Slashdot Mirror

I've had to listen to my co-workers talk about how the godless commie satan federal government should regulate video games, the real cause of violence, in place of guns. My copy of Shin Megami Tensei does not summon demons. Zone of the Enders does not give me a giant robot. Metal Gear Solid V does not put me in command of a mercenary organization, nor does it give me special-forces training. But guns-which put real holes in real-world things and people, CANNOT be regulated because reasons.

That bullshit alone has made me pretty hostile to the gun-rights movement.

But I'm still willing to throw you a bone. You want to save your precious guns? Make it not stupid for Democrats to support their existence. There's a double standard in policing where black people with guns get killed for little to no reason. Black people are, of course, a core Democratic constituency. The only guns they see are the ones the gangers carry (Which kill them) and the ones the cops carry (Which kill them). Carrying guns themselves? Kills them. No shit they're hostile to guns. Punish bad cops for the bullshit with Philando Castile, Tamir Rice, and others and defend their right to carry, and suddenly gun control stops being a critical life-or-death issue for them, and they stop pushing gun control in their own defense (Or at least, enough stop for the issue to fade).

But what about the godless leftist communists in our own country? Why are they coddled?

I think the biggest factor in Trump's win is that the attitude of Hillary and most of the Democratic Party, which is basically "How dare those unwashed nobodies in flyover country fail to show proper gratitude that their betters are willing to take up the burden of running their lives for them?!?", doesn't really play well in those parts of the country they show such open and complete contempt for.

Yes, how terrible it is that the godless commie homosexual satanic muslim scum were mean to team "Fuck Your Feelings".

Political correctness is the worst sin against freedom, except when you might have mean words to say about rural people.

I'd say you do care, if you have an opinion. As for the vilifying, lots of us Americans were raised to fear the USSR and it's godless commies with their nukes. Nothing personal, it can be difficult to change your childhood programming, so to speak. I am certain you are one of the nice Russians!!

But sir, they are not charged with FRAUD. It's 14 counts of recording people without telling them and 1 count of conspiracy to record people without telling them...

First of all, I'm a ma'am, thank you. I said they committed fraud, and gave you the 5 point legal test. I didn't assert that fraud was in the indictment. If you think they didn't commit fraud, simply point out which point of the 5 point test fails. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just because the indictment doesn't include a fraud charge doesn't mean they didn't commit fraud. Indictments often do not contain all of the crimes committed, but the charges the AG thinks he can win. Al Capone didn't go to jail for murder -- even though he committed many of them. He went to jail for tax evasion.

You *do* know that the DA that charged them took campaign money from Planed Parenthood right?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the enormity of the bias you feel that would drive you to make such an irrelevant and incorrect statement. Let's break it down, to whit:

• 1. - Our Attorney General was *appointed* to fill a seat vacated by the recent elections. Thus, there WAS no campaign to which PP might have contributed.
  1. - Xavier Beccera's campaign contributions for his most recent Congressional Campaign are a matter of public record. Planned Parenthood does not appear anywhere in the list of 550 donors.
  1. - Let's say for the sake of humoring an obviously partisan person that Planned Parenthood DID contribute? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion? You are implying that he is in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. Don't imply. Assert -- if you have the evidence. Otherwise, why make such a statement?

So here is what I *do* know: you pulled an irrelevant assertion out of your ass without verifying it. Why would you do this without basic fact checking unless you're biased to see the AG as a big bad boogeyman persecuting poor, poor political operatives for the anti-abortion movement because he's in the pocket of Godless Abortionists?

It's common for one who has not thought through all sides of a debate but holds a specific view based on their emotional perspective to attack the person rather than the issue being debated. Since the last presidential election we've seen this in riots and violence from the radical left in unprecedented amounts. You seem to be engaged in a personal attack, at least in part even though you don't know me from Adam...

You seem to be confused about the difference between noting bias and a "personal attack". Noting that you are displaying a level of bias so high that it not only causes you to make irrational arguments, but it causes you to lie to advance your position is not a "personal attack". It's an evaluation based on observation -- and so I *do* know you from Adam. I have observed your behavior across several posts. Now, to be charitable, it's possible that perhaps you simply read somewhere that PP donated to our AG, so in that case it isn't a lie, since you didn't knowingly tell a falsehood. In that case, it's your bias causing you to fail to check basic facts before you put your name behind them. In that case, you're merely a tool.

I haven't called you a poopyhead or a moron. If you feel "attacked" by a basic review of facts, that's your conscience bothering you.

And yet these socialist societies were much more successful than many Christian nations. Matter of fact, Soviet Russia was far more prosperous than the Tsarist Russia, proving you wrong. in 1917 Russia was a century behind the most developed countries of the world and the majority of its population was illiterate - just like the Orthodox Christian patriarchs liked it. The godless communists went through that missing century in 30 years and the literacy climbed to over 99%. Nowadays Russia becomes more and more Christian again and fails more and more economically. Cuba is in every way better than Haiti. Here is more food for thoughts: the poorest country in the world is Christian. Out of 10 poorest countries in the world, 6 are predominantly Christian and two more are 50% Christian. A lot of that poverty is directly caused by religion, because, like I already mentioned, illiterate population makes devout Christians - they listen to everything the church says, no matter how much the church distorts the reality. Seriously, disavowing the church was one of the few things communists did right. Religion is a serious hindrance for progress.

Wait, so when I die, God judges my soul based on how decent my government's regulations are? Vote your way to heaven I guess.

Most likely, seeing as church and state are often married to each other throughout history. If God didn't care so much about government, why would you find so many of his most devout followers being at the forefront of influencing politics, right up there with the lefties?

I've been told by many theists that it was the religious how had the morale fortitude to vote with their conscience or to volunteer to fight the good fight against Nazis and Commies, while godless atheists stood by.

Those same theists also tell me the greatest evils done in history of man is by godless commies, with Stalin being the poster boy of racking up millions of kills, and it takes the religious to control the beast that is government, as only the religious listens to the one true objective source of morality (God)

But then I point to how Islam is a religion, and how according to Islam's objective source of morality it's ok for them to kill millions, many more millions than the commies, and suddenly the theists become the very lefties they claim to oppose, and start talking about tolerance and how "not all religions/Muslims" are like that.

That is the stupidest thing I've read all week.

Completely off-topic, I realise, but bear with me...

Can some athiests/agnostics explain to those of us who believe in God why they usually believe in "touch wood" / "knock wood" / tempting fate / fortune, when the belief in One God who exists outside of space and time, and created matter and the laws of physics, etc, makes more sense?

In Islam, the concept of "touch wood" is considered "shirk" (idolatry / polytheism) as it's assigning or giving an attribute of God to an entity or thing that He has created. So it goes against the science of the perfection of "tawheed" (Oneness of God or Unity of God), which makes a person outside of Islam.

Oh. So basically the selling point for the illegal mexican rapists is that they're slightly less criminal than blacks? Great, ship 'em on in.

No, their basic selling point is that they're mostly Christians. Mexico has a higher % of Christians than the US. Ditto blacks in America. % wise blacks have more Christians and less atheists than the US average.

The other is that the illegal mexican rapists or their anchor babies eventually vote Democrat.

That's not a problem though. First, the babies. As above, they're mostly Christians, so them having more babies is a good thing - you end up with more Christians to perpetuate Christian culture.

As for voting Democrat, that is also not a problem, as the D's are the party for Christians and the religious in general, as religion leans left. In the history of the US, the D's treat Christians better. Pre-Civil War, the Ds let Christians run their plantations in peace, and they didn't petition government to push their morality on others like the Not True Christians in the north. Post-Civil War, they listened to Christians and implement Jim Crow laws. When the D's found that blacks were actually more Christian than whites (see above on %s), the D's switched towards them and pushed for civil rights and feminism and the other social justice stuff.

Democrat is about letting more Christians into the nation. They are pro-choice because they know only non-Christians and godless commies would take the non-Christians choice, and that's a good thing for Christians as that means the atheists commies and non-Christians are reproducing less. The D's also support single moms, because single moms may very well be Christians (as most single moms are blacks and latinos - demographics with high Christian populations)

Republican is the party that does the opposite. Their policies will throw Christians into the wild, in a world that hates and persecutes Christians. They PRETEND to protect Christians with their pro-life and wall and border control rhetoric, but as above, those policies actually hurt Christians. Not ignoring and not covering up rape is also harmful to Christians. Because you know, the meme about priest and little boys.

The culture that adopts the method of control that produces mothers and men with mates will thrive while the culture that adopts the method of control that produces office drones and bitter lonely men will die

Except that's not how western culture thrived. The West didn't rise to the top by producing more or better mothers or manly men than other cultures.

In fact, the West rose by doing the opposite. The West started the Industrial Revolution which was the first step towards turning people into drones. Before office drones, it was factory drones. Those who resisted this change (the unions, the Progressives, the socialists) are cast as evil godless commies going against what made the West great. This continues to today, with people sprouting things like work-life balance as being retarded lefties.

Yes you are. Very lefty-like of you. Leftists love to generalize. Makes it easier for them to dehumanize and push broad one-size-fits-all policies and (so called) solutions

I also eat, drink, and shit like a lefty. Do you do those things also?

So not so different from the majority of religions that have come and gone.

All I'm saying is the religious systems last longer. Some have lasted for thousands of years. No commie state is going to make it more than 3-4 generations, and the areligious western left will be gone soon, also.

Yet religious and non-religious alike fear the possibility that the NEXT commie regime would be 1984, where the boot will stomp on the face forever

If you're so sure communism will fail every time, then the level of fear of communism displayed by both religious and non-religious alike is irrational.

No, no one thinks the next commie regime will last forever, except retarded commies. People who want to avoid communism do so because they know it's doomed to failure. It's also a totalitarian hell while you're in it. Setting yourself on fire is guaranteed to fail if your goal is "keep living." Pretty miserable while you're dying from it, too. Is fear of setting yourself on fire irrational?

Second, science being useless for ethics does not automatically mean religion is somehow better. That is a false dilemma.

Wait, so you concede science is useless for ethics (which you absolutely should unless you can overturn Hume, in which case you should be world famous). So on the "usefulness for ethics" scale it scores a zero. Since religion is useful for ethics, then yes it's absolutely, undeniably better. The dullest knife in the world is more useful for slicing bread than a bowl of jell-o which cannot slice at all. Where is the false dilemma?

A great number of religious people are those things too. In fact, religious people love to take credit for those things. Abolition, civil rights, today's social justice movements

We've been over this before, and I already established why abolition was not at all anti-racist and the civil rights movement is complicated. However, you have this real bug up your ass to conflate SJWs and Christians, which makes no sense. If Christianity was SJW-y, then SJWs would be Christians, and they're not, and the Christians would be SJWs, and they're not. SJWs are pink-haired feminist landwhales screaming at "The Patriarchy," and The Patriarchy IS Christianity! They're completely anti-Christian. And the Christians can't stand them! Where on earth did you get this idea, and have you ever succeeded in convincing anyone else it's true?

Again, the few religions that managed to survive for thousands of years are the exceptions, not the rule. Religion has a very high failure rate, almost as high as that of the godless commies.

So, every commie system fails within 3-4 generations, but we have several major religions that have survived thousands of years (and are still going strong), and you're claiming that's equivalent? How can something that always fails after a relatively short time be as good as several things that have survived for orders of magnitude longer and not failed yet? Does not follow my friend. Does not follow.

I understand you don't like religion, or don't have one, or whatever, but you need to come to grips with the fact that non-religious societies don't last near as long as religious societies.

If your definition of being better or more useful is better than the commies, well... that's like saying you're smarter than a retard.

What does that say about the dying secular western world, that seems like it'll last about as long as the commies did? Equal to retards? I can agree with that.

"Nobody jihads for science?" That's a compliment.

It won't be considered a compliment in the history books the victorious Islamists write on the conquest of secular Europe.

I'm making extremely broad generalizations

Yes you are. Very lefty-like of you. Leftists love to generalize. Makes it easier for them to dehumanize and push broad one-size-fits-all policies and (so called) solutions

you're putting out exceptions (like priests and nuns, really?!) that prove my general rule.

That is the opposite of what happened. I'm the one calling you out on using non-religious people as a scapegoat to western demographic collapse. I brought up priests and nuns to point out that non-religious people who don't marry are a minority and an exception, just like those priests and nuns.

And then the godless commie society collapses after a few generations because it doesn't work.

So not so different from the majority of religions that have come and gone.

It does every single time

Yet religious and non-religious alike fear the possibility that the NEXT commie regime would be 1984, where the boot will stomp on the face forever

If you're so sure communism will fail every time, then the level of fear of communism displayed by both religious and non-religious alike is irrational.

And they got replaced by other religions, not areligion.

So? That doesn't show that religion is useful. Replace "religion" with "government", and you've got yourself the typical leftist argument that government (and more government) is useful.

I never said any of these religions were correct, just that they're useful, and far more useful than nothing.

Never said you said religions were correct. The point is to not just look at the few religions who made it past thousands of years. You want to generalize right? Then you've got to look beyond the few exceptions that lasted thousands of years.

Something beats nothing every time

No. That's a false dilemma, and leftist illogic. As above, you can make the same argument for government.

This is why science is useless as a basis for ethics.

So? First, ethics isn't the only measurement of usefulness.

Second, science being useless for ethics does not automatically mean religion is somehow better. That is a false dilemma.

that just kicks the can to a non-scientific evaluation of whether your goals are "good" or not.

And? That doesn't mean that somehow religion is that non-scientific evaluation that is better and useful.

the vast majority of the practitioners of Sciencism

Are a minority in the west. Again, you're the one picking out exceptions trying to prove a rule.

they tend to be anti-racists, anti-sexists, and pro-homosexuality despite the science supporting none of those positions.

Dude, if these "Sciencism" people are believing in something that science doesn't support, then they aren't following science, and not an example of how science fails and that somehow religion is better/more useful (again, it's a false dilemma to assume religion is better just by showing how bad something else is)

No, this isn't a "no true Christian/Muslim/feminist/communist" argument. You said it yourself that they AREN'T FOLLOWING what the science says.

Oh, and it isn't just Sciencism people who are anti-racist and anti-sexist and pro-homosexual. A great number of religious people are those things too. In fact, religious people love to take credit for those things. Abolition, civil rights, today's social justice movements (it's somehow not Christian to build border walls, "God loves you just the way you are")

I'm essentially making a fascist argument for religion: religion is effective, and certainly more effective than areligion

And I'm essentially pointing out that your argument isn't true, as what you think

They fall into a spectrum.

Of course. I'm making extremely broad generalizations and then you're putting out exceptions (like priests and nuns, really?!) that prove my general rule.

No, it could happen. If the godless commies take over, they could purge the religious, and it would be the religious who die off. And a commie take over is totally within the realm of possibility. That's something both religious and non-religious agree on.

And then the godless commie society collapses after a few generations because it doesn't work. It does every single time. It's not a useful ideology. See Russia, with its shrinking population that's only starting to turn around now that the Russian Orthodox Church is gaining steam. We'll see what happens with China, but I only give them another 30 years.

Except few people practice ancient Egyptian religion. Or that of worshiping Zeus or any other pagan religions that have come and gone. Of the hundreds if not thousands or more religions that have ever existed, only a handful of them lasted thousands of years. This doesn't mean the few that survived are correct. This means that religion has a high failure rate in figuring out what you "ought" to do.

And they got replaced by other religions, not areligion. I never said any of these religions were correct, just that they're useful, and far more useful than nothing. Something beats nothing every time, but that doesn't mean that something is correct, perfect, absolutely true, or that there isn't a better something.

Furthermore, I thought religion isn't about matters of flesh, but deals with matters of the spirit and soul?

Yes, exactly. How you ought to act, not what is. Spirit and soul is behavior, flesh is just what is. And as Hume proved, you can't derive an ought from an is. This is why science is useless as a basis for ethics. The best you can do is use science to identify effective or ineffective plans for achieving your goals, but that just kicks the can to a non-scientific evaluation of whether your goals are "good" or not. And the vast majority of the practitioners of Sciencism I see don't even do that, as they tend to be anti-racists, anti-sexists, and pro-homosexuality despite the science supporting none of those positions. You can't get a more useless ideology than the worship of what is while being completely wrong about what is.

And I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God or gods. I'm essentially making a fascist argument for religion: religion is effective, and certainly more effective than areligion. If areligion were effective western europe wouldn't be falling to Islam, but it is. Nobody jihads for science.

Except religious communities continue to reproduce while areligious societies like western europe are undergoing demographic collapse.

First, even long time True Conservative Christians in the west are also having less kids than before. The cause of a demographic collapse isn't due to religion or lack thereof. Correlation does not imply causation, and here we don't even have a correlation. Godless commie China had population growths DESPITE population controls by their government. Japan is strong in its traditional values, including religion (Shinto, Buddhist, there are even pockets of Christianity), but they have a birth rate issue too (probably worse than any other western country as Japan is not very aggressive in getting immigrants)

Second, non religious doesn't mean they don't reproduce. That's a false dilemma. People don't fall into neat little buckles. They fall into a spectrum. Some are die hard anti-theist (not simply atheist) and don't marry. Some are anti-theist but still marry (all four "Horsemen of New Atheism" married - some more than once - and have kids). Some are religious and don't marry (like all Catholic priests and nuns are supposed to).

Third, if you only look at the group who are both non-religious and not marrying/reproducing, they are a minority. To blame them for the demographic collapse is like blaming Catholic priests for not marry and having kids (or better, blame the 2-3% Christians in Japan being responsible for their low birth rate, as you got around the same % of atheists in the US)

Except that will literally not happen. The areligious will die out the religious will continue on. Ergo, religion is clearly superior to education.

No, it could happen. If the godless commies take over, they could purge the religious, and it would be the religious who die off. And a commie take over is totally within the realm of possibility. That's something both religious and non-religious agree on.

the religious act how they ought and out-compete every time.

Except few people practice ancient Egyptian religion. Or that of worshiping Zeus or any other pagan religions that have come and gone. Of the hundreds if not thousands or more religions that have ever existed, only a handful of them lasted thousands of years. This doesn't mean the few that survived are correct. This means that religion has a high failure rate in figuring out what you "ought" to do.

Furthermore, I thought religion isn't about matters of flesh, but deals with matters of the spirit and soul? So religion's longevity in the mortal world cannot be counted as a positive, as that's just mortal thing.

Even if we ignore the high failure rate, and even if we're counting mortal years, and you boost a few thousand years... so what? To god, even a gazillion years is nothing. Maybe the REAL god has chosen aliens from another galaxy, and he's talking to them right now. Us humans? Oh, we're just the Goliath to that chosen alien race's David. The Pharaoh to their Moses. etc. God leaves us to our own devices for now until the time comes for us to play our part as the villain. Or maybe we're the dinosaurs. After humanity is long gone, the chosen alien race will find our planet and their atheists would be like "look at these fossils of monkeys. Evolution is real! How could there be a god?"

think of all the people put out good grenade launcher jobs by this godless monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

fuck over them godless liberal elitists with their internets and their immoral netflix and chill. Do you really think the typical rustbelt, bible-thumper who voted for Trump cares if the internet gets destroyed ?
Trump could tell them that destroying the internet would make it harder for companies to open factories in other countries and they'll come running into your local starbux tomorrow with a pair of wire-cutters trying to sabotage the wifi.

THE HOLY LORD will kill us all if we don't ban the fag-ism and godlessness that feasts on our youth now.

He hates the fags and he hates the godless. Of both of them there are too many.

Then why does He keep making them?

He hates the fags and he hates the godless. Of both of them there are too many. They need to be converted or doom will come upon all of us.