Boycott Google

@Serendipper

If employers couldn’t find new things for people to do, capitalism would’ve collapsed long ago.

I’m not sure if they’ll reproduce more or less on the street than on welfare, but at least they’ll be malnourished and their fertility will plummet.

Many or most of them may get jobs if the street is the only alternative.

I’m in favor of raising the standard of living for the working poor.

Hitler and his regime publicly feigned to be Christians, while in private they were atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, much’s our leaders publicly feign to be Christians, liberals and conservatives, while in private they’re, well, atheists, pagans, social Darwinists and Nietzscheans, but at least the Nazis were more honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Speer_on_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs

I’m in favor of helping those who genuinely need it.

Lenin and Stalin never claimed to be Gods.

You can use religion to justify the removal of tyrants too, like your founding fathers did.

Atheists need to stop blaming religion for what tyrants do with it.

The Kremlin persecuted theists.

Religion played a very small part in attempting to justify those wars.

They weren’t crusades, we weren’t trying to convert the heathen.

On the surface they were mainly about ideology and keeping us and our allies safe, beneath the surface they were about empire.

Atheists are starting to mutilate their children’s genitals for different reasons, and feed them hormone blockers, steroids…

Atheist anarchists, communists and fascists commit terrorism.

Agreed.

Sounds good to me.

@Serendipper

It’s okay if some things atrophy if they’re no longer needed.

I’m not arguing for improvements and advancements i.e. the destruction of the environment, I’m arguing government should increase wages and reduce prices for necessities rather than going to the other extreme and giving necessities (e.g. food, clothing, shelter) away for free.
If only 50, 20 or whatever % of the population has to work full time to ensure everyone’s needs are taken care of, than reduce the work week proportionally to ensure near 100% employment.
After that, improvements and advancements will be optional, and we’ll think twice before doing something that jeopardises our health/the health of the environment for the sake of something no one needs or even really wants.
In the main, we should only economically, scientifically and technologically progress, if we can do so without seriously compromising our health/the environment’s.

Children are helpless, and most of them will grow up to be contributors, lazy people aren’t and won’t.

It doesn’t matter if social, natural selection, free will insofar as it exists, Jesus, the Buddha or all of the above guided our evolution, those who’re more able and willing to contribute to society should get more out of it.

The big, juicy, nutritious tomato plant gets credit just for being itself, regardless of what external, and internal (it’s always a combo) factors lead to its development, it gets credit because you’re tending to it more than its fellows.

It should go without saying, but liberals can be every bit as unreasonable as conservatives.

Right, we should force people who do their job well to work with people who do their job poorly, because people who do their job well shouldn’t care if they share the same position and wage with people who do their job poorly.

No it’s not just about not being told what to do, they don’t want individuals, families and communities to have religious or moral values.

Liberals want to remove all criticism of Islam, even tho in the 21st century, it’s by far and away the most militant religion.

The worst atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists.

And liberals are the enemy of whites, the middle class and men.

You could be right, I don’t know. I remember Sylva Browne said if Bush won the election against Gore, that something really bad would happen. I voted for Bush anyway (dad’s fault lol). I often wonder if there was any possible way she could have perceived the future. There was also some talk about some randomness-monitoring eggs placed around the world that suddenly stop detecting randomness right before the planes crashed. noosphere.princeton.edu/ We can go pretty deep in the rabbit hole lol

But we need customers to buy the products

I think we should test your theory by chucking you onto the street with all the mullatos. Like the guy who presented that brazen bull to the king and the king roasted him alive inside the thing. With what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged! allthatsinteresting.com/brazen-bull It’s YOUR idea, so we test it on YOU! :evilfun:

Only to support the slave system. You’re no different than any conservative. Worse perhaps because your evil is less obvious… like the angel of light christ warned about.

Conservatives are like 4 headed beasts that anyone with a brain knows to avoid, but you’ve taken on a new facade with the more virtuous connotations of the libertarian label that veils your true intentions.

“You can go lick boots or go starve in the streets, but I am however willing to raise the minimum wage for bootlicking because we must take care of our poor bootlickers.” ← that’s not virtuous.

The ONLY way to be virtuous is to end conscription into bootlicking and support the freedom of people to decide if they want to lick boots or not. If you wear the libertarian label, you’re a hypocrite.

Then you’ll say “But who will lick all the boots if not compelled by starvation?” Yes exactly my point. You ain’t no libertarian.

“But how will the work get done?” Most doesn’t need to be done. Let them who want to do it, do it. Let the compulsion be money and not starvation.

“But some work needs to be done!” Yes and machines do most of it and what isn’t mechanized can be attended to by the swarm of people who just like having something to do. Hell, I’m not getting paid to talk to you, but I’m working my ass off anyway. KT wouldn’t go to the extents I do. Some people will do things that we ourselves cannot imagine doing and the “scarcity of volunteers” idea is just silly. And forcing people to do work that doesn’t need to be done is evil because it increases suffering of the many to enable over-opulence of the few. That idea is lizard-brained, pure n simple.

More sticking your head in the sand fearing contradiction of your worldview. Hitler wrote a book where he said he was christian and doing god’s work. Most of his speeches appealed to god. Nazi belt buckles said “God on our side”. They were all members of the catholic church, except Goebbels who was excommunicated for marrying a protestant. Heck, you may as well claim the pope is atheist too in private. Maybe there is no such thing as a theist… it’s just a big show and everyone is atheist at home in private. Conspiracy theory much?

It doesn’t matter if they were christians or had to use christianity to rally the people. The point remains that religion was required to do evil. You didn’t even watch the video.

So he lamented the fact that jesus was a pascifist. He’s still a theist.

I don’t believe that for a second. You’re for the continuation of servitude. A robotic minion incapable of deviating from the same old retorts as if serving plutocratic masters.

I intend to start a thread devoted to this topic because I’m only burying information to be robotically ignored and that only the AI bots will ever see.

[i]Of these three characters, Stalin was the only confirmed atheist, yet Hitchens thoroughly dealt with the religious nature of Stalin’s dictatorship in a manner that has left religious apologists without sufficient reply. Notwithstanding the fact that Stalin was raised as a Christian under the religious influence of his mother, who enrolled him in seminary school, and that Stalin later took it upon himself to study for the priesthood, as Hitchens and others have pointed out, Stalin merely stepped into a ready-made religious tyranny, constructed by the Russian Orthodox Church and paved with the teachings of St. Paul.

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism.[/i] michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress … -hitchens/

More conscription into servitude. Reduce everyone’s work to be sure everyone gets a chance to lick boots or starve.

Only 4% of people move from one quintile to another. Where you are born is where you stay. They write books on rags to riches stories. So, no, most will not grow up to be contributors, but engage in crime, drugs, and violence.

You are advocating to shit-up your own environment, and mine, all because you despise some people. You want to smear shit on my walls just to see that someone else doesn’t get anything that you don’t think he deserves.

“I want to introduce poverty, crime, under-education into your neighborhood because I just can’t stomach the idea that some lazy bum might get something for nothing. We will all suffer because I hate some people.” ← That’s it right there!

Well, if you’ve accomplished nothing else, I’m now totally cool that my former school is about 100% mexican. These arrogant white mofos have got to go! I’m not sure what we’re getting into, but I’m definitely going to relish the descent of the braggadocio… like watching that cocky tatted-up irish prick getting his ass kicked both by a muslim and a black man LOL

Remember when the irish were considered nonwhite? history.howstuffworks.com/histo … -white.htm

[i]More than 1.5 million people left Ireland for the United States between 1845 and 1855, the survivors of a potato famine that had wiped out more than 1 million people in their homeland. They arrived poor, hungry and sick, and then crowded into cramped tenements in Boston, New York and other Northeastern cities to start anew under difficult conditions.

The struggles of Irish immigrants were compounded by the poor treatment they received from the white, primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant establishment. America’s existing unskilled workers worried they would be replaced by immigrants willing to work for less than the going rate. And business owners worried that Irish immigrants and African-Americans would band together to demand increased wages.

Not only were Irish immigrants viewed as interlopers by many white Americans (an irony, considering the historical treatment of Native Americans), but these immigrants were Catholics in a primarily Protestant land. It was a religious difference that widened the divide, as did the fact that many Irish immigrants didn’t speak English. As strange as may it may sound today, Irish immigrants were not considered “white” and were sometimes referred to “negroes turned inside out.”[/i]

Negroes turned inside out :laughing:

No, the tomato plant wouldn’t exist without me. Actually, tomatoes were berries that humans bred into tomatoes.

Then they’re conservative in liberal clothing.

A black man delivers my ups packages and he seems to do a fine job. No clue what you’re on about.

I sometimes wonder if Neil DeGrasse Tyson got some special favors for being black because he’s not all that sharp, but he’s not stupid either. I don’t see a big deal. Michio Kaku is taking up the slack.

FIFY. In blue.

I disagree here. It’s the right that’s protecting islam.

FIFY. In blue.

Just the arrogant ones.

@Serendipper

We can always reduce the workweek to ensure near 100% employment, should the underclass decline in numbers, or should consumption/production decrease when people are no longer compelled to consume/produce so much, for we’ve raised wages and reduced prices for (essential) goods and services.

Since you like bums so much, you and your ilk should be conscripted to wipe their asses for them because they’re too lazy to do it themselves. :slight_smile:

Working people shouldn’t be held at gun point and forced to work harder than they’d have to if both the underclass, and the overclass pulled their weight.
It’s people who’re able and willing to do the work that still needs to be done to take care of society who’re ultimately going to help society progress, not the unable, nor the unwilling, they’ll just hold us back.

Furthermore, if the unable/unwilling happen to procreate more than working people, or more and more join their ranks, we’ll have to work harder and harder to support them.
eventually we may have to work much harder than we have to today, and because we’re overburden, we won’t be able to handle a sociopolitical, economic or environmental crisis should one happen to occur, and sooner than later, one will.

Disabled people should be treated humanely, we could all wind up disabled someday, but I have no sympathy for those who’d rather make other peoples lives harder than work.
They’re not entitled to anything, and if they commit serious crimes, felonies, they should be given lengthier prison sentences, and again, possibly sterilizations, depending, if necessary.
Given that choice, I suspect many or most of them will work.
The ones who refuse have no excuse, particularly since wages and prices will be much fairer.

We’ve already established Hitler pretended to be Christian for political gain, so it’s not that much of a stretch to say he may’ve pretended to be a theist as well.

And it wasn’t just him:

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

Contrary to what the anti-Christian left would have us believe, Nazism was in all likelihood a synthesis of occult pagan, social Darwinian and Nietzschean thought.

Why’s it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?
Sure, if the Nazis pretended to be Christians, and the communists pretended to be, well, communists, maybe the people at the very top of the Catholic pyramid, the popes, bishops and cardinals are atheists, or Satanists, I mean it would make sense considering they’re obscenely rich and don’t practice a thing Christ preached.
As far as I’m concerned they’re all a bunch of sociopaths, same goes for democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.
They’re all plutocrats pretending to be for the people.

It was just because he was a pacifist, Jesus stood for nearly everything Hitler stood against, Jesus said the meek shall inherit the kingdom, Hitler wanted to crush the weak.

Pffft, you’re the robot, you can’t even think outside the left/right/libertarian paradigm they’ve fed you.
I have took what I consider to be the best from all three and synthesized them into a new political philosophy.

Whether one believes in God or not says next to nothing about their character, or willingness to obey tyrants.

Religion can be a force for good in this world.
Look at all the charities founded by religions.
Religion can bring communities together and strengthen them.

Benjamin Franklin

Most enlightenment philosophers and revolutionaries from John Locke, Montesquieu, to Thomas Jefferson were Christians or irreligious theists, the founders of liberal democracy.
Direct and representative Democracy was founded by the Greeks and Romans respectively, who were heavily steeped in religion.

Atheists are like haughty children who shit all over their parents, saying we’ll do a better job than you once we’re in charge of the world, subsequently blaming their parents for all their mistakes.
Yea right, that’s what the monotheists said about polytheists and animists.

@Serendipper

Once we improve healthcare, education, wages and working conditions, that figure may increase for the underclass, but if it doesn’t, they shouldn’t have kids.

And you wouldn’t exist without fruit and veg plants, so you taker better care of the superior ones.

Old conservativism subordinated women and minorities to men and the majority, whereas new liberalism does the reverse.
The two are similar in that they’re both hierarchical, but different in who’s dominant.
Old liberals and new conservatives are the ones who truly want to end discrimination.

Now again, I want to raise wages and reduce the prices of goods, especially essential ones, so we’re not compelled to labor so the overclass can live extravagantly.
However, we shouldn’t be forced to look after people who’re perfectly capable of looking after themselves either.

If we give people welfare, no questions asked, in all likelihood unemployment will jump from 5 to 10, maybe even 15 or 20%, which means working people will have to work much, much harder than they should have to.

But if we improve working conditions, raise wages, reduce prices and universalize post-secondary education and healthcare, while simultaneously making it harder to collect welfare, so only those who genuinely need it, get it, can’t find work or are disabled, in all likelihood unemployment will lower from 5 to 2 or 1%, which means working people won’t have to work any harder than they should have to.

What does it matter if it’s 100s of thousands of parasitical rich, or 10s of millions of parasitical poor we’re supporting?
Both are enemies of working people.
And if the homeless cause us serious problems by committing felonies, we can just get proportionally tougher on crime in response, a threat which’ll reduce unemployment even further.

Now as far as population control goes, we only need to worry about that if the unemployed birthrate exceeds the employed birthrate.
If it exceeds it than it needs to be deal with, because the more there is of them, the more difficult it will be to take care of them.

Not matter what is happening - I now mean at a metaphysical level - existence is really weird and counterintuitive. We are down a rabbit hole. Maybe the Western Science based, there are democracies, conspiracies don’t happen much, everything is matter -whatever that means - worldview is correct. But that is a fucking weird worldview. We can’t really evaluate truth in terms of absurdity. Whatever is going on is very strange - if you can pull back from enough from your own culture to see all of its assumptions and then look at others.

I remember as a kid being told that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, no one has absolute power, but some people have incredible amounts of power.

But if you raise the possibility that they are abusing it you get Bill Clinton screaming ‘shame on you’ at you.

The utter inabililty of organizations to even consider and investigate certain things is ridicualous. There is free speech in a certain sense - though anyone with some power (a journalist, an ambassador, a professor at a prodigous university, anyone high up in the private sector but not at the top) should they go outside the consensus they are puting their careers in severe jeopardy and risking massive social ostracism and damning that will affect one’s family.

People with less power will simply be marginalized. And are.

Someone criticizing the official conspiracy theory, say of 9/11, will be called a traitor, nutjob, put their job in jeopardy, be called a racist, and anti-seminte, told they are helping Putin, using hate speech and more.

With that enormous pressure on people actually looking at and considering things, we have a problem.

I’d like to see the faux-communists try to do to the US what they did to Russia.
The Americans wouldn’t have it, and Christian, gun-toting, rural Americans would put up the fiercest resistance.
America’s Protestantism is a totally different beast than Russia’s orthodox Christianity, I mean it’s in the name even: protest, orthodox.

Now you can say America’s religious worldview makes it possible for men like Trump to come to power and exploit the people, but so what?
Germany’s brand of secular worldview makes it possible for women like Angela Merkel to come to power and exploit the people, as if liberals were any better than American conservatives, they’re by and large just different forms of soft-tyranny.

Most Chinese are either irreligious or Buddhist, and like you said, Buddhism, at least at its core, is atheist, agnostic or perhaps apatheist religion, yet the faux-communists were still able to takeover in China, whereas they weren’t in Shinto Japan.
While the Japanese experimented with their own form of tyranny in the mid 20th century, today they are democratic.
You can’t blame everything, if anything on religion, some races with their histories, traditions apart from religion are more susceptible to tyranny than others.

Now let’s take a look at progressive Finland.

Here’s their income tax burden:

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

Now unless I’m missing something, see how the progressives screw the middle, and even working class nearly as much as the rich?
The middle and working classes should hardly pay any tax at all.
But the rich can take it, like Jesus said, the poor man who donates a penny gives more than the rich man who donates half his savings, and the rich often find ways around taxes.

And these days progressives especially want to censor your speech, take your guns, bring in millions of legal immigrants, most of whom take a hell of a lot more jobs than they create, so the working class has to compete with them, millions of illegals and refugees, make excuses for Islam, discriminate against all, not just some, their policies target all men and whites, progressive Hollywood promotes drugs and thuggery, progressive education tells kids it’s cool to cut off your Johnson and take hormone blockers…

Now I’m not saying conservatives are any better, they’re not, and they both have infinitely more in common than not.
We live in a two party dictatorship, and it’s going to take some real, outside the box thinking, and action to change anything.

No that’s the Kock Brothers’ job.

Matthew 23
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

I shouldn’t be conscripted into pulling weight that I don’t want to pull nor is there any reason that I should have to pull such weight EXCEPT to make some over-indulgled, out of touch asshat richer. If you want to pull his weight, then go pull it, but don’t rope me into your fetish.

You trying to drive us forward is holding us back.

Nonsense.

Then you have no sympathy for yourself. You are the one forcing people to work harder than they have to. I’m advocating all work be voluntary. You are advocating slavery.

We’ve established that you’re under the delusion that Hitler pretended to be christian when he wrote his book, gave his speeches, mandated prayer and all oaths to be taken in the name of god. As I said, you may as well claim the pope is an atheist too.

You’re struggling, grasping and groping to find anything to save your position. Why? Why is it so important to you that Hitler be an atheist that you’re willing to be dishonest in painting it so? Quite the crusade you’ve undertaken.

Lack of the necessary brain damage? :confusion-shrug:

I live in a town with nothing but christians, yet I’ve never met a christian. It’s an impossible religion.

And Watts said nobody really believes in god because if they did, they’d be screaming in the streets. The Jehovah’s Witnesses is the closest we have to a group like that. So in that light, sure, there are only atheists, but to the extent that people consider themselves christian and profess to be such, that’s how I’m defining them and Hitler falls into the same category as the pope.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Who was the first to throw jews into ovens? ^^^

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174 Mein Kampf)

Looks to me you’ve torn off the “conservative” label and painted on “libertarian”. What novel aspect are you bringing to the table?

Obeying tyrants is conditional to religion. It’s definitional LOL!

Propensity to disobey tyrants makes one prone to atheism.

The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh.

The Red Cross is secular. I haven’t looked into whether there are more religious charities than secular, but I suspect there isn’t a big difference.

By dividing them. Friends need a common enemy lest they fight among themselves.

Yes the bible says to obey all laws. You should never fight and always obey.

No respect for Locke, don’t know the other fella, and Hitchens describes Jefferson as secular, but I don’t know for sure because I haven’t cared to look yet.

I don’t know enough to opine.

Parents are the worst thing that could happen to a child.

That doesn’t indicate anything. Theists are theists.

Well, you’ll never usher in another final solution so you may as well forget it and move on.

Yes but my point was that no one bred humans to be white or smart or anything else. No one guided the process and therefore no one gets the credit.

People can swap labels all they want, but it’s a conservative/rightwing thing to divide people into groups.

[quote]
Lack of the necessary brain damage? :confusion-shrug:

[quote]
What, you think 9/11 was due to pilot error? You have a choice between conspiracies on that day. You just decided that people with less power committed the conspiracy. It’s weird that people don’t believe in conspiracies, since there are so many laws on the books related to ‘conspiracy to…’ and we know that governments and corporations and groups throughout history have committed conspiracies. If you point this out, people say, yeah, but it’s not these neat little groups controlling the world, as if the simplest all encompassing conspiracy theory is the only one.

If we evaluated the theory of evolution by the standard of most believers in it, it would seem stupid. Because most people have no sense of graduated equilibria, or epigenetics, or the statistics of traits or how the fossil record relates to spandrels.

But when something is not in the mainstream consensus, suddenly only a moron could believe in it, because many of the people who believe in it are not so smart or have oversimplified versions they believe in. We could toss out much of science on those grounds.

You don’t know the best versions by the best researchers, so it’s facile to talk about damaged brains. Which simply comes off dumb given, say, engineers and architects, that organization and what they say about 9/11, for example. Does having smart people believing in something mean it is correct? No. And obviously you agree since many smart people believe in global warming.

And your disbelief in global warming makes your insulting him, and, well, me and a lot of others, really odd. I mean, that’s a common conspiracy theory. That the people pushing for this idea of global warming being caused by humans, etc. are a conspiracy. You must have too few brain cells.

And if you think I was arguing that evolutionary theory is wrong, you need to reread this. My argument includes my belief that it is correct.

Jacque Fresco, Alan Watts and others insisted it was technically possible to eliminate servitude in the 70s, so there is absolutely no way anyone should be compelled into the workforce in 2019!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBIdk-fgCeQ[/youtube]

The ONLY thing stopping it is the existence of hateful people who just can’t stand the thought that someone might get something for nothing. There is no other reason. That was true in the 70s and is true today, but luckily we’re about to witness the extinction of a large swath of them.

The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.

Not true. Unemployment is determined by measuring the number of people looking for work. People not looking for work are not considered unemployed. Unemployment would be 50% right now if we didn’t measure it that way.

That can only come by providing welfare (or rich parents) so that workers do not have to take the peanuts offered which will force companies to offer higher wages to motivate people to work.

You’re trying to force communism through authoritarian dictation. It can’t be done. Communism arises of its own accord. If you eliminate welfare, wages will plummet, prices will plummet from lack of demand, and very few will have jobs. You’ll have to force companies to hire (at gunpoint), you’ll have to set prices and wages, and you’ll be simply repeating what all other communist dictators tried to do.

Working people are suckers who won’t stand up for themselves. They’re enamored with prostitution it seems.

Ok Stalin. Or is it Reagan?

The best thing to do is throw money at them. Not only will the poor instantly disappear, but they’ll stop having kids too. No prisons, no laws, no crime, no expense, no trouble, ah but also no fun. You need someone to torture afterall, right? That’s the point of all this rightwing communism you’re spouting because what fun is it to go to heaven if not for looking over the edge at the damned?

But we have to decide if we are advocating for a government to protect us or are we demonizing government in effort to escape its control?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

If we’re advocating for a government, maybe it’s not such a great idea to attack the idea of it.

Pearl Harbor was an inside job too right? FDR and Churchill colluded somehow or another in effort to get the US into the war. I guess that cause was more noble than 9/11, but still.

Well the atheists wouldn’t.

No, they would welcome it with open arms! Hillbillies relish good ole fashioned authoritarianism. Being told what to do, telling people want to do, and having an authority to worship is right up their alley… just so long as you don’t expect them to think.

They think the pope is the antichrist; that’s about the only difference.

Is there evidence that Merkel is a liberal? She advocates rightwing taxation.

Angela Dorothea Merkel (/ˈmɜːrkəl/; German: [aŋˈɡeːla ˈmɛʁkl̩];[a] née Kasner, born 17 July 1954) is a German politician serving as Chancellor of Germany since 2005. She served as the leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 2000 to 2018.

Oh my, another nazi LOL!

Merkel was born in Hamburg in then-West Germany and moved to East Germany as an infant when her father, a Lutheran clergyman, received a pastorate in Perleberg.

Well well…

In October 2010, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany had “utterly failed”,[75] stating that: “The concept that we are now living side by side and are happy about it” does not work[76] and “we feel attached to the Christian concept of mankind, that is what defines us. Anyone who doesn’t accept that is in the wrong place here.”

Hitler said the same thing.

We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity … in fact our movement is Christian. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious … olf_Hitler

Yeah but they’ve still made a religion from it and some buddhists believe in souls, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Just like christians are not anything like christ, buddhists are nothing like the buddha.

Atheists are quite different: they don’t do anything religiously, they don’t go to temples, they aren’t concerned with afterlives, and they can’t believe in objective truth.

You have to stop paying attention to labels. That’s rightwing and not progressivism.

LOL that’s funny! I suppose the terrorists conspired to pilot the planes into the towers, but what I meant by conspiracy is that the government orchestrated it or was in on it.

It’s not about believing in conspiracies, but being prone to believe in them or tending to think too many things are conspiracies. Just like any other hallucination.

It’s hard for me to relate here because evolution seems “common sense” to me, and by that I mean “readily apparent to even the dumbest person”. What makes no sense is that some fictional sky fairy poofed all species into existence from nothing.

I can look at a cat skeleton and see eons of honing and refinements that went into making it perfectly adapted for its purpose and in no way does it appear “made”.

Apologists appeal to the “fine-tuning argument” to support creation, but to me the fine-tuning is a result of iterations (evolution). Nothing in nature is a round number; it’s always some oddball number that doesn’t indicate design in any way. 365.25 days in a year. God couldn’t get it perfect? Or did he try to make it look non-designed?

Idk what you’re driving at here. Are you saying morons have a window to the world that smart people don’t have?

All I’m saying is that any group of smart people assembled will always have a higher proportion of liberals than conservatives. Does it mean liberalism is correct? No, but it means conservatives are stupid. Dummies aren’t necessarily conservative, but conservatives are necessarily dumb (ignorant anyway). And I was conservative most of my life (I was raised in it). Indeed, I was ignorant. The internet fixed that since I could perform my own research.

And regarding 9/11, I just don’t know and it’s not anything that I could know and for that reason I’ve always avoided trying to know. I didn’t need it to dislike Bush since the Patriot Act was sufficient. 9/11 wouldn’t surprise me if it was an inside job and it wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t.

The architects and engineers say jet fuel is not enough to melt steel. I’ve seen videos showing that it’s not enough. But even that evidence is not enough for me to be sure because maybe there is some variable I’m overlooking. I know from experience that heating steel and letting it cool is sufficient to weaken it. I discovered that as a kid playing with candles. Put steel in a candle flame and it’s pretty much worthless after and there’s no way to fix it (except recarbonating it and quenching).

And if they placed bombs in the buildings, how did they know where to put them? Or how did the pilots know where to fly the planes into the buildings to coincide with the placement of the bombs to make it all look natural? Nobody could have predicted where the planes would hit and no pilot willing to sacrifice himself would be able to hit the right bullseye. And if the government is so inept that it can’t run a post office or amtrak, then how could it pull off something like that?

Who? Gloom? He’s who they were talking about here:

Furthermore, compared with liberals, individuals who
endorse right-wing ideologies are more fearful and anxious that
out-groups will cause the disintegration of societal moral standards
and traditions (Altemeyer, 1996; Jost et al., 2003; Sibley
& Duckitt, 2008).

scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-conten … 421206.pdf

He should recognize he has that propensity and work to correct it or at least moderate it. Much of what he’s freaking out about is either nothing or inevitable.

And I could be wrong about global warming. My opinion is that I am not, but I’ve been wrong about it before (or maybe I wasn’t and I’m wrong now, idk). The fact that so many agree with global warming makes me wonder if I am missing something. The problem is I don’t know what I don’t know… and that’s what I need to know in order to know.

2 years ago I was a theist. You may even find some early posts of mine on here that contradict what I say now. I change my mind a lot. When the evidence changes, my opinion changes.

I don’t think it’s a matter of missing brain cells, but what part of the brain is exercised. Have you seen those guys with great big arms and chicken legs? Nursing conspiracy theories probably better-equips one to continue nursing conspiracy theories along with other fear-based ideas which probably leads to asymmetric neural growth analogous to the chicken-legged guy at the gym.

At this point I only have three questions for Serendipper.

  1. Roughly what % of the population needs to work to take care of everyone’s needs (food, clothing, shelter, furniture, appliances, medication, phones, some transportation, etcetera).

  2. How did you arrive at this figure?

  3. How do we get from the system we have, to a system where so long as a few people volunteer, everyone’s needs are met?