putting religion in it's proper place

[Sculptor]

Sympathies for your lack of knowledge.

You will know enough to show the well deserved disrespect for the god religions and their lies then.

Regards
DL

Religions are all empty. Fantasies for the empty headed. Myths for the hard of thinking.

Think duality and how religions are basically tribes.

Without our tribal instincts/religions, we would not be here.

Without tribes we would have no war, no bigotry, and no persecution.

[Immanuel Can]

The rationality is that you cannot simply blame 'socialism' as a whole.

Why not? Every single case of Socialism has ended up being complicit. So what from of Socialism do you imagine appearing in the future, and what gives you such confidence it will not be just as bad and homicidal as every one that's existed in the world up to now?

They were in different countries, times and situations, by different actors...and yet all were evil. What's the one remaining common factor?

In this case, we need to research whether the constitution of the Moist Socialism included committing violence and evil upon others arbitrary or flimsy justifications.

"Arbitrary or flimsy justifications"? You mean you think there are good justifications for "committing violence and evil"? Their problem was not merely being "arbitrary or flimsy." They were wicked to do what they did, surely.

And it's not just Maoist violence we need to worry about. It's Soviet, and Cambodian, and North Korean, and Cuban...and every single other case of Socialism.

In many cases, the constitution of an ideology is not explicitly evil and violent, but there are a percentage of very zealous and evil prone believers/members who take the law into their own hand and commit violence in their personal capacities.

That can be true. But it begs the question of why Socialism is 100% of the time associated with such acts of violence, folly and economic disaster as we both have witnessed and are witnessing today.

How many times does one have to try a bad idea, and how many times does it have to fail miserably and result in murder and oppression, before one recognizes it as a bad idea?

[Belinda]

Socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=477754 time=1604066277 user_id=9431]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=477728 time=1604029464 user_id=7896]
The rationality is that you cannot simply blame 'socialism' as a whole.[/quote]
Why not? Every single case of Socialism has ended up being complicit. So what from of Socialism do you imagine appearing in the future, and what gives you such confidence it will not be just as bad and homicidal as every one that's existed in the world up to now?

They were in different countries, times and situations, by different actors...and yet all were evil. What's the one remaining common factor? :shock:

[quote]In this case, we need to research whether the constitution of the Moist Socialism included committing violence and evil upon others arbitrary or flimsy justifications.[/quote]
:shock: :shock: :shock: "Arbitrary or flimsy justifications"? You mean you think there are [i]good[/i] justifications for "committing violence and evil"? :shock: Their problem was not merely being "arbitrary or flimsy." They were wicked to do what they did, surely.

And it's not just Maoist violence we need to worry about. It's Soviet, and Cambodian, and North Korean, and Cuban...and every single other case of Socialism.

[quote]In many cases, the constitution of an ideology is not explicitly evil and violent, but there are a percentage of very zealous and evil prone believers/members who take the law into their own hand and commit violence in their personal capacities.[/quote]
That can be true. But it begs the question of why Socialism is 100% of the time associated with such acts of violence, folly and economic disaster as we both have witnessed and are witnessing today.

How many times does one have to try a bad idea, and how many times does it have to fail miserably and result in murder and oppression, before one [i]recognizes [/i]it as a bad idea? :shock:
[/quote]

The instant someone starts working for themselves or their cadre first, they're not acting as socialists any longer, get it?

[Immanuel Can]

That the socialist 'regimes' have defaulted to what the American's First Amendment asserted with better clarity, does this include such systems that declared a divorce of religious people's right to impose laws that have no basis in JUSTIFYING lawmaking?

Sorry, Scott...I've tried three times to understand this sentence, but I just don't know what it means. Can you reword?

Governments by and for the people in ANY system cannot properly represent people if it favors ANY PARTICULAR religious laws.

If we drop the word "religious" in that sentence, we see that your statement is evidently not true at all. There's nothing inherently wrong, and everything quite right, in a government favouring particular laws. But when we add the word "religious" back in, we can see it still doesn't change that. What's wrong with choosing a law, for a government by and for the people, that ALSO happens to be supported by one or another religion? That would seem quite fine.

For example, only Christianity and Judaism provide rational grounds for our conception "universal human rights." Western secularism, such as that of the Americans or the UN, also assert "universal human rights." Did universal human rights suddenly become a bad idea for no other reason that a particular religious view -- Judaism or Christianity -- ALSO assert universal human rights?

If you think that it is alright to impose religious laws,

I do not. And have never said such a thing was "alright."

Communism (or socialism) historically have been religious, not 'atheistic'.

There is a sense in which this was true...namely, that the State became a kind of "god" endowed with supreme virtues by the minds of many of the followers of Socialism, and they "worshipped" it. But on the face, that statement is false. Marx himself called the elimination of religion "the first of all critiques" for Communism. And the Soviets turned churches into museums, and shipped religious people off to the gulags. The Maoists in China are still rounding them up and killing them. We could go on to speak of all the Socialists states.

The only surviving communism is in literal communities, like cults,

China? North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? I can assure you that you are quite wrong about that.

Hitler had more attrocities with clearer evidence than the Communists of Russia's U.S.S.R.

Well estimates for Stalin are as high as 20 million. But the problem of "evidence" is true -- it's harder to prove what's being done when a despot is killing people within his own country, rather than waging a world war. One thing is certainly clear...Stalin was no better, and perhaps even worse, than Hitler.

In contrast, National Socialists

Ummm...this doesn't help your case at all. Did you notice? "National Socialists".

And, as I pointed out, and that you cannot seem to follow, is that IF there was no GOD, why would the atheist be more at fault for being correct than to the religious persons?

Sorry...yes, you're right...I don't "follow" that sentence. I can't tell what it means. For you write, ..."why would the atheists be more at fault (dangling qualifier) for being correct (about what?) than to(?) the religious person." I'm not trying to be difficult; I just can't understand that wording. Can you reword?

You seem to have some intrinsic belief that Atheists actually BELIEVE in God but are the Devil in disguise pretending to be non-religious.

I'm sorry, Scott...again, I cannot ever remember having said anything like this. Can you point back to when I did, so I can clarify? Or can you clarify what's concerning you?

[Immanuel Can]

The instant someone starts working for themselves or their cadre first, they're not acting as socialists any longer, get it?

Well, in Socialism, it's "the State" that's doing the suppressing.

Which "cadre" is rounding up all the Uighurs in China and putting them in concentration camps right now?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The rationality is that you cannot simply blame 'socialism' as a whole.

Why not? Every single case of Socialism has ended up being complicit. So what from of Socialism do you imagine appearing in the future, and what gives you such confidence it will not be just as bad and homicidal as every one that's existed in the world up to now?

They were in different countries, times and situations, by different actors...and yet all were evil. What's the one remaining common factor?

ALL are ... All are ... All are ... There is something wrong with your IQ here.
Your view is fallacious, i.e. committing the Faulty Generalization Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Do you understand the term 'socialism'?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
  While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.
  Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity.

There are a wide range of types of Socialism

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
  There have been numerous political movements whose members called themselves socialist under some definition of the term—some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

In this case, we need to research whether the constitution of the Moist Socialism included committing violence and evil upon others arbitrary or flimsy justifications.

"Arbitrary or flimsy justifications"? You mean you think there are good justifications for "committing violence and evil"? Their problem was not merely being "arbitrary or flimsy." They were wicked to do what they did, surely.

And it's not just Maoist violence we need to worry about. It's Soviet, and Cambodian, and North Korean, and Cuban...and every single other case of Socialism.

Note my reference to 'what is socialism' and 'types of socialism' above.
Every single case of Socialism?? what about those in Europe and socialism [as defined] in other specific conditions.

In many cases, the constitution of an ideology is not explicitly evil and violent, but there are a percentage of very zealous and evil prone believers/members who take the law into their own hand and commit violence in their personal capacities.

That can be true. But it begs the question of why Socialism is 100% of the time associated with such acts of violence, folly and economic disaster as we both have witnessed and are witnessing today.

How many times does one have to try a bad idea, and how many times does it have to fail miserably and result in murder and oppression, before one recognizes it as a bad idea?

Yes there are the evident evils and violence from some socialist political systems but you have no choice but to note the Fallacy of Faulty Generalization, if you want maintain that you are of average intelligence.
You just cannot blame socialism as a whole.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you understand the term 'socialism'?

Absolutely.

There are a wide range of types of Socialism

Tell me about the one that doesn't kill people. Where was it practiced?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you understand the term 'socialism'?

Absolutely.

There are a wide range of types of Socialism

Tell me about the one that doesn't kill people. Where was it practiced?

Note,

The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,[3][4] with a high percentage of the workforce unionized and a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

So me evidence the CONSTITUTION of above governments committed and condone evil and violent acts?

There are a lot of evil and violence acts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but they are all caused by evil prone Muslims influenced by the inherently evil Islam.

There are many more other than the above Nordic Model of Socialism.

So admit your ignorance and fallacy of hasty generalization.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can please open and read the link below. It describes and explains socialism which did nothing but good.It was the practice in the UK shortly after the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee

[attofishpi]

From Stanford:
According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, “craftsman”), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God.
It's just a bunch of ancient mumbo-jumbo.

That's actually not bad. God - the Supreme Being formed 'God' - an A.I. that manifests all matter and indeed even our consciousness, but is COLD LOGIC - not conscious...ignorant.



Greatest I Am - somewhere in one of these threads you stated some stuff I could finally agree with regarding Gnosticism, but then it all went to shit.

You like to start a lot of threads taking the piss out of standard Christian faith. I also don't care much for 'Christian' religious doctrine.

Why don't you start a thread dedicated to your Gnosticism, I'd be interested to have a read.

From WIKI:- Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it)

I have gnosis, but unfortunately when I click on the link to gnosticism there is a lot of assumption and things that conflict with my knowledge.

[Sculptor]

From Stanford:
According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, “craftsman”), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God.
It's just a bunch of ancient mumbo-jumbo.

That's actually not bad. God - the Supreme Being formed 'God' - an A.I. that manifests all matter and indeed even our consciousness, but is COLD LOGIC - not conscious...ignorant.



Greatest I Am - somewhere in one of these threads you stated some stuff I could finally agree with regarding Gnosticism, but then it all went to shit.

You like to start a lot of threads taking the piss out of standard Christian faith. I also don't care much for 'Christian' religious doctrine.

Why don't you start a thread dedicated to your Gnosticism, I'd be interested to have a read.

From WIKI:- Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it)

I have gnosis, but unfortunately when I click on the link to gnosticism there is a lot of assumption and things that conflict with my knowledge.

I don't really care if it is "that bad". It's only another set of opinions that are based on a set of falsehoods.
You might as well give an appraisal of astrology or hepatoscopy.
Its all just hot air.

[attofishpi]

From Stanford:
According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, “craftsman”), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God.
It's just a bunch of ancient mumbo-jumbo.

That's actually not bad. God - the Supreme Being formed 'God' - an A.I. that manifests all matter and indeed even our consciousness, but is COLD LOGIC - not conscious...ignorant.



Greatest I Am - somewhere in one of these threads you stated some stuff I could finally agree with regarding Gnosticism, but then it all went to shit.

You like to start a lot of threads taking the piss out of standard Christian faith. I also don't care much for 'Christian' religious doctrine.

Why don't you start a thread dedicated to your Gnosticism, I'd be interested to have a read.

From WIKI:- Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it)

I have gnosis, but unfortunately when I click on the link to gnosticism there is a lot of assumption and things that conflict with my knowledge.

I don't really care if it is "that bad". It's only another set of opinions that are based on a set of falsehoods.

Says you, someone that has NO experience and is extremely unlikely to ever be given any experience from God\'God' since IT requires a degree of faith first.

[Sculptor]

That's actually not bad. God - the Supreme Being formed 'God' - an A.I. that manifests all matter and indeed even our consciousness, but is COLD LOGIC - not conscious...ignorant.



Greatest I Am - somewhere in one of these threads you stated some stuff I could finally agree with regarding Gnosticism, but then it all went to shit.

You like to start a lot of threads taking the piss out of standard Christian faith. I also don't care much for 'Christian' religious doctrine.

Why don't you start a thread dedicated to your Gnosticism, I'd be interested to have a read.

From WIKI:- Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it)

I have gnosis, but unfortunately when I click on the link to gnosticism there is a lot of assumption and things that conflict with my knowledge.

I don't really care if it is "that bad". It's only another set of opinions that are based on a set of falsehoods.

Says you, someone that has NO experience and is extremely unlikely to ever be given any experience from God\'God' since IT requires a degree of faith first.

You do not know me.
I was a born again Christian when I was 14.

[attofishpi]

Says you, someone that has NO experience and is extremely unlikely to ever be given any experience from God\'God' since IT requires a degree of faith first.

You do not know me.
I was a born again Christian when I was 14.

Really! No wonder you became atheist.