Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Is Communism a Religion?

TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 9:07:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:29:58 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Bertrand Russell once said it was. What do you guys think?

Nah, I have a definition that I use for religion, but I've lost it :(

If any lurkers could find it, it's the one that uses 9 criteria

I only know like 2 now

1. Belief in some supernatural force
2. Have Sacred Objects pertaining to their religion
3. Wants constant devotion to the center of their religion
4. Etc, Etc.

I lost the Definition, so I would tell you, but I can't.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 10:14:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 9:07:49 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:29:58 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Bertrand Russell once said it was. What do you guys think?

Nah, I have a definition that I use for religion, but I've lost it :(

If any lurkers could find it, it's the one that uses 9 criteria

I only know like 2 now

1. Belief in some supernatural force
2. Have Sacred Objects pertaining to their religion
3. Wants constant devotion to the center of their religion
4. Etc, Etc.

I lost the Definition, so I would tell you, but I can't.

The people who first built things with their human hands didn't realize they were starting a new religion where all languages and false gods came from. They didn't know that God would have His prophets write about the beast, which is God's plan to teach His people how to build things starting with simple basic building blocks to the latest technology of computers and robots to use as analogies to help us understand who we really are. Now I can tell you that we are vibrations of invisible energy that need to be processed into a defined world ( this universe ) that we can understand and see the illusions of bodies to make us believe that we're a created "being". If we didn't have a body, we wouldn't know we're just vibrations of energy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:21:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I definitely think communists replace worship of god with worship of the state. On another note has anybody picked up on the fact that bornofgod stole his entire philosophy from David Icke. It's a bastardized version of Ickes stuff but it's the same almost word for word.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:44:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:29:58 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Bertrand Russell once said it was. What do you guys think?

Yeah 'course it is and ya know what they tried to impose their misbegotten religious beliefs on an entire nation.....................oh wait...............that's just like the fundy christians are trying to do.
I think the christians should fight against that just as hard as they fought against that communist religion.
Would that make them hypocrites? Oh don't worry they're used to that.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:56:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think Christians do try to push their beliefs on anyone. Not politically anyway. The only argument anyone has for that is the whole gay marraige thing, and Christians don't even want to really stop gays from marrying. They just don't want it called marraige they want it called civil unions. What's that saying?

"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:02:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:56:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
I don't think Christians do try to push their beliefs on anyone. Not politically anyway. The only argument anyone has for that is the whole gay marraige thing, and Christians don't even want to really stop gays from marrying. They just don't want it called marraige they want it called civil unions. What's that saying?

"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."
Then call it marriage. Or do the philandering christians have some copyright on words now.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:27:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,

It's the godbotherers who claim it is and also claim they own it. Apparently their sham marriages will be destroyed if same sex marriage is accepted.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:27:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,

It's the godbotherers who claim it is and also claim they own it. Apparently their sham marriages will be destroyed if same sex marriage is accepted.

The dictionary says marriage means between a man and a woman. Does the United States government really have the authority to take every dictionary off the shelves and force the companies to do a reprint.

Also why are gays against having the same exact rights but under a different name. Is having the word marriage in their union so important?

Christians want gays to have the same rights they just want it to be titled civil union. Why don't gays just accept this compromise. Then call it a marriage. Eventually the law will catch up, but who cares if it ever does you have the same rights as straights either way.

Look if someone hands me a million dollars but I can only accept it if I have to refer to it as credits does it make much since for me to refuse it on those grounds?

Screw that I'm taking the credits because it buys the same crap and comes with the same legal rights attached.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:02:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:56:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:27:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,

It's the godbotherers who claim it is and also claim they own it. Apparently their sham marriages will be destroyed if same sex marriage is accepted.

Also why are gays against having the same exact rights but under a different name. Is having the word marriage in their union so important?

It is of the utmost importance to the godbotherers and it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's the couple who are getting married that count not some rabid right wing fundamentalist hillbilly.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:36:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:02:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:56:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:27:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,

It's the godbotherers who claim it is and also claim they own it. Apparently their sham marriages will be destroyed if same sex marriage is accepted.

Also why are gays against having the same exact rights but under a different name. Is having the word marriage in their union so important?

It is of the utmost importance to the godbotherers and it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's the couple who are getting married that count not some rabid right wing fundamentalist hillbilly.

You still haven't answered the questions.

Gays are after the same legal rights as straights. That's fair they should have the same legal rights. Democrats are actually screwing gays out of their rights by pushing this word marraige. If it weren't for Democrats pushing for that word to be used, then gays would have the same legal rights as straights in all 50 states right now.

I'm sure most gays are just after the same legal rights and could care less about whether it's called civil union or marriage, but it's just a better political strategy for Democrats to use that word so they can delay the process of getting gays rights.

You see if democrats push the word marraige then they can keep rights from gays. The longer rights are delayed from gays the longer the left can keep those particular one issue voters going to the polls.

Republicans that are for gay marraige ( most of them ) are doing everything they can to get gays their equal rights. But their hands are tied by the religous fundamentalists. They can't afford to lose those votes. If the Democrats would only compromise then gays would have their rights in all 50 states right now and the second you get a democrat majority in any of those places then boom you can get the word marraige in there, although at that point gays probably won't care.

This is what happens when you politicize an issue . Rights get delayed otherwise there won't be a rallying of the troops to the polls to keep or get your party in power.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:45:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
They will be the same but different.

Because YOU as heterosexual has a right to marriage but homosexuals don't.

That is the wingnut understanding of equal rights

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

I've always been amused that the conservatives have always thought the book was about communism.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 9:12:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:45:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
They will be the same but different.

Because YOU as heterosexual has a right to marriage but homosexuals don't.

That is the wingnut understanding of equal rights

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

I've always been amused that the conservatives have always thought the book was about communism.

You fail to understand its more like all animals are equal with the same exact rights just with different titles.

Rights is what you can do. Both marriages and civil unions allow for the same exact rights. It's not seperate levels of equal. It's the same exact rights.

As I said it would be like me handing 2 different people a million dollars. With the one guy I call it a million dollars with the other I call it a million bucks, but it's the same exact thing. Why would the guy with a million bucks bitch that it's not called dollars when it buys the same crap?

You fail to answer these questions with cold logic you keep trying to appeal to emotion, and you have to appeal to emotion because your argument makes no sense otherwise.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 9:19:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:29:58 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Bertrand Russell once said it was. What do you guys think?

Pretending this didn't turn into a discussion on gay marriage, communism is not a religion, unless you also want to argue that fascism, capitalism, socialism, and anarchy are religions. They refer to systems of governance economically or philosophically.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 10:07:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:36:42 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/17/2014 8:02:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:56:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:27:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman, besides why is the name important at all,

It's the godbotherers who claim it is and also claim they own it. Apparently their sham marriages will be destroyed if same sex marriage is accepted.

Also why are gays against having the same exact rights but under a different name. Is having the word marriage in their union so important?

It is of the utmost importance to the godbotherers and it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It's the couple who are getting married that count not some rabid right wing fundamentalist hillbilly.


You still haven't answered the questions.

Gays are after the same legal rights as straights. That's fair they should have the same legal rights. Democrats are actually screwing gays out of their rights by pushing this word marraige. If it weren't for Democrats pushing for that word to be used, then gays would have the same legal rights as straights in all 50 states right now.

Because segregation and separate but equal worked so well, right?

Civil unions are an example of repetition of history, not offering the same rights as marriage. Some examples: http://www.law.yale.edu...

Unless things are the same, there is always the possibility of it being abused to deny rights to specific groups. The article I linked shows both explicit and implicit examples of this happening. Sure, civil unions might be better than nothing, but better than nothing is not the goal. Equal rights is the goal, whether it means marriage for all, civil unions for all, or no marriage for anyone.

I'm sure most gays are just after the same legal rights and could care less about whether it's called civil union or marriage, but it's just a better political strategy for Democrats to use that word so they can delay the process of getting gays rights.

You see if democrats push the word marraige then they can keep rights from gays. The longer rights are delayed from gays the longer the left can keep those particular one issue voters going to the polls.

Republicans that are for gay marraige ( most of them ) are doing everything they can to get gays their equal rights. But their hands are tied by the religous fundamentalists. They can't afford to lose those votes. If the Democrats would only compromise then gays would have their rights in all 50 states right now and the second you get a democrat majority in any of those places then boom you can get the word marraige in there, although at that point gays probably won't care.

This is what happens when you politicize an issue . Rights get delayed otherwise there won't be a rallying of the troops to the polls to keep or get your party in power.

Back on topic to prevent further derailment: North Korean communism could definitely be said to be a religion, since the people there think their leader is a god and they literally think that they control the weather. However, communism by itself is just an economic system, which, in itself, takes no more faith than capitalism.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.

Why are you so adamant they don't?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 11:02:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I allowed myself to get dragged off topic I apologize. As I was saying communism closely resembles religion because the communists typically replace an irrational belief in god with an irrational faith in government.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 2:39:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.

I don't want gays to use it for the simple reason that it would destroy the legal definition of "marriage". If that gets destroyed, then anybody and everybody could get married to each other, which would ultimately to societal breakdown because it would encourage the lowest of desires in society.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 3:08:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 2:39:06 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.

I don't want gays to use it for the simple reason that it would destroy the legal definition of "marriage". If that gets destroyed, then anybody and everybody could get married to each other, which would ultimately to societal breakdown because it would encourage the lowest of desires in society.

From what depths of ignorance do statements like this come. Are you married? The legal definition would just change as it has many times in the past. Even dictionary definitions change. Get over it. Do you think god is fantastic?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 3:18:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 3:08:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/18/2014 2:39:06 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.

I don't want gays to use it for the simple reason that it would destroy the legal definition of "marriage". If that gets destroyed, then anybody and everybody could get married to each other, which would ultimately to societal breakdown because it would encourage the lowest of desires in society.

From what depths of ignorance do statements like this come. Are you married? The legal definition would just change as it has many times in the past. Even dictionary definitions change. Get over it. Do you think god is fantastic?

My answer has nothing to do with marriage as is currently defined, but rather marriage as it will be defined if gay marriage is allowed. Under the revised definition of marriage as "a union of two persons", why couldn't anyone get married, even pedophiles. It makes no sense to revise a successful legal definition that prevents such atrocities.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:17:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't bother discussing this with him. It took about 3 days for him to realize that the legal definition of something can be different from the dictionary definition.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 4:17:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 3:18:35 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/18/2014 3:08:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/18/2014 2:39:06 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:58:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 4:41:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:55:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's actually in the dictionary as between a man and a woman,

Not only is it defined as such in standard dictionaries, but it is also defined as such in law too.

besides why is the name important at all,

I've always wondered about this too. Isn't a civil partnership as agreeable as marriage?
If the name isn't important then why are you so adamant that gays can't use it? simple much.

I don't want gays to use it for the simple reason that it would destroy the legal definition of "marriage". If that gets destroyed, then anybody and everybody could get married to each other, which would ultimately to societal breakdown because it would encourage the lowest of desires in society.

From what depths of ignorance do statements like this come. Are you married? The legal definition would just change as it has many times in the past. Even dictionary definitions change. Get over it. Do you think god is fantastic?

My answer has nothing to do with marriage as is currently defined, but rather marriage as it will be defined if gay marriage is allowed. Under the revised definition of marriage as "a union of two persons", why couldn't anyone get married, even pedophiles. It makes no sense to revise a successful legal definition that prevents such atrocities.

Yeah just look at all those countries that have legalised gay marriage look at how many paedophile marriages have taken place. Now answer my questions. Or are you afraid?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:21:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My guess is your probably referring to cultures that have always been cool with child brides. It's probably more correlation then causation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:39:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 6:21:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
My guess is your probably referring to cultures that have always been cool with child brides. It's probably more correlation then causation.

Name the countries that are cool with child brides who have legalised gay marriage? WHAT???????????????

Don't you recognise even the most blatant sarcasm?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:11:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 6:39:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/18/2014 6:21:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
My guess is your probably referring to cultures that have always been cool with child brides. It's probably more correlation then causation.

Name the countries that are cool with child brides who have legalised gay marriage? WHAT???????????????

Don't you recognise even the most blatant sarcasm?

If I would have looked at the user name I would have. I thought it was the other user who put it there. Obviously coming from him it would have been different.

I have to ask you this though, why do you embarrass atheists by using emotion to form arguments instead of logic? Why when you do use logic is it extremely shallow logic?

Please stop claiming to be atheist it makes us look bad. My guess is your IQ is on the lower end of average. Since this is the case be more humble so you look less stupid.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:19:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:11:34 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 1/18/2014 6:39:20 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/18/2014 6:21:16 AM, Wylted wrote:
My guess is your probably referring to cultures that have always been cool with child brides. It's probably more correlation then causation.

Name the countries that are cool with child brides who have legalised gay marriage? WHAT???????????????

Don't you recognise even the most blatant sarcasm?

If I would have looked at the user name I would have. I thought it was the other user who put it there. Obviously coming from him it would have been different.

I have to ask you this though, why do you embarrass atheists by using emotion to form arguments instead of logic? Why when you do use logic is it extremely shallow logic?

Please stop claiming to be atheist it makes us look bad. My guess is your IQ is on the lower end of average. Since this is the case be more humble so you look less stupid.
I think you'll find that my IQ is a good 20pts higher than yours, but I don't like to brag. I also enjoy coming to this forum for the purpose of stooping to the level of religious intellect that is so prominently on display here.

The "genius" you are defending thinks that homosexual = paedophile, a common misconception held by the frightened masses.

Don't be concerned the idiot won't understand what I wrote either.