Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

[DingoLingo]

19 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

True. It's why we live and let live but we always have in our nation a respect for God. I think if that was ever to be removed the nation will decline and when that happens usually the one in charge is pretty grim.

eta 

It's why I don't agree with people who argue against God to remove God. It's a scary thought of what will happen if that ever was to happen.

actually Ella, I will disagree, its because your government is filled with people catering to the religious side of things, think of how far more advanced America would be if you took religion out of the political equation.

Stem Cell research for one example.

Or throw in the senators that wish to turn back the clock and teach creationism in school rather then science.

Religion should not be a political crutch, it should be a individuals right to believe in what they want, be it God, Allah so on and so forth.

Personally I would love to see Atheists doing a door knock, like the Mormons and joho's do.. Or see a Priestess standing on the corner handing out leaflets on why we should pray to the old gods.

I can understand if your country is secular, only one religion, then fine, mix religion with politics, but when you have freedom of religion, then religion has to move away from politics

[DingoLingo]

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Only ours protects those rights.

I will argue against that statement..

what about those people who see they have the right to terminate?

yet a bill was recently blocks that would say they do not have that right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.49e4b2ebf1ae

then throw back to the American civil war.. a war that was basically over the rights of a people..

back further Indian land grabs etc..

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, DingoLingo said:

I will argue against that statement..

what about those people who see they have the right to terminate?

yet a bill was recently blocks that would say they do not have that right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?utm_term=.49e4b2ebf1ae

then throw back to the American civil war.. a war that was basically over the rights of a people..

back further Indian land grabs etc..

The Bill of Rights was written to only include the rights white land owning men not to be beholding to the King of England. I, as an Irishmam, always assumed it was for everyone but it wasn't and the original one which Franklin wrote would have meant these rights, described in the Bill of Rights, would have extended to all people. Men, Women, Black, White and everyone in between!

I suppose at least it was a start.

[Imaginarynumber1]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

The vast majority of people have no views or opinions of their own.

They believe in what they have been told about and cannot question or criticise. Its not like they have the intelligence level of a Bishop so are unable to see through atheism.

There's nothing to "see through", that's what you don't get. 

[Rlyeh]

16 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I think that is a bit complex, but where do you think our laws come from?  Without GOD, Man would be living by his own morals.  Man’s morals are based on “doing unto others before they do unto you”.  GOD’s morals are based in right or wrong.  In other words, Man morals are subjective.  That creates inequality.

Do you still practice slavery?  No?  Then God's morals are also subjective.

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

Goodness me, that brings back some memories, of a departed old relative who would frequently say, "they're like the poor, they're always with us", usually in reference to some unwanted presence that was a nuisance or a burden. Actually  made me a little emotional, that was the only person I ever recall using that expression.

I got it from a book on the Albigensian Crusade.  Seems to apply in a lot of places.

Doug

[Doug1029]

15 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How many Atheists have you been talking to?     

Despite some's fervor to it, not all are like that. As I know, not all of each religion is like that either. Atheism is still something that doesn't believe in religion. 

And I believe, you're quite right about the businesses part of it.   

My daughter is a member of the Atheist Club of Tulsa.  I drink a lot of beer with them.  I guess that would be a dozen people (There are a lot of special groups within the club - beer drinkers are just one of those.).  I had one person in particular in mind when I wrote it.  He tends to drink too much and then he can't think his way out of the arguments he gets into.

A lot of spiritual people don't believe in religion either.  "Religion is for people afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have already been there."

Doug

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

15 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How many Atheists have you been talking to?     

Despite some's fervor to it, not all are like that. As I know, not all of each religion is like that either. Atheism is still something that doesn't believe in religion. 

And I believe, you're quite right about the businesses part of it.   

My daughter is a member of the Atheist Club of Tulsa.  I drink a lot of beer with them.  I guess that would be a dozen people (There are a lot of special groups within the club - beer drinkers are just one of those.).  I had one person in particular in mind when I wrote it.  He tends to drink too much and then he can't think his way out of the arguments he gets into.

A lot of spiritual people don't believe in religion either.  "Religion is for people afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have already been there."

Doug

Ah, I see.

Though you did say this person was filled with .....................   drink   

Makes me wonder how that person is sober. *shrugs*. 

The last line, I’m in total agreement. That sounds like me.     

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Do you still practice slavery?  No?  Then God's morals are also subjective.

Slavery in America is a lot more common than one would believe.

When I lived in Colorado, a local landowner started a rock quarry using illegal (Mexican) immigrants.  The quarry was located at Nolan, between Longmont and Lyons.  The Purdues kept their Mexican workers locked in a barracks at night and were paying them nothing at all.  One night one of them fell very ill and it appeared he would die.  A friend decided to break out and get him to a hospital, even if it meant being arrested as an illegal.  They made it to Longmont in the middle of the night where a local cop spotted them and quickly cornered them.  He took the sick man to the hospital and then started questioning the other.  The department informed the FBI and INS and at 5:00 the next morning they raided the barracks.  Because the case involved slavery, every person had to have a hearing in a regular court, not an immigration court.  The judge issued green cards to everybody, restricted them to the county and had them call their families in Mexico - one guy had been missing for five years.  The Feds sold the quarry - it's now a subdivision - and used the proceeds to pay the imprisoned men their back pay.  The Purdues are still in prison, serving 20-year sentences.

How do I know this?  I knew Leo Purdue.

Doug 

[Doug1029]

7 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ah, I see.

Though you did say this person was filled with .....................   drink   

Makes me wonder how that person is sober. *shrugs*. 

The last line, I’m in total agreement. That sounds like me.     

He's a good guy - just drinks too much.  Luckily, he has a wife who takes care of him.

Doug

[Duke Wellington]

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

[danydandan]

16 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

You should define exactly what you mean by Communist and Socialist. Do you mean it in the true meaning of each term?

Marxism, Social Democracy, Anarchism, or boardly speaking the basic philosophy Victor d'Hupay, Christian Communism, even the likes of Feminism movement is seen as socialist so I think every ideology has a bit each philosophy in it? I don't know or think anyone is a true communist or socialist. 

[DingoLingo]

59 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

well I'm not a atheist.. I'm pagan.. but I am more of a socialist

[Duke Wellington]

43 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You should define exactly what you mean by Communist and Socialist. Do you mean it in the true meaning of each term?

Marxism, Social Democracy, Anarchism, or boardly speaking the basic philosophy Victor d'Hupay, Christian Communism, even the likes of Feminism movement is seen as socialist so I think every ideology has a bit each philosophy in it? I don't know or think anyone is a true communist or socialist. 

Lets take a broad definition and say people who have a bias towards voting for Labour and socialist workers parties.

[RavenHawk]

 

19 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ok, it looks like you're making a claim there, right? 

Why do you say this? Where is your proof? 

 

I guess that was a claim, considering that anything anyone says is a claim.  For me, the Universe is the proof.  You can’t tell me that it just happened without a plan.  It is seen as designed (Anthropic Principle).  On the other hand, we can’t prove gravity.  We can see how it affects matter but we can’t directly observe gravity.  As it is, I believe in gravity and how GOD can change lives.  I believe in both without seeing directly.  I have seen the effects of both.

 

Are you familiar with the story of Flatland?  It is a story of a 3D person that travels to and visits 2D world and his experiences there.  So in a 2D world, there are 2 dimensions (length and width).  If you ask a 2D person, what direction is ‘UP’, they will respond with either the X- or Y- axis.  You ask a 3D person and his response will be the Z-axis (height) but try to explain that direction to the 2D person.  You can’t.  It is beyond their understanding.  Likewise, mathematically, at least 11 dimensions have been theorized.  How would a person from 11D explain what ‘UP’ means to them to someone in the 3D world?...  GOD lives out beyond that 11^th dimension.

 

So what I’m saying is that it’s not that there is no proof; the proof is beyond our understanding but we can understand that we don’t understand the proof.  The proof could be right before our face and we would not be able to acknowledge it as such.  It’s like in the movie “Contact”, Dr Arroway had no proof of her experiences but her recorder recorded 18 hours of static.

 

Ok, (kind of looks like you went backwards on that, or reversed the thinking............ whatever) the point was, God is being mentioned as suppose to be there, so I asked you, why not everything else? (point being, it would make sense, if one higher power((you can't prove)), then every others should too.) Gets kind of crowded, don't you think? 

This world is backwards.  But what I’m saying is that there is only one GOD, we just have multiple names and forms for the same entity.  No doubt that there are other entities out and about but only one Divine Creator (I see another post that I might be expanding on that a bit more when I get to it).

 

And what constitutes a religion in the serious or non-serious status? Wasn't Christianity in that category once?

The religion was an upstart but the faith was always there (John 1:1).  I don’t think it ever was considered as a non-serious religion.  Rome initially saw it as a threat.  It has weathered the test of time.  Even under Rome before the Edict of Milan, it spread.  It spread because of the message long before Roman efficiency tarnished it (in the west) and Muslim zeal nearly eradicated it (in the east).

 

Who is to say what is serious, when you really cannot prove any of them, one hundred percent of the time, as it is.

You have to look at doctrine and history.  For the sake of argument, it doesn’t really have to exist to be able to weigh how serious it is.  The FSM just doesn’t have the history or doctrine to make it a serious religion.  A serious religion is more than something created by the whim of Man.

 

I have a one worshipper(me) religion, or belief, that I take very seriously. Are you going to label my belief non-serious? I hope not, for I will be very offended.   

If it is only a one-person religion and no one else really knows anything about it, then it is not a serious *WORLD* religion.  No one but you will follow it.  It is a very serious belief only to you.  And only time will tell if it is worthy to last??  It is very serious to you and I do not wish to offend.

 

It would be interesting if you had the chance, you try telling her that. See if she agrees with you. From what I could tell about her and her body language, she definitely believed in it, and felt she had a right to use it and take advantage of others. I think, she felt, that was how she was to get anything. 

I simply don’t have enough information to say one way or the other.  I do know that I am missing something pertinent that you have not offered that would make it a “ah-ha” moment and then I could understand it better.  For now, something just doesn’t ring true about her or your perception of her?

 

I would mostly feel it's the unseen, since the seen can react back. 

I don’t see where ‘reacting’ is pertinent?

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Lets take a broad definition and say people who have a bias towards voting for Labour and socialist workers parties.

Ah ok. I'm agnostic so....... and I guess I'm not too political either but I'd consider myself a follower of as close a system to true democracy as possible.

[Duke Wellington]

12 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Ah ok. I'm agnostic so....... and I guess I'm not too political either but I'd consider myself a follower of as close a system to true democracy as possible.

In political science if you believe in getting as close to True Democracy as possible then you are extreme right.

But of course, far and extreme right have been re-invented as derogatory terms to mean nationalism and racism. True Democracy is good, no one likes a Government telling them what to think and believe in. Their job should be to represent not dictate.

Edited February 26, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[Rlyeh]

19 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I guess that was a claim, considering that anything anyone says is a claim.  For me, the Universe is the proof.  You can’t tell me that it just happened without a plan.  It is seen as designed (Anthropic Principle).  On the other hand, we can’t prove gravity.  We can see how it affects matter but we can’t directly observe gravity.  As it is, I believe in gravity and how GOD can change lives.  I believe in both without seeing directly.  I have seen the effects of both.

Unlike God, Gravity can be verified.  This designer isn't even a hypothesis, rather an unsupported claim fuelled by ignorance.

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

In political science if you believe in getting as close to True Democracy as possible then you are extreme right.

But of course, far and extreme right have been re-invented as derogatory terms to mean nationalism and racism. True Democracy is good, no one likes a Government telling them what to think and believe in. Their job should be to represent not dictate.

Isn't the right associated with nationalism, racism, jingoism and lunatics like Donald Trump?

I'd rather not be associated with the likes of that.

I was reading up on direct democracy, that might be achievable through technology. I'm not sure how effective as I feel this popularist politics going on these days would cause some back outcomes.

Edited February 26, 2019 by danydandan

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Isn't the right associated with nationalism, racism, jingoism and lunatics like Donald Trump?

I'd rather not be associated with the likes of that.

Left is heavy control with power centralised into a few. Right is minimum control with the whole population holding power.

Any left or right party can be nationalist, racist, or jingoistic. The terms far or extreme right have been re-invented so instead of meaning True Democracy they mean nationalism, racism, and jingoism.

[RavenHawk]

19 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Who are you,

Who do I need to be?

 

and what authority do you have to determine what a 'serious' religion is?

What authority?  Anyone who understands what religion really is has the authority.  At its core serious religions pertain to respect.  The FSM is an all-out mockery of it.

 

Really? All serious religions? I think you might have a difficult time explaining away the meso-American religions. Or those of the Philippines. Or Indonesia...

I don’t explain them away.  I agree that they are serious religions.  The odds are that they evolved from the same source.  On this site called TalkOrigins, they have an article that lists all the flood stories from around the globe.  There are over 260 of them.  These flood stories are part of all these culture’s creation myths.  That alone should prove a single source.  Of course, a common response would be that at that time most cultures existed on or near the coast, so flooding would be a common motif.  But so are Earthquakes, volcanoes, wildfires, drought, and even asteroids, but there are no stories involving these as the main disaster.  One would think that there would be an even distribution of disasters?  There aren’t.  There’s no evidence that the Adam & Eve culture and the Noah culture were near the water.  In Genesis 3:23, it says that Adam and Eve would cultivate the soil.  Nothing about fishing.  In Genesis 6 & 7, the Ark is built on land, not water.  Flooding is no more special than any other natural disaster, yet the only stories that survive involve a flood.  The Philippines and Meso-America contribute several each.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

20 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ok, it looks like you're making a claim there, right? 

Why do you say this? Where is your proof? 

 

I guess that was a claim, considering that anything anyone says is a claim.  For me, the Universe is the proof.  You can’t tell me that it just happened without a plan. 

Actually, I think I can. Since I remember being taught how the varying things in nature occur because of reactions and and other such things like photosynthesis, and the like, I believe the universe occurred the same way. There are a lot of things, I see in this universe, that don't seem to make sense if it's coming from someone with a plan. To me, when I look at nature around me, I'm reminded at how they came to be, (through a natural and scientific process) and see the evidence of that in each of them. To me, that's the evidence of them being formed by nature. 

I have a hard time seeing an entity do that, because there is no proof that they did. Not a name at the bottom right corner of 'the universal painting' to say that is how the universe was created. 

Quote

It is seen as designed (Anthropic Principle).  On the other hand, we can’t prove gravity.  We can see how it affects matter but we can’t directly observe gravity.  As it is, I believe in gravity and how GOD can change lives.  I believe in both without seeing directly.  I have seen the effects of both.

You're probably filling in the blanks with your mind's suggestiveness. Mine does too, when it comes to certain things. I noticed you talk about Anthropic Principle (in which I did a quick web search((I have said, science was not my strong suit)) I came across a couple of sites.) and then go into about your belief in gravity and God and how he changes lives. 

From my quick understanding of AP (<=== hell, why not acronym it  ) it doesn't seem to say what you think it says. If you think it's saying the universe formed for us, you might want to read this from a site that thinks differently about that. 

 

Quote

Yet the original two surprisingly simple statements, the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles, have been misinterpreted so thoroughly that now they're routinely used to justify illogical, non-scientific statements. People claim that the anthropic principle supports a multiverse; that the anthropic principle provides evidence for the string landscape; that the anthropic principle requires we have a large gas giant to protect us from asteroids; that the anthropic principle explains why we're located at the distance we are from the galactic center. In other words, people use the anthropic principle to argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do. And that's not only untrue, it's not even what the anthropic principle says.

The anthropic principle simply says that we, observers, exist. And that we exist in this Universe, and therefore the Universe exists in a way that it allows observers to come into existence. If you set up the laws of physics so that the existence of observers is impossible, what you've set up clearly doesn't describe our Universe. The evidence for our existence means the Universe allows our existence, but it doesn't mean the Universe must have unfolded exactly this way. It doesn't mean our existence is mandatory. 

 

30 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Are you familiar with the story of Flatland?  It is a story of a 3D person that travels to and visits 2D world and his experiences there.  So in a 2D world, there are 2 dimensions (length and width).  If you ask a 2D person, what direction is ‘UP’, they will respond with either the X- or Y- axis.  You ask a 3D person and his response will be the Z-axis (height) but try to explain that direction to the 2D person.  You can’t.  It is beyond their understanding.  Likewise, mathematically, at least 11 dimensions have been theorized.  How would a person from 11D explain what ‘UP’ means to them to someone in the 3D world?...  GOD lives out beyond that 11^th dimension.

No, I'm not familiar with that story. I think there's an episode from "The Orville" that could better explain that.  

Joking aside: 

Quote

So what I’m saying is that it’s not that there is no proof; the proof is beyond our understanding but we can understand that we don’t understand the proof.  The proof could be right before our face and we would not be able to acknowledge it as such.  It’s like in the movie “Contact”, Dr Arroway had no proof of her experiences but her recorder recorded 18 hours of static.

Seen the movie, know what you're trying to say, so.......................

What are you saying is the '18 hours of static' in this situation? The thought within the AP? Well, like I found out, I don't think it's explaining what you think it's explaining. 

But, I don't think it's going to be explained as 'he did it', if there was a way to find out that, 'he' would of said something by now. 

36 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

Ok, (kind of looks like you went backwards on that, or reversed the thinking............ whatever) the point was, God is being mentioned as suppose to be there, so I asked you, why not everything else? (point being, it would make sense, if one higher power((you can't prove)), then every others should too.) Gets kind of crowded, don't you think? 

 

This world is backwards.  But what I’m saying is that there is only one GOD, we just have multiple names and forms for the same entity.  No doubt that there are other entities out and about but only one Divine Creator (I see another post that I might be expanding on that a bit more when I get to it).

No, I meant you reversed the point of my quote. 

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

And what constitutes a religion in the serious or non-serious status? Wasn't Christianity in that category once?

 

The religion was an upstart but the faith was always there (John 1:1).  I don’t think it ever was considered as a non-serious religion.  Rome initially saw it as a threat.  It has weathered the test of time.  Even under Rome before the Edict of Milan, it spread.  It spread because of the message long before Roman efficiency tarnished it (in the west) and Muslim zeal nearly eradicated it (in the east).

Are you sure it was never considered a non-serious threat? 

 

40 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

Who is to say what is serious, when you really cannot prove any of them, one hundred percent of the time, as it is.

 

You have to look at doctrine and history.  For the sake of argument, it doesn’t really have to exist to be able to weigh how serious it is.  The FSM just doesn’t have the history or doctrine to make it a serious religion.  A serious religion is more than something created by the whim of Man.

Are you sure everything thinks that about the seriousness of a religion?

41 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

I have a one worshipper(me) religion, or belief, that I take very seriously. Are you going to label my belief non-serious? I hope not, for I will be very offended.   

 

If it is only a one-person religion and no one else really knows anything about it, then it is not a serious *WORLD* religion. 

Haven't there been religions today, that started from one person? 

Quote

No one but you will follow it.  It is a very serious belief only to you.  And only time will tell if it is worthy to last??  It is very serious to you and I do not wish to offend.

I could make it last, kind of like religions that I think started from one person. 

Hmmmm, didn't Christianity started from one person?

Anyways, who are you to say of the time limit of it's worthiness?

43 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

It would be interesting if you had the chance, you try telling her that. See if she agrees with you. From what I could tell about her and her body language, she definitely believed in it, and felt she had a right to use it and take advantage of others. I think, she felt, that was how she was to get anything. 

 

I simply don’t have enough information to say one way or the other.  I do know that I am missing something pertinent that you have not offered that would make it a “ah-ha” moment and then I could understand it better.  For now, something just doesn’t ring true about her or your perception of her?

Well, I guess you're telling me you think I'm making it up. But, I will stand that she was (probably still is, if she's still alive) the real deal. Bottom line, she's one example of someone who took advantage of her religion to use others. That, is one of the many things, that I'm convinced what you say doesn't make sense. 

46 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Quote

I would mostly feel it's the unseen, since the seen can react back. 

I don’t see where ‘reacting’ is pertinent?

 

It was the closest word I could use at the moment to describe the results of something. 

 

You know something, I would really wish you answered all of my questions to you. I would have thought you would have answered this one to you: 

 

Quote

Quote

Without GOD, Man would be living by his own morals.  Man’s morals are based on “doing unto others before they do unto you”.  GOD’s morals are based in right or wrong.  In other words, Man morals are subjective. That creates inequality.

Do you think the bible was written by God, with no human writing down the words to it? What proves that it was all God, and not man assuming that God said that? So, in that mindset, that could be man writing down those morals and rules. 

And pretty much, man's morals are seemingly based on experience and observation, and seeing how right and wrong plays out in front of them. 

Since I grew up without religion, are you saying I don't know right or wrong? 

 

So, yeah, I reposted it for you. 

[danydandan]

19 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Left is heavy control with power centralised into a few. Right is minimum control with the whole population holding power.

Any left or right party can be nationalist, racist, or jingoistic. The terms far or extreme right have been re-invented so instead of meaning True Democracy they mean nationalism, racism, and jingoism.

Ah ok. Thanks!

[Jodie.Lynne]

5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

I am neither.

In fact, I am at heart, an anarchistic Monarchist. That means, I want to be the Queen, but no one has to listen to me.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

24 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I am neither.

In fact, I am at heart, an anarchistic Monarchist. That means, I want to be the Queen, but no one has to listen to me.

Maybe you will be a better queen than the one we got over here. I recently found out, courtesy of a poster in this very thread, that she is running a dictatorship. All hail the queen !

Just kidding. Current despot on the right, future despot on the left.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy