That was nationalism not atheism…

Manhattan said:

---

That was nationalism not atheism…

---

Communist nationalism? Are you drunk? Communism is anti-nationalism. Fascism is nationalistic. Communism teaches that people are united by class and not by nation, which is why their battle cry is "workers of the world unite".

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

I don't assume that, but to play with the compass analogy, what is their compass pegged to? The only reason a compass works is because of the magnetism of the poles. What is their magnetism?

---

It's pegged to whatever they want but it's generally based on their life experiences - their family, environment, society they live in, etc. Of course that means some of that is based on the religious views of others - but who cares? We are each a product of the environment we live in. One doesn't have to be religious to realize that or to have right vs wrong beliefs.

Let's say (for sake of argument) mankind had no religious beliefs whatsoever. And let's take a little community in this fictional world where murder was rampant. Do you think some of the people in this community would think to themselves "hey, this is wrong - nobody should have to live in fear for their lives like this". And just like that they have formed part of their moral compass without the help of god, the bible, or anything else other than their life experiences.

So, regarding the Communists...

Religious Views of Adolf Hitler

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

---

The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity. Some historians describe his later posture as being "anti-Christian". He also criticized atheism.

---

Quote:

---

In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian". The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology. Hitler and the Nazi party also promoted "nondenominational" positive Christianity, a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees" and Jewish materialism. Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism and Lutheranism, stating, "Through me the Evangelical Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England" and that the "great reformer" Martin Luther "has the merit of rising against the Pope and the Catholic Church".

---

Sounds a lot like not-atheism to me.


Got any links to the "Antifa attacks on churches and day care centers"? This is the first I've heard of it...

Let's be real... most atrocities around the world, and throughout history are committed in the name of, or at least motivated by some form of religious belief.

Manhattan said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

When is the last time someone committed a crime, any crime, publicly in the name of Atheism? Or even at least where their atheism was an obvious driving factor in the commission of the crime? Any atheistic mass shooters? Any atheistic terrorists? Any atheistic bombers? Any atheistic insurrectionists? Any of them that any of you guys might be able to dig deep and come up with will be the exception, not the rule.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

Uh yes, I'll introduce you to the communist party who disavowed God, killed millions of people and destroyed churches. You also might have noticed the recent attacks against Catholic Churches and day care centers by Antifa who in light of the Roe V Wade rule, are blaming Catholics for women not being able to kill their kids in some states.

---

That wasn't in the name of atheism… Putin is essentially doing the same thing now with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

---

Sorry, that's the "wrong" religion. Morals only belong to the one true religion.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

So, regarding the Communists...

Religious Views of Adolf Hitler

Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

---

The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity. Some historians describe his later posture as being "anti-Christian". He also criticized atheism.

---

Quote:

---

In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian". The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology. Hitler and the Nazi party also promoted "nondenominational" positive Christianity, a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament. In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees" and Jewish materialism. Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism and Lutheranism, stating, "Through me the Evangelical Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England" and that the "great reformer" Martin Luther "has the merit of rising against the Pope and the Catholic Church".

---

Sounds a lot like not-atheism to me.


Got any links to the "Antifa attacks on churches and day care centers"? This is the first I've heard of it...

Let's be real... most atrocities around the world, and throughout history are committed in the name of, or at least motivated by some form of religious belief.

---

https://www.kktv.com/2022/06/27/fire-colorado-pregnancy-center-being-investigated-arson-wake-roe-v-wade-reversal/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/fire-pregnancy-crisis-center-oregon-portland

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251477/police-investigation-fire-graffiti-at-upstate-new-york-pro-life-pregnancy-center

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251480/vandalism-pro-life-pregnancy-center-north-carolina

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-dc-abortion-pregnancy-vandalized

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/us/madison-anti-abortion-center-vandalized.html

These are just in the last 7 weeks, and there are many more. Do you want me to do churches now?

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

I don't assume that, but to play with the compass analogy, what is their compass pegged to? The only reason a compass works is because of the magnetism of the poles. What is their magnetism?

---

It's pegged to whatever they want but it's generally based on their life experiences - their family, environment, society they live in, etc. Of course that means some of that is based on the religious views of others - but who cares? We are each a product of the environment we live in. One doesn't have to be religious to realize that or to have right vs wrong beliefs.

Let's say (for sake of argument) mankind had no religious beliefs whatsoever. And let's take a little community in this fictional world where murder was rampant. Do you think some of the people in this community would think to themselves "hey, this is wrong - nobody should have to live in fear for their lives like this". And just like that they have formed part of their moral compass without the help of god, the bible, or anything else other than their life experiences.

---

Sure, but let's say they didn't do that. Let's say that community decided person x was subhuman and it was okay to that. What would you say to that? That person X had a certain genetic defect that they didn't want passed around society and they needed to kill that to quarantine the defect. Okay?

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

Quote:

---

These are just in the last 7 weeks, and there are many more. Do you want me to do churches now?

---

First, what I want you to do is acknowledge what I posted about Hitler running the communist party in Germany, and his religious beliefs.

Also, you've gone from "show me one instance of atheist violence" to "okay the most murderous regime in history were avowed atheists but hitler was bad too"?

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Quote:

---

These are just in the last 7 weeks, and there are many more. Do you want me to do churches now?

---

First, what I want you to do is acknowledge what I posted about Hitler running the communist party in Germany, and his religious beliefs.

---

Hitler was a Nazi, not a Communist?

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Quote:

---

These are just in the last 7 weeks, and there are many more. Do you want me to do churches now?

---

First, what I want you to do is acknowledge what I posted about Hitler running the communist party in Germany, and his religious beliefs.

---

Hitler despised communists. Try again.

The NSDAP was NOT communist. At all.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

You're assuming people would be completely unethical without laws. I disagree. Ethical people are ethical Criminals are criminals. Laws merely define punishment for criminals.

If you think I'm not raping and murdering because of laws well that's just comical.

Admittedly speeding is minor by comparison. There are of course minor things that are more just trying to have an orderly and safe environment that are made "illegal". But I don't believe any gun law stops a criminal, murder does not stop a murderer, laws about rape do not stop rapes, etc. etc.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

---

Man, I like most of your posts, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. That's like saying safe's don't work because they've been broken into before. They don't completely eradicate something, they just decrease it.

The whole reason why San Francisco was running amok is because their DA wasn't enforcing crime. Enforcing crime causes crime rates to drop, because the risk increases which makes the reward less attractive.

Do you know why theft is so non prevalent in the middle east? Because they cut your hand off if you steal. Do you know why Singapore is so clean? Because they beat you if you vandalize.

People respond to carrot and sticks. You saying people don't respond to laws is that same thing as saying people don't change their behavior if you offer them money.

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

Quote:

---

Uh yes, I'll introduce you to the communist party who disavowed God, killed millions of people and destroyed churches. You also might have noticed the recent attacks against Catholic Churches and day care centers by Antifa who in light of the Roe V Wade rule, are blaming Catholics for women not being able to kill their kids in some states.

---

Sooooo.........

Quote:

---

https://www.kktv.com/2022/06/27/fire-colorado-pregnancy-center-being-investigated-arson-wake-roe-v-wade-reversal/

---

No mention of antifa.

Quote:

---

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/fire-pregnancy-crisis-center-oregon-portland

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251477/police-investigation-fire-graffiti-at-upstate-new-york-pro-life-pregnancy-center

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251480/vandalism-pro-life-pregnancy-center-north-carolina

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-dc-abortion-pregnancy-vandalized

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/us/madison-anti-abortion-center-vandalized.html

---

Behind a pay wall.


I cannot take you seriously, or assume that you are debating in good faith at this point. Zero of those articles made a single mention of antifa.

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

All of Western Civilization was founded on the back of my church. Like it or not, the values that you hold dear are heavily influenced by Roman and Greek legal and moral philosophy perfected by the Catholic Church.

---

No doubt there is heavy Christian influence in the law, the Constitution and so forth. But those laws and norms don't need to be backed up by a belief in a supreme being for them to be persuasive. I'm getting a chuckle at you piggy-backing on the Catholic church like you and the church are a successful football franchise

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

They need to be backed by belief in a supreme being to be persuasive to you, but there's a whole helluva lot of people who don't need that.

The reason to adhere to them is that such laws and norms are an aggregate of societal opinions on acceptable and expected behavior, and violation of them comes with the threat of societal consequences. No one needs God to tell them killing someone is wrong and you shouldn't do it when no one wants to be killed so everyone agrees that anyone who kills someone else will be punished by everyone else.

Plenty of atheists don't break the law, and, newsflash, it's not because they believe they'll be punished by God.

---

We're not talking about the reasons why they don't break the law; we're talking about the idea of whether or not breaking the law is bad, and where that comes from. They're likely not breaking the law because they fear temporal punishment, but even if there is no stick, where is the carrot?

Why is it wrong to steal? What if someone doesn't have empathy? Unless objective truth exists, then it isn't wrong to steal, it's merely distasteful and not something you would do.

---

88+% of Brazilians are Christian. Stealing is wrong based on Christian morals. Yet pick pockets are a HUGE issue for people traveling to Brazil.

Huh.

---

Your bombshell is that Christians do bad things?

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Quote:

---

https://www.kktv.com/2022/06/27/fire-colorado-pregnancy-center-being-investigated-arson-wake-roe-v-wade-reversal/

---

No mention of antifa.

Quote:

---

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/fire-pregnancy-crisis-center-oregon-portland

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251477/police-investigation-fire-graffiti-at-upstate-new-york-pro-life-pregnancy-center

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251480/vandalism-pro-life-pregnancy-center-north-carolina

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-dc-abortion-pregnancy-vandalized

---

No mention of antifa

Quote:

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/08/us/madison-anti-abortion-center-vandalized.html

---

Behind a pay wall.

I cannot take you seriously, or assume that you are debating in good faith at this point. Zero of those articles made a single mention of antifa.

---

You can't take me seriously? The dude who thought Nazi Germany was communist? Who do you think is doing this stuff? Maybe the group that showed up at the Supreme Court and said "burn it all down?" and all of a sudden a bunch of churches and pregnancy help centers start catching on fire? What do you think Mr.Wizard?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/antifa-chant-burn-it-down-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-protest-dc

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

I don't assume that, but to play with the compass analogy, what is their compass pegged to? The only reason a compass works is because of the magnetism of the poles. What is their magnetism?

---

It's pegged to whatever they want but it's generally based on their life experiences - their family, environment, society they live in, etc. Of course that means some of that is based on the religious views of others - but who cares? We are each a product of the environment we live in. One doesn't have to be religious to realize that or to have right vs wrong beliefs.

Let's say (for sake of argument) mankind had no religious beliefs whatsoever. And let's take a little community in this fictional world where murder was rampant. Do you think some of the people in this community would think to themselves "hey, this is wrong - nobody should have to live in fear for their lives like this". And just like that they have formed part of their moral compass without the help of god, the bible, or anything else other than their life experiences.

---

Sure, but let's say they didn't do that. Let's say that community decided person x was subhuman and it was okay to that. What would you say to that? That person X had a certain genetic defect that they didn't want passed around society and they needed to kill that to quarantine the defect. Okay?

---

It really sounds like you have been brainwashed into thinking that you (or anyone else) cannot make moral decisions for yourself and must look to others for guidance. If that's what you want in life go ahead, it doesn't matter to me. I for one like to think for myself. If my morality coincides with yours, great. If not, too bad.

We judge ourselves as well as get judged by the society we live in (either by force or by choice). In some of those societies we get to elect people who hold as similar views to our own as possible so that we might better align the laws of society we live in with our own chosen moral values (which is something ALL of us have in common for the most part...except for those that don't vote or live in a place where they can't vote).

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

MGS said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

In a marriage this is effectively as bad emotionally as milking someone and people grieve in the same way as an actual death.

---

You know what's worse? Having a husband cheat on his wife and then not being able to support the family because he's spending a year in prison.

---

Perhaps if there was prison time for this behavior he would never had done it in the first place. People act like this because there is no punishment for any of it. If there was then maybe they would actually work on their marriage instead of looking elsewhere.

---

Please tell me which laws in history have STOPPED a crime from occurring. I'll wait.

Ok I don't want to wait. The answer is none. Name any crime and there are people committing it.

Laws are nothing more than a definition of crimes and their punishment. It's a construct of a supposedly civil society. It does not change behavior. Most people don't murder because they are ethically moral and upstanding on their own, not because there is a law against murder. But murderers still murder despite there being a law against it. It simply defines the punishment for the crime. Same for speeding. People still do it.

But punishing human behavior that is common, private, and even accepted in some case, is lunacy.

I'm happily married and monogamous for 33 years - but this is BSC.

This is Puritanical 101. Found your own commune and good luck with that.

---

Are you high right now? Do you have any ideas how laws work? They act as a deterrent, not as a failsafe. It absolutely changes behavior. The entire study of economics teaches how people respond to risk and reward, you're arguing that if the penalty for speeding was death, the same number of people would speed. That is idiotic.

People base all decisions off of utility, which is a risk/reward calculation. I would not be willing to swim across an alligator infested stream for a $10 payoff. I might for a $100,000,000 payoff.

---

Laws don't deter anything otherwise there would be no crime.

---

Man, I like most of your posts, but this is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. That's like saying safe's don't work because they've been broken into before. They don't completely eradicate something, they just decrease it.

The whole reason why San Francisco was running amok is because their DA wasn't enforcing crime. Enforcing crime causes crime rates to drop, because the risk increases which makes the reward less attractive.

Do you know why theft is so non prevalent in the middle east? Because they cut your hand off if you steal. Do you know why Singapore is so clean? Because they beat you if you vandalize.

People respond to carrot and sticks. You saying people don't respond to laws is that same thing as saying people don't change their behavior if you offer them money.

---

It's not simply because the law does not eradicate the crime...

Sorry I don't believe MOST people refrain from these transgressions because of a law. Most people are simply morally ethical and would not do that to another person.

And harsher laws have shown to be a failure - in the case of drug crimes for example from the 90s. It did NOTHING to curtail the drug trade, nor the abuse of drugs. I don't believe ANY drug users or dealers curtailed what they were dojng because of harsher sentences.

Quote:

---

Well just tell me what gives you the right to make claims on people's behavior if there are no moral absolutes

---

1st amendment
Butts are like opinions, everyone has one.


Easy comparison on moral absolutes from the country music world:
Roy Acuff was a very popular country music icon. He was from and mainly performed in the Southeast and in the Protestant traditional Church tabernacles and halls. No drinking nor dancing in those places.

Bob Wills was a very popular country music icon. He was from Texas and mainly performed in Texas and Oklahoma at beer and dance halls of the German, Czech y Mexican (Catholic immigrant) tradition with drinking and dancing.

A North Caroline evangelical would be appalled at a Bob Wills dance hall concert with booze and dancing.
A Texas Catholic might be bored at a dry evangelical Roy Acuff concert.


Who is going to pay for massive new government growth with these increased adultery/moral courts and prisons yall boys want? Sin taxes on smokes, booze, gambling and sports?




Less government, more freedom.

Quote:

---

You can't take me seriously? The dude who thought Nazi Germany was communist?

---

You got me on the mixing up Commies and Nazis. My bad. Brain fart, 100%. I would circle back to how you pointing that out actually helps me make my broader point, but...

Quote:

---

Who do you *think* is doing this stuff? Maybe the group that showed up at the Supreme Court and said "burn it all down?" and all of a sudden a bunch of churches and pregnancy help centers start catching on fire? What do you think Mr.Wizard?

---

No, I can't take someone seriously when they present their assumptions as facts.

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

Silian Rail said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

That was nationalism not atheism…

---

Communist nationalism? Are you drunk? Communism is anti-nationalism. Fascism is nationalistic. Communism teaches that people are united by class and not by nation, which is why their battle cry is "workers of the world unite".

---

Wait, what? Are you saying the Soviets weren't nationalistic? Wow.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't take me seriously? The dude who thought Nazi Germany was communist?

---

You got me on the mixing up Commies and Nazis. My bad. Brain fart, 100%. I would circle back to how you pointing that out actually helps me make my broader point, but...

Quote:

---

Who do you *think* is doing this stuff? Maybe the group that showed up at the Supreme Court and said "burn it all down?" and all of a sudden a bunch of churches and pregnancy help centers start catching on fire? What do you think Mr.Wizard?

---

No, I can't take someone seriously when they present their assumptions as facts.

---

Brain fart? You mixed up Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and that's a brain fart?

You asked for a single instance of when an atheist regime killed people and I pointed out the single most violent murderous regime in history other than maybe the Mongols were avowed anti clerical atheists. That doesn't address your point?

Quote:

---

It really sounds like you have been brainwashed into thinking that you (or anyone else) cannot make moral decisions for yourself and must look to others for guidance. If that's what you want in life go ahead, it doesn't matter to me. I for one like to think for myself. If my morality coincides with yours, great. If not, too bad.

We judge ourselves as well as get judged by the society we live in (either by force or by choice). In some of those societies we get to elect people who hold as similar views to our own as possible so that we might better align the laws of society we live in with our own chosen moral values (which is something ALL of us have in common for the most part...except for those that don't vote or live in a place where they can't vote).

---

My man.

Quote:

---

Brain fart? You mixed up Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and that's a brain fart?

---

Will you feel better if I grant you a brain fart for proclaiming that antifa did something that none of the sources you quoted attributed to them?

Lemme guess... you think antifa raided the capitol on Jan 6 dressed in Trump-tard costumes, too...

dmart90 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Manhattan said:

---

That was nationalism not atheism…

---

Communist nationalism? Are you drunk? Communism is anti-nationalism. Fascism is nationalistic. Communism teaches that people are united by class and not by nation, which is why their battle cry is "workers of the world unite".

---

Wait, what? Are you saying the Soviets weren't nationalistic? Wow.

---

Communism is inherently anti-nationalistic. Marxism identifies the nation as a capitalist construction built on the back of the feudal system to uphold the oppression of the worker and is a bourgeois phenomenon not associated with Marxism.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Brain fart? You mixed up Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and that's a brain fart?

---

Will you feel better if I grant you a brain fart for proclaiming that antifa did something that none of the sources you quoted attributed to them?

---

That's not a brain fart dude, when someone says "we are going to burn it down" and they start burning down, it's a pretty easy connection to make

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

aggievaulter07 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

When is the last time someone committed a crime, any crime, publicly in the name of Atheism? Or even at least where their atheism was an obvious driving factor in the commission of the crime? Any atheistic mass shooters? Any atheistic terrorists? Any atheistic bombers? Any atheistic insurrectionists? Any of them that any of you guys might be able to dig deep and come up with will be the exception, not the rule.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

See Communism and it's mass murders.

Manhattan said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

Quote:

---

They do need to backed up by a belief in a supreme being to be persuasive, otherwise there's no reason to adhere to them if it's just some 18th century politico's opinion other than "i like this" and people like all sorts of different things.

---

No. I don't need to believe in God to know that murder is a horrible act. I don't need to believe in God to adhere to a 25 mph speed limit in a school zone.

---

Explain it; what if someone doesn't believe that murder is a horrible act. What then?

---

What then? Absolutely nothing.

---

Excellent, now we've got a society where it's okay to murder. Sounds like a great place

---

See - you try to argue just like a liberal. It's pretty funny actually.

I don't believe it's wrong to own an SBR (short barreled rifle) without paying $200 to the government. Yet I don't. Why?


Hint: It's the same reason someone might not murder someone even if they morally think murder is ok.

---

Yes, that's the 'temporal punishment' I referenced earlier. What is scary is that the scenario changes if you don't have any risk associated with the behavior. For a person who only behaves a certain way out of fear of getting caught, they would see no problem with murdering someone in a situation where they felt comfortable that they wouldn't get caught.

---

Congrats, I think you have just realized you are beholden to the beliefs of your religion as well as the laws of the government you live under. Did you really have a point or did you just like making nonsense arguments?

---

And if you have no religion, you're just beholden to the laws of the government you're under and can do whatever you want to as long as you might not get caught.

---

Sorry, I should have said "religion or your own moral compass" in addition to the laws...

Because really - YOU assume somebody that isn't religious has NO moral compass whatsoever. And that just isn't true. There are plenty of people (despite whatever government laws may or may not exist) that don't believe in god that believe murder is wrong (and adultery is wrong, etc). Some of those people may even believe gay marriage is fine - even some Christians believe that lol.

---

When is the last time someone committed a crime, any crime, publicly in the name of Atheism? Or even at least where their atheism was an obvious driving factor in the commission of the crime? Any atheistic mass shooters? Any atheistic terrorists? Any atheistic bombers? Any atheistic insurrectionists? Any of them that any of you guys might be able to dig deep and come up with will be the exception, not the rule.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

Uh yes, I'll introduce you to the communist party who disavowed God, killed millions of people and destroyed churches. You also might have noticed the recent attacks against Catholic Churches and day care centers by Antifa who in light of the Roe V Wade rule, are blaming Catholics for women not being able to kill their kids in some states.

---

That wasn't in the name of atheism… Putin is essentially doing the same thing now with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

---

It's always this with you people.

javajaws said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

We're talking about two different things you keep arguing people can have morals without God, I disagree but will say people can act in a moral matter without a codified belief system. Where the rub is, is why are right sacrosanct, the founders said that the rights were inalienable as they were endowed by the creator. They reference divine providence, you reference people choosing for themself, that's fine, but what gives you the right to override their choice if you have a moral disagreement?

---

The rights given to me by the constitution and the state I live to make such changes via elections, constitutional amendments, etc.

Unlike some countries, America is not a religious state and is free to deviate from the morality of its founders should its citizens collectively decide too (which they have and will continue to do so as long as our current government and constitution remain in place).

---

So you have the right because of a political process, understood. All you've gotten back it that slavery was fine as it was the law of the land. You might disagree with it, but if you don't like slavery don't be a slave I guess.