves no room for doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people. In years of research, I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.

(Facts to liberals are like Kryptonite to Superman. - Larry Elder)
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15024307
Truth To Power wrote:
I know it is no kind of worthy thing, but I do take a kind of perverse satisfaction in the relentlessly dishonest and despicable behavior of my opponents. It reassures me that I am indeed on the side of good, and against evil.


Every evil begins with a lie. Lies are all the godless Left has. Lies and condescension, or pride, the original sin.

"Evil has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all." - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15024361
If there's years of research, then you can provide a link to it, @MrWonderful. If not, I will take it as the opinion of one single person. A special case, if you will.

The evidence shows otherwise. Note: 2016, not 2006.

Children with a Religious Upbringing Show Less Altruism
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -altruism/

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your hate.
By Truth To Power
#15024518
MrWonderful wrote:Every evil begins with a lie. Lies are all the godless Left has. Lies and condescension, or pride, the original sin.

"Evil has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all." - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Nice quote. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. The movie "Judgement at Nuremberg" is very eloquent on this point, and I always recommend it to opponents who don't understand how their lies justify evil.
By Truth To Power
#15024521
SSDR wrote:In socialism, those who make the wealth, get the wealth.

Nope. It is taken by the collective.
Currency does limit because if a nation wants to build a large city, and there's "not enough money." But there is enough labour and natural resources.

A "nation" "wanting to build" something is not enough to justify the cost.
And debt is even more dangerous. If a currency does exist, it is better if the currency was debtless because debt is the ultimate stopping power of labour.

I agree currency and money should be issued debt-free.
"Innocent people" are abusers, rapists, slackers, criminals, liars, and traitors.

Or as the Soviets called them, "wreckers"...? See The Gulag Archipelago.
In socialism, there is nothing to indoctrinate.

:lol:
That is a very far right wing view point, and it is also not a political statement either.

I don't confine myself to political statements. Facts interest me more.
Men had more opportunities in socialism because they didn't have to worry about paying for school, paying for retirement, nor relying on their families economically, thus making them prone to arranged marriages.

If they don't have to pay, who is paying?
Women had more opportunities in socialism than they did in any other economy.

Nonsense. Men just had fewer.
I would be very concerned for any woman who would have to rely on men who pay their bills because the men control their lives and personal destinies.

Or is it the other way around?
I am not "evil." I am just going against your false conscious modes of productions, and that being in that position conditions me to be labeled "evil."

The fact that you know you have to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written argues otherwise.

If you want a response to the rest of your nonsense, learn how to use the quote function.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15024820
Truth To Power wrote:Nope. It is taken by the collective.

There is no "collective" on the manner that you are claiming to state. The term "collective" is used to make it easier for non socialists such as you, easier to understand, since in non socialist economies, enterprises are privately owned, ruling the people that are relying on them.
A "nation" "wanting to build" something is not enough to justify the cost.

There is no "cost" to justify because nothing in socialism is owned nor payed for.
I agree currency and money should be issued debt-free.

Debt is the ultimate tool that is used to control the masses, and even some of the elitists.
Or as the Soviets called them, "wreckers"...? See The Gulag Archipelago.

Many of the people in the Soviet Union were not socialists. They were either capitalists, feudalists, monarchists, conservatives, or radical liberals who abused the socialist system. That caused corruption, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I don't confine myself to political statements. Facts interest me more.

You believe that far right wing politics are "facts?"
If they don't have to pay, who is paying?

In socialism nothing is paid for because currency does not exist.
Nonsense. Men just had fewer.

Women do not have to rely on husbands in socialism. Women do not need father's approvals in socialism. Women could also go to school more because men could not forbid them to in socialism.
Or is it the other way around?

Why would it be the other way around?
The fact that you know you have to make $#!+ up about what I have plainly written argues otherwise.

I am not making "shit" up. What you write is out of socialist context.
Use the quote function.

I am using the quote function.
I didn't mention Jews.

Jews didn't create socialism. They stole some socialist movements, like the Russian Revolution, so they could have an excuse to exploit labour. Being free from slavery is not Jewish. The jews stealing anti slavery movements and people supporting those jewish movements IS jewish.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23

What I want to know is how does skinster find so […]

The Evolution Fraud

Inspired does not mean accurate. That applies t[…]

Except there is no systematic destruction of whi[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Also, why would anyone admit to having a business[…]