Agenda: Grinding America Down (Video) [Archive]

Belmont31R

01-16-13, 12:13

Belmont, that video was incredible.

Thanks. I think it puts some of the things I've been saying around here into one nicely done video and reminds people of what right leaning people are facing. I mentioned Antonio Gramsci a week or so ago in a different thread, and that guy really is the 'father' of the strategy these people have been using of replacing traditional values with subversive ones, and turning Americans away from our building blocks.

We have to really start to get more aggressive politically, and use some of the same tactics they have been using against us for decades against them. We can't keep relying on the same ole mantra conservatives have been relying on like 'compromise' and 'bipartisan' because those things are just getting us further and further left while getting little to nothing done for us. We also need to try to get the Republican party leadership replaced with non-RINO's, and get people like Boehner out of office who has been working against the conservative and Tea Party types within the House by stripping them of leadership rolls and his defection from his own party on some key issues.

There isn't a lot of time left to fight this battle, and they've been working on this for a century. The right didn't wake up to it until Obama came along, and maybe still doesn't grasp the situation fully.

J-Dub

01-16-13, 12:19

Agenda 21, Federal Reserve, ect, ect, ect.

The Globalists have us by the shorthairs, and the grip is getting tighter.....

sadmin

01-16-13, 12:30

You fellas watching in Chrome? I cant get it to play in Chrome or IE...

duece71

01-16-13, 12:59

Might wanna pick up a copy of "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. BO and Hilary are fans of his.

montanadave

01-16-13, 13:04

Well, shit, might as well grab a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It is, after all, the blueprint for about 90% of all this insanity.

duece71

01-16-13, 13:04

Looks like the site is experiencing technical difficulties, can't get it to play at all.

Irish

01-16-13, 13:05

Page won't load for me.

Belmont31R

01-16-13, 13:07

Try again later. Vimeo looks to be down. I can't even get to their home page from a google search.

duece71

01-16-13, 13:20

Ok, it also says something about a limited time to view. Do I have to join vimeo? Do I have to purchase?

Belmont31R

01-16-13, 14:06

Ok, it also says something about a limited time to view. Do I have to join vimeo? Do I have to purchase?

No. Its free to watch like YouTube. Don't have to join. Just click play when the site comes back up.

brickboy240

01-16-13, 15:10

Its not like YouTube.

YouTube actually works.

LOL

Belmont31R

01-16-13, 17:22

Video is back up for me.

citizensoldier16

01-16-13, 20:30

Worked for me...great video. Shared with friends.

Cameron

01-16-13, 22:45

Absolute amazing video. I have shared this one far and wide.

Cameron

Honu

01-17-13, 01:31

Ironic or coincidence Glenn Beck has been saying most of this for quite a while ;)

but great movie and reinforced other things I have heard and read and researched from other sources

I do wonder what is going to happen to the US ?

Magic_Salad0892

01-17-13, 01:57

Honu

01-17-13, 02:22

Alaskapopo

01-17-13, 02:28

not sure if its anti homosexual ? or just put it in perspective of the actual % of gays in the US ! which is NILL high estimates %4 or about %2 some say so even in between %3 and yet you think they are half our population ?
every other show on TV has gays in it or is about gays or they have gay friends and that is not reality
and somehow they can shut down tons of things for others etc..

I don't think the number of gays has gone up rather that more are open now. Frankly I a with Magic_Salad0892 on most of what he said. Abortion should not be a political issue, we should stand by a separation of chuch and state.

It seems in most of our history there have always been people saying things were great 10 years ago but now its bad and its all going to end if we don't change X,Y. or Z yet some how we keep on keeping on as a nation.
Pat

Koshinn

01-17-13, 02:46

Belmont31R

01-17-13, 03:06

I generally agree with the anti-socialist tone.

I do not agree with it's anti-homosexuality, or anti-abortion sentiments.

I also do not agree with it's anti "seperation of church and state" sentiments.

Maybe I'm more right then even "conservatives" are... :|

One of the things that is proposed in that video is completely correct:

The Republicans have definetely moved to the left, and I hope one day for a Libertarian president.

You have to realize the progressives (communists and socialists) have latched onto certain segments of the population, and use them to undermine the traditional values and building blocks of our society. Think of our society, and country like a Lego set, and they are replacing each block in the set with something else until the final product has no resemblance to what that set originally made.

I don't think most people are anti-gay per se but anti-gay in the sense that we don't want homosexuality shoved down our throats or see it promoted as main stream. Most people would agree what two people do in their own house is their own business but don't go around acting like what happens in your bedroom should be accepted by everyone else.

Our Founder's did not want a state religion or the state to tell people what religion they have to adhere to. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution however. A lot of people mention this 'clause' like it's mentioned somewhere in the Constitution but it is not.

To the right of conservatives are libertarians, and where conservatives tend to be more religious in nature and thought process libertarians are more civil liberties oriented. The two do share a lot in common, though, such as fiscal responsibility, and every libertarian I know personally are very traditional family values oriented. A family we are friends with here are Mormons, and libertarians.

But getting back to the leftists, and how they use certain segments...Gramsci identified segments of the population communists should use to undermine a capitalist society. They use minorities/immigrants, gays, the poor, and women. If you want to see how this plays out in real life during the last election something like 73% of white males voted for Romney while it's the exact opposite for minorities and women. Who Gramsci identified as targets for the communist movement all vote for Democrats now in large numbers, and as white males become a smaller percentage of the population it's only a matter of time before we cannot win elections.

This is why I think it's a bad move for right wing ideology to adopt leftist ideology in a vain attempt to appeal to those groups leftists target. It may sound backwards reading that in a simple manner but in adopting leftist ideology we are just assisting them in removing those building blocks and replacing them with communist ones. I think a better approach would be to be more aggressive in telling the truth, and not bowing to progressive shouting because we don't want to look like bad guys or because someone calls us a racist we just shrink back into our seats. Our politicians need to find their spines, and stand up for our beliefs. On a personal level we need to be able to debate, and don't be afraid to spread out message or call someone out on their BS. These people have been at this for a very long time, and the process to reverse this course is not going to be something that can happen quickly.

Last thing I'll say for tonight is the right needs to examine our ideology again, and rid our own selves of the ideology of the left. Thing's like supporting the nanny state programs like Social Security, Medicare, Dept of Education, ect. Republicans are chasing the progressives on the march to communism, and have abandoned the ideology our country was founded on all too much. This is because the right has not been effective enough in opposing them, and so we just adopt their beliefs as our own instead of fighting them on it.

Belmont31R

01-17-13, 03:08

Koshinn

01-17-13, 03:22

I don't think most people are anti-gay per se but anti-gay in the sense that we don't want homosexuality shoved down our throats or see it promoted as main stream. Most people would agree what two people do in their own house is their own business but don't go around acting like what happens in your bedroom should be accepted by everyone else.

You may think that, but that's not what mainstream Republicans think.

But getting back to the leftists, and how they use certain segments...Gramsci identified segments of the population communists should use to undermine a capitalist society. They use minorities/immigrants, gays, the poor, and women. If you want to see how this plays out in real life during the last election something like 73% of white males voted for Romney while it's the exact opposite for minorities and women. Who Gramsci identified as targets for the communist movement all vote for Democrats now in large numbers, and as white males become a smaller percentage of the population it's only a matter of time before we cannot win elections.

You say this like the only people who frequent this board are white males. That's factually incorrect. Why does race matter to you? Why does gender? We're all people, created equal under God and under the law (supposedly). You know why minorities and women tend to vote for Democrats? Because Republicans are of the world view that America is a white male society. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Belmont31R

01-17-13, 03:33

You may think that, but that's not what mainstream Republicans think.

You say this like the only people who frequent this board are white males. That's factually incorrect. Why does race matter to you? Why does gender? We're all people, created equal under God and under the law (supposedly). You know why minorities and women tend to vote for Democrats? Because Republicans are of the world view that America is a white male society. Sorry, but that's the truth.

You don't need to put words in my mouth or make thinly veiled racist claims. It's factually correct white males vote right in high numbers and minority males vote left in high numbers. 'We', the white males who vote right, will not be able to win elections in the future based on demographic projections. You should not be reading some kind of racism into that, and is exactly what I'm talking about where making a factual statement gets you labeled you a racist.

Race matters to me because other races besides white's vote for leftist candidates, and it's important to understand why.

Women and minorities vote for leftists because leftists have convinced people Republicans are racist women haters like you just accused them of being. ;)

Belloc

01-17-13, 03:46

Edit.

Koshinn

01-17-13, 03:50

You don't need to put words in my mouth or make thinly veiled racist claims. It's factually correct white males vote right in high numbers and minority males vote left in high numbers. 'We', the white males who vote right, will not be able to win elections in the future based on demographic projections. You should not be reading some kind of racism into that, and is exactly what I'm talking about where making a factual statement gets you labeled you a racist.

Race matters to me because other races besides white's vote for leftist candidates, and it's important to understand why.

Women and minorities vote for leftists because leftists have convinced people Republicans are racist women haters like you just accused them of being. ;)

Having first hand experience, I find it hard to put stock in your assertions that it's a liberal conspiracy without any basis in reality. I accused Republicans of putting white males first, not of being racist woman haters. There's a huge difference and playing the victim like that doesn't help your cause either.

The GOP is getting better, but if it wants to win more, it needs to distance itself from radical, but powerful groups within the party.

Belloc

01-17-13, 03:52

Edit.

Belmont31R

01-17-13, 04:44

Having first hand experience, I find it hard to put stock in your assertions that it's a liberal conspiracy without any basis in reality. I accused Republicans of putting white males first, not of being racist woman haters. There's a huge difference and playing the victim like that doesn't help your cause either.

The GOP is getting better, but if it wants to win more, it needs to distance itself from radical, but powerful groups within the party.

First off...did you even watch the video I posted?

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy. There are mountains of texts, speeches, and video which lay out what the leftist agenda is. No basis in reality? I have taken the time to do research and a lot of reading, and there is most certainly a basis in reality.

While I am sure there are some racist Republicans racism is not a tenet of right wing ideology. In fact it is the exact opposite. Racism is rooted in leftest ideology, and this is very evidenced by the fact groups like the KKK and modern neo-Nazi's are left leaning organizations.

Modern progressive ideology keeps minorities in poverty, and with the destruction of the family unit in black communities has further kept blacks from advancing in society. It is a fact blacks have a lower income, birth more children to single mothers, and are less likely to advance up the socio economic ladder because progressives keep them there. Welfare, public housing, and other such leftist initiatives are designed to keeps blacks concentrated, and thus easier to control.

This is exactly why Hitler, early on, relocated Jews to ghetto's. Do you know the history of that term? It's definition and history is one of racial meaning. The purpose of confining minorities to a geographical enclave has many purposes but is almost always to more easily control and manipulate them.

Minorities in America would be much better off under a free market liberty oriented system instead of the social justice system we have now in which leftists tell them it's ok if they live off welfare, and basically that the state will be there to take care of them and that they are victims which breeds a lack of motivation to be self-reliant, become educated, and advance up that socio economic ladder. I am by no means saying all blacks live in a ghetto or are on welfare but that is simply one tool the left uses to manipulate a large segment of blacks, and given that blacks make up 12% of the population but make up 1/3rd of food stamp recipients this is certainly worth bringing up.

Even among black people who are not on welfare, and bring in income the average income of a black household is significantly lower than the average nationally. There is certainly a problem in the black community having the economic problems they do, and that is squarely the fault of the left.

Dealing with your comment of Republicans putting white males first...I fail to see any evidence of that as being entrenched in right wing ideology which promotes a free market. Promoting a free market, by its definition, is not putting any one race ahead of or behind another. State controlled economies, which is a tenet of the left, actually does do that with various levels of racial laws aimed at manipulating the economy and labor force.

I am not sure what 'radical, but powerful groups' are are referring to.

montanadave

01-17-13, 05:15

Belmont31R? ... The Belmont Brotherhood? ... coincidence?
:jester:

Alaskapopo

01-17-13, 05:17

The fact is that if every gun owner, every single person in the US who supports the right to keep and bear arms, had in the last election and for the last 40 years, voted only for those who supported the right to life for unborn children, and also against Orwellian government power to redefine any words it so chooses, then the God given right to keep and bear arms would not be in such danger.

Those are all separate issues. One can be pro gun, pro choice and pro labor or vice versa.
Pat

Belloc

01-17-13, 05:35

Edit.

Alaskapopo

01-17-13, 05:39

One can also be pro-Nazi anti-semitism and pro-Israel, or pro-KKK and pro-civil rights, at one and the same time, but that also makes as little sense and is in kind philosophically incoherent and nonsensical.

The exact same moral subjectivism that denies there is an objective Natural Law Right to keep and bear arms also denies there is an objective Natural Law right to life from the moment we are created.

Do you actually think you can support the social ideology of Obama, Feinstein, Cuomo, and Schumer, and think there won't be consequences?

No you can't be pro Israel and anti Semite. This is the same issue. However gun control is not tied to abortion. If you can't understand this then there really is not much point in discussing it further.
Pat

Belloc

01-17-13, 05:58

Edit.

duece71

01-17-13, 06:05

Good video. I agree that Republicans are going to have to shift more to the left, if they want another president in the WH.

Honu

01-17-13, 06:33

I don't think the number of gays has gone up rather that more are open now. Frankly I a with Magic_Salad0892 on most of what he said. Abortion should not be a political issue, we should stand by a separation of chuch and state.

It seems in most of our history there have always been people saying things were great 10 years ago but now its bad and its all going to end if we don't change X,Y. or Z yet some how we keep on keeping on as a nation.
Pat

I doubt numbers have gone up of real ones being gay never said that or thought it ? but its the way its now portrayed by hollywood and most shows on TV and on the news and everywhere you look now

for such a small % of the population its in your face constantly and overboard IMHO and others I know

that was my point if a martian watched our TV they would think HMMMM must be about 1/3 of that planet is gay !
and the right wing folks as they call them are all gun nuts and want to kill people or are so stupid they cant even seem to get along with society
and the left wing folks are the only ones that care about people and help people out and care about the earth !
the right wing people want to pave it all and destroy everything

Honu

01-17-13, 06:48

"A recent research synthesis by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law School dedicated to sexual-orientation law and public policy, suggests that among adults in the United States, Canada, and Europe, 1.8 percent are bisexual men and women, 1.1 percent are gay men, and 0.6 percent are lesbians."

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science

very well could be that low ? I have heard it was then heard it changed :) most likely its being portrayed as higher than it is by the media :) another agenda driven thing to normalize it I imagine :)

Belloc

01-17-13, 06:55

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-17-13, 07:48

You have to realize the progressives (communists and socialists) have latched onto certain segments of the population, and use them to undermine the traditional values and building blocks of our society. Think of our society, and country like a Lego set, and they are replacing each block in the set with something else until the final product has no resemblance to what that set originally made.

I don't think most people are anti-gay per se but anti-gay in the sense that we don't want homosexuality shoved down our throats or see it promoted as main stream. Most people would agree what two people do in their own house is their own business but don't go around acting like what happens in your bedroom should be accepted by everyone else.

Our Founder's did not want a state religion or the state to tell people what religion they have to adhere to. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution however. A lot of people mention this 'clause' like it's mentioned somewhere in the Constitution but it is not.

To the right of conservatives are libertarians, and where conservatives tend to be more religious in nature and thought process libertarians are more civil liberties oriented. The two do share a lot in common, though, such as fiscal responsibility, and every libertarian I know personally are very traditional family values oriented. A family we are friends with here are Mormons, and libertarians.

But getting back to the leftists, and how they use certain segments...Gramsci identified segments of the population communists should use to undermine a capitalist society. They use minorities/immigrants, gays, the poor, and women. If you want to see how this plays out in real life during the last election something like 73% of white males voted for Romney while it's the exact opposite for minorities and women. Who Gramsci identified as targets for the communist movement all vote for Democrats now in large numbers, and as white males become a smaller percentage of the population it's only a matter of time before we cannot win elections.

This is why I think it's a bad move for right wing ideology to adopt leftist ideology in a vain attempt to appeal to those groups leftists target. It may sound backwards reading that in a simple manner but in adopting leftist ideology we are just assisting them in removing those building blocks and replacing them with communist ones. I think a better approach would be to be more aggressive in telling the truth, and not bowing to progressive shouting because we don't want to look like bad guys or because someone calls us a racist we just shrink back into our seats. Our politicians need to find their spines, and stand up for our beliefs. On a personal level we need to be able to debate, and don't be afraid to spread out message or call someone out on their BS. These people have been at this for a very long time, and the process to reverse this course is not going to be something that can happen quickly.

Last thing I'll say for tonight is the right needs to examine our ideology again, and rid our own selves of the ideology of the left. Thing's like supporting the nanny state programs like Social Security, Medicare, Dept of Education, ect. Republicans are chasing the progressives on the march to communism, and have abandoned the ideology our country was founded on all too much. This is because the right has not been effective enough in opposing them, and so we just adopt their beliefs as our own instead of fighting them on it.

I can understand your argument, but that video came off to me as being way to religious in some respects.

I think that a seperation of church and state clause should be in the constitution. If it can be amended in there, but I doubt it'd happen.

Belloc

01-17-13, 08:26

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-17-13, 08:43

Just what exactly do you think the 1st Amendment is?:rolleyes:

Freedom to practice whatever religon you want. Not seperating it from the government.

Belloc

01-17-13, 09:17

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-17-13, 09:29

As if the wasn't already enough evidence that fundamentalist atheism is just as whacked as every other fundamentalism. :rolleyes:

Did I ever mention fundamentalism, or radicalism?

Belloc

01-17-13, 10:08

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-17-13, 10:40

That's not exactly denying that you are an atheist fundamentalist.

It'd be hard to be an athiest fundamentalist when I'm not an athiest.

Also, what makes you think I'm an athiest fundamentalist at all?

sammage

01-17-13, 14:03

That's not exactly denying that you are an atheist fundamentalist.

Can you explain to us what constitutes a fundamental atheist?

Alaskapopo

01-17-13, 14:10

That's not exactly denying that you are an atheist fundamentalist.

Who cares if he was an atheist? More evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.
Pat

Belloc

01-17-13, 15:05

Edit.

TomMcC

01-17-13, 16:13

Who cares if he was an atheist? More evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.
Pat

I'm not a fan of the RC church, Islam, or ancient paganism, but this is about as wrong as wrong can be. Best crack open those history books again.

Skyyr

01-17-13, 16:15

Who cares if he was an atheist? More evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.
Pat

More people have been killed by their governments, militaries, and police forces than all wars combined. What's your point?

Skyyr

01-17-13, 16:20

Freedom to practice whatever religon you want. Not seperating it from the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Our Founding Fathers were very wise men, not atheists. That said, they never intended for our government to be purged of religion, but rather that religion could not be used to enforce laws nor could laws be made to protect any religion more than another ("respect").

That's the only law we need. Sure, we could make a feel-good law that says "Government can't have religion," yet government is made of people. The individuals in the government would simply hide their religion and make choices based on their own private convictions, no different than if they openly practiced religion.

Honu

01-17-13, 17:22

Who cares if he was an atheist? More evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.
Pat

and more good done in the name also ! guess its a balance thing

dont see atheist groups helping out folks in other parts of the world !

An Undocumented Worker

01-17-13, 19:38

It's a good documentary, thank you.

What I consistently fail to understand, what motivates people to replace god with the state, or why do the commies want people to depend on the state?

theblackknight

01-17-13, 19:54

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Our Founding Fathers were very wise men, not atheists. That said, they never intended for our government to be purged of religion, but rather that religion could not be used to enforce laws nor could laws be made to protect any religion more than another ("respect").

That's the only law we need. Sure, we could make a feel-good law that says "Government can't have religion," yet government is made of people. The individuals in the government would simply hide their religion and make choices based on their own private convictions, no different than if they openly practiced religion.

Government employees can't use their official positions to support political causes unless they are politicains. This means abortion as much as it does religion. No agency emails, no public property. That's called professional.

The founding father knew to keep their religion out of government to protect the religion. The christians didnt heed that and now look what has happened to the institution of marriage.

I made it to about 8:20 in the video when he said "they" wanted to push co-habitation (gasp.!:rolleyes:)

feedramp

01-17-13, 21:14

It never ceases to amaze that some among us who can see our freedoms being stripped away and sense the decay of our society, the bankruptcy of our economy, and the rise of authoritarianism in the current and previous administrations, and who want to retain/regain our liberty, can at the same time be so ignorant of (or in denial of) the spiritual component underlying it all and the judgment we're enduring as a nation for the way we've turned away from God.

If you read the founding fathers, you will see them warn that our freedoms are only workable within a moral society, an ethical people.
Take away the Judeo-Christian ethic that once underpinned our society and we have no functional morality or workable ethics.

Actively replace it with the selfish, consumeristic, hedonistic excesses as has been the flow over the last 50 years, and we simply cannot escape reaping what we've sown. There are always consequences for our actions, despite what the media and the progressives may have told you.

theblackknight

01-17-13, 21:40

Take away the Judeo-Christian ethic that once underpinned our society and we have no functional morality or workable ethics.

This is simply untrue. The very fact a lot of people "get" their morals from the bible shows some other, innate and external source of morality and the ability of reasonable people to take the good from and leave the bad. I don't think any of us wants the kind of absolute morality that exists in religious texts.

brushy bill

01-17-13, 21:49

Sorry, but if there is no right to life, given us from the Creator, from the moment we are created, then there is no right to keep and bear arms, and in fact there are no inalienable rights whatsoever.

There is in fact a reason why people like Nancy Pelosi are against both the right to life and the right to keep and bear arms, and people like Justice Scalia support both, and that is because both are being philosophically consistent.

One simply cannot claim that the social course set for this nation by Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Cuomo, and Feinstein, is the right one, is the one the Founders wanted, is the surest past to freedom and liberty, while complaining when these same ban firearms, without coming off as a rather shallow simpleton.

If, as many gun owners actually claim, the government has the power and authority to deny the right to life, if in fact it posses the Orwellian ability to redefine the marriage bond that can exist only between a husband and wife to also mean homosexuals sodomizing each other, then it has the power to do anything it wants, including banning firearms.

The fact is that if every gun owner, every single person in the US who supports the right to keep and bear arms, had in the last election and for the last 40 years, voted only for those who supported the right to life for unborn children, and also against Orwellian government power to redefine any words it so chooses, then the God given right to keep and bear arms would not be in such danger.

Whole heartedly agree.

brushy bill

01-17-13, 21:51

Who cares if he was an atheist? More evil has been committed in the name of religion than anything else.
Pat

More than in the name of the State or political ideology? Come on Pat, when are you going to stop pulling stats out of thin air? Just watch the video.

Belmont, thanks for posting this. For the folks that bother to watch it, it is extremely informative.

Belloc

01-17-13, 22:50

Edit.

TomMcC

01-18-13, 02:45

This is simply untrue. The very fact a lot of people "get" their morals from the bible shows some other, innate and external source of morality and the ability of reasonable people to take the good from and leave the bad. I don't think any of us wants the kind of absolute morality that exists in religious texts.

I'm not even sure what your 2nd sentence means, but be that as it may. You use terms like "reasonable", "good", and "bad" without actually first defining these terms. After participating on this board a while I have found that these kinds of terms mean completely different things to different people. Just because someone has excepted behavior "A" as good and moral doesn't mean that they can actually justify it philosophically. In fact, atheism/agnosticism can't justify morality of any sort, it stands on shifting sand. I may be the only one, but I really do want Biblical morality to prevail.

Koshinn

01-18-13, 02:54

I'm not even sure what your 2nd sentence means, but be that as it may. You use terms like "reasonable", "good", and "bad" without actually first defining these terms. After participating on this board a while I have found that these kinds of terms mean completely different things to different people. Just because someone has excepted behavior "A" as good and moral doesn't mean that they can actually justify it philosophically. In fact, atheism/agnosticism can't justify morality of any sort, it stands on shifting sand. I may be the only one, but I really do want Biblical morality to prevail.

You mean new testament morality, right?

Atheism morality comes from what's best for yourself in a community environment. You don't murder someone because you don't want to get murdered, etc.

Arguably this is where religion gets its morality as well, assuming an intelligent designer who passes down morals doesn't actually exist.

TomMcC

01-18-13, 03:03

You mean new testament morality, right?

Atheism morality comes from what's best for yourself in a community environment. You don't murder someone because you don't want to get murdered, etc.

Arguably this is where religion gets its morality as well, assuming an intelligent designer who passes down morals doesn't actually exist.

The morality in both testaments is the same. As for your example of not murdering, that's just a personal preference, not an absolute.

Koshinn

01-18-13, 03:06

And we are talking no less than a quarter billion men, women, and children, a number which grows every day. In fact just one person, atheist Mao Zedong, put to death more people than have been killed in all the conflicts between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, combined.

The thing is, atheists don't do things, good or bad, in the name of atheism. To say "Atheism is a belief" is like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Saying Mao killer people because he was an Atheist is like saying Hitler murdered the Jews because he was a Christian. He was Christian, but that's not why he committed genocide. Two unrelated facts.

But crusades, jihad, and inquisitions are actually done in the name of religion.

Koshinn

01-18-13, 03:12

The morality in both testaments is the same. As for your example of not murdering, that's just a personal preference, not an absolute.

The old testament is pretty scary in what it tells you to do. Not what I'd consider moral or even civilized.

New testament is pretty good though.

It's a personal preference in that it's bred into me, you, and the majority of people to be cooperative within a community. I don't know what you mean by absolute morality. What are some absolute morals?

Belloc

01-18-13, 05:58

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-18-13, 06:27

Look.

I never, at any point preached athiesm.

I never, at any point said people can't be Christians.

I said that it's unethical to condemn a people for how they live if it doesn't effect you in any concievable way.

I understand that a seperation of church and state means that you can't use the church to enforce laws.

But that doesn't mean at all that any religion should be the basis for your current set of laws. That's what Sharia law is.

I know there's no comparing the two, but the priciple of government basing certain laws, or morality on a religion rather than basic human respect and principals is the exact same thing.

And yes. Many atrocities have been commited in the name of atheism, and anybody who says otherwise is ****ing retarded.

You guys are looking too deep.

I just said that people should leave eachother the hell alone. I can't believe that so many people who encourage "freedom" also encourage the banning of gay marriage and abortion, while also basing laws regarding morality on Christianity. That's just as left as Communism in some social regards.

feedramp

01-18-13, 06:49

The thing is, atheists don't do things, good or bad, in the name of atheism. To say "Atheism is a belief" is like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby."

False. It's not the reason given for doing something that matters. A person could claim anything they want, it doesn't make them that. If someone were to bomb a civilian location and claim afterward that they are of a specific religious or non-religious sect, do we take them at their word? No (or at least we shouldn't, but with the media these days, they probably would if it serves their agenda). What we do is go back and trace their past behavior, their relationships, etc, to form a picture of who the person really was. What matters is their worldview and the lifestyle they lived as a direct demonstration or result of it.

Just as some people claimed to be Christians (or, to be more specific Catholic) and caused things like the Inquisition or the Crusades doesn't mean those were Christian things to do. We have source material that shows us what a Christian is all about and any honest person can take the teachings of Jesus Christ and line them up against actions like the Inquisition and see they don't align at all. But that does require being honest with the evidence, which some have a vested interest in not being.

By the same token, I could claim to be a horse and make noises like a horse, but that doesn't make me one. A real horse has a specific definition and character, as does a real Christian. But atheists are fond of trying to assign the blame for things like the Inquisition on "Christians" because they know the worst atrocities in history were indeed committed by those with atheistic worldviews. Those that perpetrated them don't have to be going around claiming to be atheists, they clearly demonstrated that they espoused and followed an atheistic worldview, as communism and authoritarianism inherently do. The mass killings of the 20th century were a direct result of very specific, godless ideologies that devalue the liberty and worth of the individual made in God's image and raise up the state or an authoritarian elite over the populace to which the people are beholden and must rely upon and must serve as their "god".

I get that you want the liberty and the value of independence and freedom that comes from a Judeo-Christian worldview, but I find it mildly amusing that at the same time you strive to deny the very source of it. You can't have it both ways for long, and we're seeing the proof of that in our nation today as we have increasingly rejected God but think we can still have liberty and peace on our shores. Things aren't going they way they are for no reason. They are the direct result of our nation's collectively-failing character and our increasingly backwards morality that calls evil good and good evil.

Belloc

01-18-13, 07:05

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-18-13, 07:41

So 6 miscreants rape a woman to death in India and since that does not effect you in any conceivable way, you are in the wrong to judge them?

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I judge anybody else?

And as for your belief that the state has the Orwellian power and authority to redefine words, be that marriage or assault weapon, and that is not anyone else's business:

WHY FIGHT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f

"Institutionally, then, [homosexual "marriage“] is nothing more than a legal construct. Its roots run no deeper than positive law. It therefore cannot present itself to the state as the bearer of independent rights and responsibilities, as older or more basic than the state itself. Indeed, it is a creature of the state, generated by the state’s assumption of the power of invention or re-definition. Which changes everything.

A Tool of the State

Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada, the new legislation quietly acknowledged this. In its consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.

That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.

The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005),

"...is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state."

Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal."

Okay. I'll say that the argument against it on grounds that the government cannot redefine words is actually a pretty good argument. But I will say that in that case, have the people vote on it. That would be a good comprimise, yes?

Well no actually, that is not what Sharia is.

It's a set of laws, and government that is based upon Islamic prinicpals. Correct me if I'm wrong. With sources, it's possible. This is my basic understanding of Sharia law.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom...It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains."
Patrick Henry

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity [freedom and liberty], Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
George Washington

You seem to be confused upon what I meant. I in no way ever said that we should banish religion, or encourage that people stop practicing. I simply said that religion should be left out of the government. If people want a certain set of laws based on what they believe is moral. Then that's all good. As long as it is voted on by a legislator that represents them in the same general way.

Representing a religous people does not in any way mean that religion needs to be in the government.

Abortion stops a beating human heart. The belief that that is immoral (and let's not forget that it was the Communists and Nazis that were first among the industrialised nations to remove the laws that protected unborn children from being slaughtered, and that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a Hitler admiring racist who wanted to blacks to abort themselves out of existence) is also based on science and ethics. I believe there is even a website called "pro-life atheists" or something like that.

I don't care who founded Planned Parenthood or what their personal beliefs were, there are social, and economic advantages to abortion. You cannot legislate responsibility, or you will end up with a poorer country in the long run. You can encourage people NOT to get abortions. I'd support that maybe.

Look at what happened in Romania. It (not single handedly, but partially) caused the nation to become poorer as more unwanted children were born. The people revolted.

Also, remember that unwanted children who are born tend to grow up with more mental issues. They also tend to grow up way poorer, and have a less chance for economic advancement. I'll pull up some stats if I can find them again.

Koshinn

01-18-13, 08:12

I get that you want the liberty and the value of independence and freedom that comes from a Judeo-Christian worldview, but I find it mildly amusing that at the same time you strive to deny the very source of it. You can't have it both ways for long, and we're seeing the proof of that in our nation today as we have increasingly rejected God but think we can still have liberty and peace on our shores. Things aren't going they way they are for no reason. They are the direct result of our nation's collectively-failing character and our increasingly backwards morality that calls evil good and good evil.

Wait, what exactly comes from the judeo Christian worldview that I'm denying? Independence and freedom came from Greece, not Israel.

theblackknight

01-18-13, 08:28

I'm not even sure what your 2nd sentence means, but be that as it may. You use terms like "reasonable", "good", and "bad" without actually first defining these terms. After participating on this board a while I have found that these kinds of terms mean completely different things to different people. Just because someone has excepted behavior "A" as good and moral doesn't mean that they can actually justify it philosophically. In fact, atheism/agnosticism can't justify morality of any sort, it stands on shifting sand. I may be the only one, but I really do want Biblical morality to prevail.

The 2nd sentence means if you get your morality 100% from the bible, you are a ****ing terrible person and unless

You are correct that atheism stands behind no morality. It can't. It, no matter how many times people claim, isnt a belief system.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

VooDoo6Actual

01-18-13, 09:35

Here's yet another example.

This exact video was posted here more than a year & half ago.

Belloc

01-18-13, 11:47

Edit.

Magic_Salad0892

01-18-13, 12:19

It was not an accusation, but a question, hence my use of a "?" at the end. And the question stands.

I apologize, I didn't really understand the question. It sounded like you thought I was judging the women who were raped.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry.

I will see if I can pull up a wikipedia page, or some information on what happened, and how it can be directly related to economic, and social trends related to abortion, and the outlaw of abortion at the time.

(And there were no SOCIAL advantages that I'm aware of to the Nazi's slave labor, or murder of the mentally handicapped.)

I will PM that to you.

I would just like to add that I give you full credit for engaging in the debate without simply making shit up like a few of the others on this thread

Thank you. However at this time, I do not have the information to put forth further argument, and I must review information that you have posted. I will respond with my comments in a day or two.

Would you prefer that in this thread, or via PM?

(I will admit that the Church did to some things right, and there isn't much denying that.)

Koshinn

01-18-13, 12:32

Total bullshit.
Atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) sure as hell murdered and did "bad things" in the name of atheism.

Respectfully, you completely misunderstand what atheism is. Or rather, what it isn't.

Have you ever done something, ever, in your entire life, in the name of "not believing in the Hindu god Krishna"? Maybe you have, but it's probably inconsequential. Nothing like commiting a crime. If you have done something extreme, it's not because you don't believe in Krishna, but it's because you believe in Christianity.

You're saying that communists do things in the name of atheism. That's an ignorant statement at best, a dishonest one at worst. They committed mass murders in order to further their state/culture-based goal of communism. That communists are also atheist is like blaming christianity for all deaths caused by nations led by christian leaders. It's just rediculous. :suicide:

From Adolf Hitler:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse."
"The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little."

"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

Sorry, shouldn't have fallen into the Hitler debate. He's such a hated figure that everyone wants to disown him. I'm going to withdraw from this line of argument although I respectfully disagree. It's way too off-topic and frankly, you can have the point if you really want. I just don't want to get into it here.

During the time of the Spanish Inquisition, there were actually two Inquisitions taking place. One was run by the Church, and one by the State. Without doing a google, tell me, which one by far has more blood on its hands?
Do you really want to ask a trivia question by prefacing it with "without doing a google" challenge right after listing quotes that I guarantee you didn't memorize? That's just intellectually dishonest. Although to take your bait, the state-run spanish inquisition was far deadlier than the church-run inquisition. I happen to be the son of a world renowned historian, so the chatter around the dinner table is often history, and I've read many history text books because that's what's on our book shelves. The heads of state, judges, and inquisitors were all Christian. Does that mean Christianity is to blame? No, probably not. Being something does not necessarily make it a cause for what you do. I don't know how else to explain that to you.

Belloc

01-18-13, 15:00

Edit.

theblackknight

01-18-13, 15:20

I would really love to know who and what did any kind of horrible acts because or in the name of atheism.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

TomMcC

01-18-13, 17:04

The old testament is pretty scary in what it tells you to do. Not what I'd consider moral or even civilized.

New testament is pretty good though.

It's a personal preference in that it's bred into me, you, and the majority of people to be cooperative within a community. I don't know what you mean by absolute morality. What are some absolute morals?

You'd have to be more specific about a scary OT application of law. There is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus upheld OT law.

It is innate to us to be socially connected to one another, even if culture is extremely different, at a basic human level. The problem becomes that real community can not exist where world views are progressively becoming extremely different. Take for example your view of guns and the Pres's view of guns. Can you truly say that you and he are in the same "community"? I can't and won't. Keep in mine that the practice of politics is just one place where people's religious views are worked out for all to see. Is your politics (religion) the same as Diane Feintein's?

As for a moral absolute, I'll use murder again. Since I assert that without the existence of the God of the Bible being the necessary pre-condition for all knowledge (without Him nothing can be really known, every thing is subjective to ourselves) that to know what murder actually is as a thing, then an absolute Being must define it to save us from our failure prone subjectivity. When God defines murder I can be sure that the properties that make up the thing called murder won't change because God doesn't change. The 10 commandments (and lesser laws logically deduced from them) are absolute law (what's moral) since they reflect God's unchanging moral perfection.

Belmont31R

01-18-13, 18:07

I do not believe in God but I do use most Christian morals as a guide. I just don't believe in a sentient creator.

I wouldn't say I am an Athiest. I think I most closely believe in Deism. Basically it is a belief in a higher power but not things like miracles or divine destiny. My higher power is mother nature, and the natural world which I think we are members of.

Religion, and stomping it out ARE major issues to national socialists and communists. While, no, I don't think its THE overriding issue in their ideology religion is something that does not escape their attention. Communism is an economic model above all else, where the state is the most important things in their life, and nothing else rises above the state. The head of state is often a god or viewed as such being a being better than all others and always 'knows best'.

As a non-believer I am certainly not fundamental about it, though, and don't agree with others trying to remove religion from any public place. I recognize Christianity is the basic for our government and society, and think Christianity has a lot to offer society. However, just like I don't like some Athiests trying to remove all religion from the public square I don't agree with some Christians interjecting religion into law with things like Blue Laws. The Founder's had it right where there is no official state religion people have to follow our country WAS founded for a moral people who don't have to have a nanny government to provide for them and tell them what to do. Basically what they gave us was our's to lose, and not forced by a dictator.

feedramp

01-18-13, 18:09

I would really love to know who and what did any kind of horrible acts because or in the name of atheism.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Still pushing that red herring, eh?

theblackknight

01-18-13, 18:50

As for a moral absolute, I'll use murder again. Since I assert that without the existence of the God of the Bible being the necessary pre-condition for all knowledge (without Him nothing can be really known, every thing is subjective to ourselves) that to know what murder actually is as a thing, then an absolute Being must define it to save us from our failure prone subjectivity. When God defines murder I can be sure that the properties that make up the thing called murder won't change because God doesn't change. The 10 commandments (and lesser laws logically deduced from them) are absolute law (what's moral) since they reflect God's unchanging moral perfection.

Try again. The large majority of unprovoked humans have a extreme and innate aversion to inter-personal violence to include murder, which is why Dave Grossman describes it as "the universal human phobia". It's a built in survival mechanism to ensure the continuation of the species. Up bringing surely strengthens this tho.

Still pushing that red herring, eh?

That was a direct response to someone claiming exactly what I inquired about. You could try strawman or ad hominen next time.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

TomMcC

01-19-13, 02:19

Try again. The large majority of unprovoked humans have a extreme and innate aversion to inter-personal violence to include murder, which is why Dave Grossman describes it as "the universal human phobia". It's a built in survival mechanism to ensure the continuation of the species. Up bringing surely strengthens this tho.

That was a direct response to someone claiming exactly what I inquired about. You could try strawman or ad hominen next time.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

You haven't even defined the thing called "murder" that this large majority of people have an innate aversion to. And that's the problem, you prefer one definition, and a different person prefers another definition, and soon the world is awash in blood.

Koshinn

01-19-13, 02:53

No, I am saying that atheists murdered and caused untold suffering in the name of atheism. Your denial is at best utter nonsense and historically untenable, at the worst deliberately regurgitated propaganda.

I really don't know how to put it any other way so I'm just going to say, believe what you will.

You are actually denying Hitler's own words, or that he did not believe what he himself was saying?

I told you, I'm not getting in to that debate.

Who has written what books?
PM me if you really want to know, but I'm not posting it on a public forum. But I will say, I've randomly run across 3 of his books as required reading in various classes, and I did not major nor even minor in any sort of history.

opmike

01-19-13, 04:46

And yes. Many atrocities have been commited in the name of atheism, and anybody who says otherwise is ****ing retarded.

:rolleyes:

How can one argue against such a valid and sound deductive argument?

I guess I'm "****ing retarded" then. However, I am in agreement with you about many of your other comments.

It amazes me how worked up people get over this. Something about politics and religion just leads to a breakdown of discussion. I can only assume it's the emotional investment people have.

Total bullshit.
Atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) sure as hell murdered and did "bad things" in the name of atheism.

Sorry, you, and many others here, are operating on a flawed premise of what atheism is and isn't (and by extension, theism).

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of god or gods. That's it. It's not inherently anti-Christian nor anti-anything else. It's DISbelief. It's not a religion any more than people who don't believe in Santa Clause, vampires, dragons, martians, or Cthulhu can be called members of a religion. There are no dogmas. There are no creeds. There are no holy texts. There are no leaders. It's why someone that has never heard of, nor envisioned for themselves the idea of a god or gods is an atheist by default. It's why a young child whose parents haven't told them about the big man in the sky is an atheist by default. Until the moment you harbor belief that there is a God/god/gods, either acting in this world or inactive, you are an atheist.

That said, there ARE people that take their atheism further than what I've outlined above and there are even some groups that are atheist that are organized, and put forward certain claims, such as secular humanists. But, of course, you couldn't then say that secular humanism is simply another name for atheist.

In the same way, a theist is simply someone that harbors a belief in god or gods. But, that does not mean that they necessarily follow one of the world's major religions. Many do, many do not.

There are also deists. I won't be addressing that here.

And, you'll hear people say, "Well, I'm agnostic." Well, they aren't exactly being complete in their description of themselves. Agnosticism and gnosticism (no, not that Gnosticism) deal with claims to knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, or any variation thereof. But just saying, "I'm agnostic" isn't really telling anyone anything. What is it you're agnostic about? For whatever reason, people continually get this wrong. There's more to this, but I'm trying to keep it basic and short.

Furthermore, saying people like Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al. did what they did "in the name of atheism" is both a non sequitur and patently absurd. The various philosophies of those men included much more than simply disbelieving in a god. Was it integrated into their worldviews? Sure. Just like theism is integrated into the worldview of the man that straps explosives to his body and kills people in a public area. But, is a Muslim terrorist killing "in the name of theism?" No. A group of Christians sets up a kangaroo court to establish whether or not a member of the community is a witch. They find her guilty and she is hanged. Are they killing witches in the name of theism? No. These are cases of people doing things due to OTHER worldviews they happen to have. Just stopping at the broad stroke and basically going, "Look! See! He was an atheist/theist and that's why he did it!" is ignorant. What else made up the man?

A man who wipes out millions of people isn't simply doing so because he doesn't believe in a god or happens believe in one. I think it's safe to assume that such a man harbors other beliefs that shapes his worldview. This farcical, phantom entity that says, "I have a solitary worldview. I lack belief in gods and this is the primary driving force behind which I will carry out my genocide and/or overthrow of the state" doesn't exist. Such chaps have other stuff rolling around upstairs.

Theism doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Religion (as distinguished from mere theism) doesn't have a monopoly on morality. A man doesn't become an amoral, homicidal sociopath the day he no longer feels a given group's claims about a supreme being have met their burden of proof.

You can't argue against something if you don't have a correct working knowledge of what it is you're arguing against. There's such a fundamental lack of understanding about basic issues of philosophy whenever these types of discussions come up, it's shocking.

ON THE TOPIC OF THE VIDEO:

I watched a good chunk of it, but they completely lost me when they started going off onto the deep end. Facts interspersed with all manner of spurious claims and dubious connections. However, I'm sure it will appeal greatly to people who already harbor certain opinions reflected in the video.

I swear, it's getting harder and harder to find a just the facts documentary with good presentation that doesn't try to pander.

Magic_Salad0892

01-19-13, 05:56

:rolleyes:

How can one argue against such a valid and sound deductive argument?

I guess I'm "****ing retarded" then. However, I am in agreement with you about many of your other comments.

Please don't make it sound like I was personally insulting anybody. I wasn't. But it's known that many atrocities commited by dictators in the 20th century were done not only BY athiests, but in the name of athiesm in certain cases.

The massacre of monks in Burma comes to mind. And I know there were others, I just can't think of them at the moment.

I think there was an anti-clerical movement in France in the mid 1700s.

However, after a quick Google search to confirm my facts, I actually can't find any others that were done specifically in the name of athiesm.

(But plenty in the name of a political system with scourns religon.)

I apologize for my earlier comment if it offended you.

Belloc

01-19-13, 07:18

Edit.

Cagemonkey

01-19-13, 07:20

Lets be honest, theirs a difference between Faith and Religion. Wether your a Atheist or Believer it really doesn't matter when it comes to controlling the Masses. The Powers that be don't care about the specifics. The Communists and Nazis turned their ideologies into literal religions.

Belloc

01-19-13, 07:22

Edit.

Belloc

01-19-13, 13:44

Edit.

feedramp

01-25-13, 19:54

Somewhat related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaMLoLtFn6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMm6o5jra8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib49I4wYw7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztlNj8rWviI
Not sure I agree with everything she says but the historical aspect is particularly interesting.

theblackknight

01-25-13, 22:19

Which is simply another way of saying it is the belief in nihilism, in nothingness.

Negative. Atheism isnt a belief. Atheism states there is no god. That is the default position until proven otherwise, because the burden of proof falls on the claimant.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

TomMcC

01-25-13, 22:39

Negative. Atheism isnt a belief. Atheism states there is no god. That is the default position until proven otherwise, because the burden of proof falls on the claimant.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

You do understand that the statement "there is no god" is illogical? You would have to be omniscient to actually know there is no god. It would also relate to having to prove a universal negative. On top of that the two statements refute each other, it's not a belief, then go on to state it's main belief. Who knows maybe God just hides Himself from people. And what exactly is sufficient proof? Is there some universal standard of proof you subscribe to? May we examine it? Actually, in human history the default position seems to be that there is something greater than ourselves out there. But really in the end, who's Tom supposed to believe, you or Jesus and His apostles?

theblackknight

01-26-13, 03:08

You do understand that the statement "there is no god" is illogical? You would have to be omniscient to actually know there is no god. It would also relate to having to prove a universal negative. On top of that the two statements refute each other, it's not a belief, then go on to state it's main belief. Who knows maybe God just hides Himself from people. And what exactly is sufficient proof? Is there some universal standard of proof you subscribe to? May we examine it? Actually, in human history the default position seems to be that there is something greater than ourselves out there. But really in the end, who's Tom supposed to believe, you or Jesus and His apostles?

No, you are mistaken. It's not a belief. It is the default position for any logical human. Man is naturally superstitious because that's how we think and survived primitively. A rustle in the grass always meant a predator was present until confirmed otherwise, any humans who didnt assume and confirm were culled from the gene pool. We are wired to assign a greater meaning to things like that. Doesn't mean we are correct tho.

In logic, you are never called upon to prove a negative. Anyone can claim an infinite number of silly things exist, but it's up to them to prove any existence of those things. For as long as religion has been traceable in human history, religions have been a mainstay in mankind's life until recently. And yet there is still no demonstrably reasonable evidence for the existence of any god. So in claiming there is a god, it's up to the claimant to provide proof.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Honu

01-26-13, 03:26

No, you are mistaken. It's not a belief. It is the default position for any logical human.

hahahaahh thats funny you mean IN YOUR opinion

see when you speak in absolutes about things like that it just flat out discredits most everything else since we now know in your world only your view counts ! and everyone else is wrong which is funny ! cause even with your logic that makes you wrong :) hahahahah

simple minds are funny things for sure !

Belloc

01-26-13, 04:57

Edit.

Belloc

01-26-13, 05:08

Edit.

TomMcC

01-26-13, 12:23

No, you are mistaken. It's not a belief. It is the default position for any logical human. Man is naturally superstitious because that's how we think and survived primitively. A rustle in the grass always meant a predator was present until confirmed otherwise, any humans who didnt assume and confirm were culled from the gene pool. We are wired to assign a greater meaning to things like that. Doesn't mean we are correct tho. Again, and again, and again you assert things without proof. You do the very things you accuse others of. You assume an anthropology that is based on what? The latest so-called experts? How do you know what operating principles ancients used? We are wired that way? Are you kidding? Who says we're wired that way? Some scientist, sociologists, or psychologist who equates the mind with the brain??????

In logic, you are never called upon to prove a negative. Anyone can claim an infinite number of silly things exist, but it's up to them to prove any existence of those things. For as long as religion has been traceable in human history, religions have been a mainstay in mankind's life until recently. And yet there is still no demonstrably reasonable evidence for the existence of any god. So in claiming there is a god, it's up to the claimant to provide proof.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

No in atheism, atheists themselves are never called on to prove an illogical statement like "there is no god". You're assuming that since no one has proven to "You" that there is a god then nobody else can possibly know that there is a god. The statement assumes a "universal negative". At least an agnostic doesn't assume that something could exist outside the extremely small body of his own supposed knowledge. Since a belief in a god or god's is universal pretty much to every culture that has existed in known history, to call it a silly belief is to beg the question. I don't think that something universal to cultures that has affected these cultures in profound ways is silly. But evidently you do. Do you actually equate Christianity with belief in Santa Claus? Or Aztecism with the belief in luck? As for "demonstrably reasonable evidence" (whatever that actually means), I'll just ask a question or two. Do you believe that a person named Socrates existed, if you do, then what "demonstrably reasonable evidence" do you have for his existence, or Julius Caesar, or George Washington etc. etc.?

In the end, you confuse your presuppositions with logic and reason yourself into "I don't have to justify my atheism" because logical humans are atheists.

theblackknight

01-26-13, 19:22

TomMcC

01-26-13, 19:57

So far we have Shifting the Burden of Proof,Argument from Popularity,and a set up question for Argument from Authority.

What about argument from design? Good thing you guys didnt set up the court system, I'd have to prove I wasnt guilty LOL.

Afraid not, I never actually dealt with any proof I might present in this particular exchange. Did you require me to prove the existence of God, if you did I missed it. You did make certain assertions and then talked about reasonable evidence. What drives reasonable? Have you examined all so call evidence? I also didn't argue for the validity of any kind of theism from the idea that all cultures subscribe to powers greater than man, I merely pointed out the cultural norm in history is such as opposed to your position that atheism is the default position. The appeal to Christ as an ultimate authority was in the context of you setting yourself as ultimate authority. I never actually said which one of you I believe at least in that particular question. Since where you place ultimancy is, in the final analysis, your ultimate authority. In this case your own mind. In other postings (and I understand that you may not have read them) I have been forthright in stating that my first presupposition is "the Bible is true".

Now do you believe a person named Socrates existed, and how do you know?

Battle*Hound

01-26-13, 21:51

1. I do not understand what the 'end game' is for a Marxist plan. So you bring society to it's knees, break the economic structure and have power over everyone. What's left at that point? The state of a nation in such a situation is weak and worthless. I don't understand what is to gain from this. If you have ultimate power over a piece of shit...what is the point?

2. What are we to do? If their plan is to ruin us and control us...it seems to me we have to stop them now. Right now. I mean, do we start rounding them up before they start on us? I do not believe there is any room for diplomacy left. I want to attend the 2/8/13 rally in my state but for what? I don't believe any further talking will result in anything but lost time. I whole heartadly believe this video is right on the mark with our situation. So I ask...Do we just keep talking about how bad it is getting (as it gets even worse) or do we take action now? What course of action do you guys believe WILL be the most effective?

Belloc

01-27-13, 03:48

Edit.

theblackknight

01-27-13, 16:20

So although it is simply your belief that God does not exist, that does not make that belief a "belief".

And although you have rather conceded that your belief has no evidence to support it, and believe you don't require any, that does not make it a belief based on your own personal faith.

:rolleyes:

I should have hoped that the puerile word games of the gun grabbers would have dissuaded you from engaging in that nonsense here.

I dont bare the burden of proof. You do!

How do I prove abstinence isnt a sex position ?

What kind of job does a unemployed person have?(Inb4welfarejoke)

What kind of cola is 7-up?("the un-cola":p)

You can call things beliefs all day but that dosent make it so.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Belloc

01-27-13, 17:59

Edit.

theblackknight

01-27-13, 18:15

You could keep repeating yourself all day. Shifting the burden of proof is really the only thing you can hold into, and it's a desperate act. This is not how the world operates. The courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you did something illegal. You don't get arrested for no reason, and have to somehow prove you've never done anything illegal beyond a reasonable doubt, because that is impossible to know.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

feedramp

01-27-13, 21:08

How do I prove abstinence isnt a sex position ?

But it is. It's the position held by those who choose not to have any sex.

You still don't get it. Having a negative point of view is still a point of view. Having a belief that something doesn't exist is still a statement of belief.

He's not asking you to prove God doesn't exist. He's just pointing out to you that you're still espousing a belief, in this case it is the belief that God doesn't exist. To actively believe God doesn't exist is still an active position. Even agnosticism contains a belief. They believe that they don't know enough to state emphatically or empirically one way or the other whether God does or doesn't exist. To state you are an atheist is to state that you believe there is no God. You can indeed be challenged to back up your assertion, but that's not really what is being discussed here. It is your lack of awareness that your point of view does indeed involve a belief, or perhaps, that you don't actually hold the point of view you think you do.

Magic_Salad0892

01-27-13, 21:15

You still don't get it. Having a negative point of view is still a point of view. Having a belief that something doesn't exist is still a statement of belief.

Why do you think athiesm is a negative point of view?

Also, I googled the word "Athiesm".

a·the·ism

/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun

The theory or belief that God does not exist.

http://atheists.org/atheism

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

The lack of the word "belief" implies knowledge. Which is the most arrogant thing I can think of. Implying knowledge you do not have.

(As a side note, I actually defend athiesm quite regularly. But you have to acknowledge that it is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief. Not a religion.)

a0cake

01-27-13, 21:23

I'm going to post once in this stupid freaking thread.

Gnostic Atheism - I know for sure there is no god.

Agnostic Atheism - It is impossible to know for sure that god does not exist, but I lack any particular belief in any particular god.

Gnostic Theism - I know for sure that there is a god.

Agnostic Theism - It is impossible to know for sure that god exists, but I think a particular god probably does exist.

As you can see, agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism. Gnosticism and Agnosticism deal with KNOWLEDGE. Theism and Atheism deal with BELIEF. They are different categories. I didn't read the majority of this crap, but anyone saying anything contrary to the above is wrong. Period.

Magic_Salad0892

01-27-13, 21:25

I'm going to post once in this stupid freaking thread.

Gnostic Atheism - I know for sure there is no god.

Agnostic Atheism - It is impossible to know for sure that god does not exist, but I lack any particular belief in any particular god.

Gnostic Theism - I know for sure that there is a god.

Agnostic Theism - It is impossible to know for sure that god exists, but I think a particular god probably does exist.

As you can see, agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism. I didn't read the majority of this crap, but anyone saying anything contrary to the above is wrong. Period.

This is probably a better version of what I wanted to say.

TomMcC

01-27-13, 21:27

TomMcC

01-27-13, 21:54

Alaskapopo

01-27-13, 21:56

I know you won't be back, and as usual your a raving foul mouth Christ hater, but really what does this have to do with the OP about the destruction of the U.S?

In the OP's film it talked about the world will end basically if we lose our judo-christian value system. That is where the religion angle came into the discussion. Its strange I have not seen aOcake use foul language in this thread.
Pat

a0cake

01-27-13, 21:59

I know you won't be back, and as usual your a raving foul mouth Christ hater, but really what does this have to do with the OP about the destruction of the U.S?

I meant that I'm not going to get into a long drawn out argument on the subject matter. But I will respond to you if you're somehow offended. My reply was perfectly relevant to at least the last few pages, which have centered on exactly the distinctions I made. I called the thread stupid because there were pages of people arguing over something so simple and obvious that it could be fully explained in 4 sentences. Sorry if you think that's foul. I said nothing about Christ, nor was my reply partisan to any particular side. Both atheists and theists alike, when they know what they're talking about, use the exact same categories I enumerated. Idiots and mental giants abound on both sides.

Koshinn

01-27-13, 22:36

And atheists today seem not to understand that they have no philosophical foundation to even begin to define what is ethical or not. At least the atheists of a generation or 2 ago actually understood this and were honest about it. No God.......anything is permissible.

Where do you even get that from? What is ethical and what is not has always been determined by societal beliefs and norms. What is best for the society is "good" and what is not best for the society is "bad." What is best for the society is also best for you, otherwise you'd leave the society. Those who don't abide by the rules by making things worse for other people are removed from the society. That's ethics and morality.

There is no absolute morality unless you're of the belief that some god(s) exist, but even religion is a type of social structure whose founders determined (and current leaders re-determined) what is or is not ethical for their religion. What you call "absolute" or "universal" morality/ethics is just a societal set of beliefs that doesn't necessarily cover a traditional social structure, but rather a religion that people can be a part of as well as a regular social structure (say, Roman Catholic as well as American).

theblackknight

01-27-13, 23:08

Where do you even get that from? What is ethical and what is not has always been determined by societal beliefs and norms. What is best for the society is "good" and what is not best for the society is "bad." What is best for the society is also best for you, otherwise you'd leave the society. Those who don't abide by the rules by making things worse for other people are removed from the society. That's ethics and morality.

There is no absolute morality unless you're of the belief that some god(s) exist, but even religion is a type of social structure whose founders determined (and current leaders re-determined) what is or is not ethical for their religion. What you call "absolute" or "universal" morality/ethics is just a societal set of beliefs that doesn't necessarily cover a traditional social structure, but rather a religion that people can be a part of as well as a regular social structure (say, Roman Catholic as well as American).

Thats where christians claim they dont care about the old testament and only follow jesus.

Which is odd considering you can't get a cheek weld while turning the other.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Koshinn

01-27-13, 23:18

Thats where christians claim they dont care about the old testament and only follow jesus.

Which is odd considering you can't get a cheek weld while turning the other.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

You can with a chin weld when using a red dot piggyback on an acog!

I was just thinking about that right before you posted... Would Jesus approve of the Castle Doctrine? Would the Prince of Peace approve of invading another nation for any reason? Hm.

The reason I wonder is I was watching Les Mis and when the main character steals the priest's silverware, he gives him candlesticks too. I thought that was very Christian. But if it happened in America rather than France, the main character would have been shot dead and movie finished in the first 30 min.

Ouroborous

01-27-13, 23:44

I was just thinking about that right before you posted... Would Jesus approve of the Castle Doctrine? Would the Prince of Peace approve of invading another nation for any reason? Hm.

Jesus the pacifist? I'm not so sure.

Matthew 21:12
"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

Luke 22:36 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

There are other examples of Jesus expressing righteous anger in the name of God's children--these are just what come to mind.

Belloc

01-28-13, 01:29

Edit.

Belloc

01-28-13, 01:37

Edit.

Koshinn

01-28-13, 06:16

Which means that if it is the "societal belief and norm" that no private citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, then that is for you "ethical".

Correct, it is ethical in the view of that society, but not necessarily "me," as I am also a product of my society. If the constitution was changed by the proper process to remove the 2nd amendment entirely, no one can fall back on appealing to that as a higher authority for defending their gun rights. While logically it follows that an armed society is safer, that society may decide to ignore that. In which case many may remove themselves from that society or may remove the society itself. Or maybe not. That's what's so interesting about revolutions.

No, that is, by your own admission, moral relativism.
That's the entire point. All morality is moral relativism. There is no absolute/universal morality.

Which means you in fact believe that there is no such thing as in inalienable absolute Natural Law objective moral right to keep and bear arms. :rolleyes:
Correct. There is no natural law for anything. No "creator" endowed us with the right to keep and bear arms because there is no creator. There are extremely common morals among societies because they are good ideas, such as not murdering, but even the definition of what is and is not a murder changes so much (what is or is not a "good" kill) that it's a stretch of an example.

The right for the individual to keep and bear arms against tyranny and criminals is a very good idea. If it was universally moral, everyone would see it true, would they not? But as you well know, many nations of people do not. Thus it is not universal nor absolute.

What are some absolute morals or ethical principles?

TomMcC

01-28-13, 10:24

Correct, it is ethical in the view of that society, but not necessarily "me," as I am also a product of my society. If the constitution was changed by the proper process to remove the 2nd amendment entirely, no one can fall back on appealing to that as a higher authority for defending their gun rights. While logically it follows that an armed society is safer, that society may decide to ignore that. In which case many may remove themselves from that society or may remove the society itself. Or maybe not. That's what's so interesting about revolutions.

That's the entire point. All morality is moral relativism. There is no absolute/universal morality.

Correct. There is no natural law for anything. No "creator" endowed us with the right to keep and bear arms because there is no creator. There are extremely common morals among societies because they are good ideas, such as not murdering, but even the definition of what is and is not a murder changes so much (what is or is not a "good" kill) that it's a stretch of an example.

The right for the individual to keep and bear arms against tyranny and criminals is a very good idea. If it was universally moral, everyone would see it true, would they not? But as you well know, many nations of people do not. Thus it is not universal nor absolute.

What are some absolute morals or ethical principles?

"And the emperor has no clothes", You promote moral relativism all the while you define tyranny and criminality as bad. And I hope people reading this can take hold of the contradiction. And as the country imbibes more and more moral relativism, and more and more turns to the state for answers the country is crushed under immorality.

TomMcC

01-28-13, 10:39

Where do you even get that from? What is ethical and what is not has always been determined by societal beliefs and norms. What is best for the society is "good" and what is not best for the society is "bad." What is best for the society is also best for you, otherwise you'd leave the society. Those who don't abide by the rules by making things worse for other people are removed from the society. That's ethics and morality.

There is no absolute morality unless you're of the belief that some god(s) exist, but even religion is a type of social structure whose founders determined (and current leaders re-determined) what is or is not ethical for their religion. What you call "absolute" or "universal" morality/ethics is just a societal set of beliefs that doesn't necessarily cover a traditional social structure, but rather a religion that people can be a part of as well as a regular social structure (say, Roman Catholic as well as American).

The atheists from a different generation understood that if you did away with an absolute standard of right and wrong that transcends the mere opinions of men or groups of men(society) then morality is undefinable. It's an illusion.

By your definition of morality Nazi Germany and Mao's China were moral societies because the vast majority of citizens in those countries believed it to be moral. If murderous societies can be moral (in a good way) at the same time non-murderous societies are moral (in a good way) then so called good has no real meaning. There is no way to define it by a distinction in particulars.

TomMcC

01-28-13, 10:47

Thats where christians claim they dont care about the old testament and only follow jesus.

Which is odd considering you can't get a cheek weld while turning the other.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

The Christian church is in the death throes of antinomianism. It's also related to the ancient heresy of Marcionism. There is nothing new under the sun. And no I don't believe the Christian church will die out.

Ouroborous

01-28-13, 14:33

Which is odd considering you can't get a cheek weld while turning the other.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Transition to weak side:)

theblackknight

01-28-13, 16:54

Which means that theblackknight:
1. is wilfully ignorant.
2. is deliberately dishonest.
3. is mistaking posting puerile nonsense for cleverness.
4. all the above.

Sure, take a definition that's fits your bias and infer a whole list of bullshit might look good for something that is on the same level as the frequently shared, drive-by meme's on facebook.

Atheism could also be "the disbelief in the existence of a deity", but then you'll quote that,,rehash the sentence and then bold the word "belief" again or in the same way a 4th grader retorts "I know you are but what am I".

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Magic_Salad0892

01-28-13, 17:07

Sure, take a definition that's fits your bias and infer a whole list of bullshit might look good for something that is on the same level as the frequently shared, drive-by meme's on facebook.

Atheism could also be "the disbelief in the existence of a deity", but then you'll quote that,,rehash the sentence and then bold the word "belief" again or in the same way a 4th grader retorts "I know you are but what am I".

sent from mah gun,using my sights

Don't pick on him. It was me.

But I can personally understand your point. I was just stating that even many athiests acknowledge athiesm as a belief.

However, I believe that a0cake put forth the best argument with gnostic, and agnostic variations of athiesm, and theism.

Koshinn

01-28-13, 17:08

The atheists from a different generation understood that if you did away with an absolute standard of right and wrong that transcends the mere opinions of men or groups of men(society) then morality is undefinable. It's an illusion.

By your definition of morality Nazi Germany and Mao's China were moral societies because the vast majority of citizens in those countries believed it to be moral. If murderous societies can be moral (in a good way) at the same time non-murderous societies are moral (in a good way) then so called good has no real meaning. There is no way to define it by a distinction in particulars.

You're trying to make me say that Communist China and Nazi Germany were moral societies to undermine my point. They were, according to them. They are not, according to mine. And the encounters between societies can and does fill the contents of doctorate level thesis papers. Good and moral is defined by what society deems acceptable behavior. Millions in China deemed that sending the wealthy and fortunate to reeducation camps was the moral thing to do. My extended family was sent to those camps, many never recovered. My immediate family was in America at the time, but the other half of my family faced problems being of Japanese ancestry in an anti-Japanese WW2 America.

Society at the time said those were the right things to do. We have since changed slightly and now think that is not the right thing to do.

Again, what is good, moral, and ethical is always what is best for your society, which in turn has your best interests in mind as well. If it did not, you would change the society or remove yourself from the society if possible. Killing is often seen as bad in general because no one wants to be killed, but the specifics matter. In our society, killing is ok in self defense, in war, as capital punishment, and it's tolerated more if it was by negligence than by intention. In some societies, they expand that to religion, adultery, for the good of the state, and any number of other things. It's relative. Hell, we had dueling as a legal means of settling a dispute not too long ago in the grand scheme of things.

theblackknight

01-28-13, 18:19

Don't pick on him. It was me.

But I can personally understand your point. I was just stating that even many athiests acknowledge athiesm as a belief.

However, I believe that a0cake put forth the best argument with gnostic, and agnostic variations of athiesm, and theism.

You provided one definition, he took it like it was bible.

sent from mah gun,using my sights

feedramp

01-28-13, 22:29

Back on topic: http://mises.org/daily/6352/The-American-Genius-for-SelfGovernment

Belloc

01-29-13, 02:51

Edit.

TomMcC

01-29-13, 03:09

You're trying to make me say that Communist China and Nazi Germany were moral societies to undermine my point. They were, according to them. They are not, according to mine. And the encounters between societies can and does fill the contents of doctorate level thesis papers. Good and moral is defined by what society deems acceptable behavior. Millions in China deemed that sending the wealthy and fortunate to reeducation camps was the moral thing to do. My extended family was sent to those camps, many never recovered. My immediate family was in America at the time, but the other half of my family faced problems being of Japanese ancestry in an anti-Japanese WW2 America.

Society at the time said those were the right things to do. We have since changed slightly and now think that is not the right thing to do.

Again, what is good, moral, and ethical is always what is best for your society, which in turn has your best interests in mind as well. If it did not, you would change the society or remove yourself from the society if possible. Killing is often seen as bad in general because no one wants to be killed, but the specifics matter. In our society, killing is ok in self defense, in war, as capital punishment, and it's tolerated more if it was by negligence than by intention. In some societies, they expand that to religion, adultery, for the good of the state, and any number of other things. It's relative. Hell, we had dueling as a legal means of settling a dispute not too long ago in the grand scheme of things.

All I can say to this insanity is: All you Christians out there, when half the country thinks like this and more and more are added daily by the government school system do you really have anything of true commonality, any reason at all to yoke yourselves to these beliefs in mutual and common cause?

Belloc

01-29-13, 05:51

Edit.

Koshinn

01-29-13, 15:03

All I can say to this insanity is: All you Christians out there, when half the country thinks like this and more and more are added daily by the government school system do you really have anything of true commonality, any reason at all to yoke yourselves to these beliefs in mutual and common cause?

I went to a protestant private school, just fyi.

America has always been a melting pot of different cultures, ethnicities, and religions. We're mostly a nation of immigrants and those who were originally here (native Americans, Hawaiians, and Alaskans) are by far the minority.

While many assimilate into American or their local regional culture, many stubbornly stick to their roots. Look at Chinatowns, some "Hebrewtowns" for lack of better term (some speak Yiddish for many many years before learning English even though they're born in America!), many recent latino immigrants, etc. etc.

It's one of America's strengths. We do all share a couple things though, from gangsters to businessmen, and that's freedom and the American Dream of not being held down to a specific class or status because of your birth... Which I guess is also freedom.

Even though you and I have very little in common, Tom, we do both cherish freedom. We wouldn't even be having this discussion in many countries for a whole plethora of reasons, but I for one love that we can have vastly different opinions and views of the world and yet rally behind the cause of preserving freedom.

But in pursuit of that cause, don't alienate potential allies by adding religion (or racism or class or sexism or any other unrelated subject) into the mix.