I personally dislike atheists, anti-deists, legalistic people, logical people;

I find antisemites to be refreshingly honest, personally.

Your likes and dislikes don't logically prove anything.

They reveal a lot. Mystical language is two-sided, and can cover a lot of evil things. Morality in the hands of those who use it that way becomes a vicious weapon, and denatures every kind of discourse in which it is included. Can you guess why?

That's alright, used to be that people imagined the Wind was some kind of angry spirit, too. Eventually we grow up, in our many many many lifetimes!

Does growing up at some point entail admitting that reincarnation is a lie? The Buddha already said as much. Why don't you?

Yeah, like libtards who directly subscribe to moral relativism as a way of life, see satanism.

Liberalism deals with economics, idiot. Moral relativism is a facet of the Big Three Abrahamic 'faiths'; when science speaks of truth, it doesn't mean a statement loyal to the aims of the group, but something consistent with fact and with reproducible evidence of that. Moral isolationism is an ethical thing to do when you consider how people who speak as you do make themselves rich.

Aww the immediate insult and immediate distinctions made to contradict my point. Your distinctions do not disprove my point when the group (libtards) is/are evaluated for their behavior and actions related to this particular social construct or group think. Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Here's your argument: "Why be an individual, if I'm only going to keep evaluating you as part of a group?" Go right ahead, and tell Bibi how it works out for you. The ICBMs will fly as soon as you have defeated rationalism. Then I will not only fuck myself, but everyone will be fucked. Is it the individualists or the filthy tribals taht caused it? Question of the day.

Relativism does not designate someone as not having belief or faith.
I will give you a specific example:
The Bible talks about knowledge of good and evil being forbidden and the original sin.
Theologians argue if the sin was disobedience, and if the knowledge of good and evil are metaphors.
What if these are both wrong?
What if the source of sin is being deceived by the devil to think one knows the difference between good and evil?
What if this arrogance is why people were thrown out of the garden?
There are references that support this idea through the Bible about God being the only judge, judge not lest ye be judged, and as you judge you will be judged.
What if sin is simply a contagious mental illness?
The delusion that one knows the difference between good and evil.
This is the best explanation I have found for the vast differences in peoples moral judgement, and explains the relativistic reality we face.
Here is an example of the judgement people place on others..
An individual judges someone for wearing revealing clothes, when God himself had no problem with people being completely naked.
We see different levels of this specific judgement based on differing personal beliefs.
Amish and Mennonite dress codes, Islamic dress codes, Jewish dress codes, churches, schools and restaurants, even gas stations have dress codes(no shirt, no shoes, no service).
Moral judgement fills the law books with dress codes and ordinances.
You feel that tapping on your shoulder, and the words "evil relativism trying to corrupt"?
That is sin trying to protect itself by reinforcing the lie.

You're as deluded and childish as they come, OP.

The reason you do not like those groups is simply because you can't stand the truth and are allergic to reality. No-one has to suffer your elaborate, meta-philosophical fantasies when you don't have so much as a spec of dust in proof to substantiate anything in the indiscriminate hodgepodge of religitarded woo.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence in which you and your spiritual (i.e. borderline schizophrenic) counterparts completely lack.

If you're an avid marihuana smoker, may I suggest you tone it down a little and then fucking stop it already ... I used to be as atheistic as they came, refusing to pray in catholic school etc. as a teen up until the point where I got introduced to marihuana in my twenties for a couple of years. Then the whole religulous woo suddenly started to appeal to me, simply because my brain was cognitively impaired by the copious amounts of dopamine-release inducing crap in weed.

One could easily argue on those grounds that no one actually knows the definition of the things which the same texts unequivocally condemn. Therefore, you can't punish anyone for anything ever again. Was this murder? Or merely killing? And so forth. You take a person's right to define their boundaries and put it in the hands of the tribe--the entity most likely to violate it. The tribe has its favorites, those who can do no wrong in its eyes. For them, this will be a paradise. For those they violate, a hell. Plus, you can then say that one's position in society is the result of some sin in a prior life! So awesome! Not only is what I just did to your daughter's body not called 'rape' where I'm concerned, but if it hurt her, she obviously did something to deserve it in some former existence. And if you accuse me of lying, that's obviously unbeliever talk. Sweeeeeeet.

who gives a shit what you like or not.
Here..I like mashed potatoes.

I am sure the feeling is mutual.

Those who do not follow a higher power have no fear in their lives, fear(of higher power) is the beginning of wisdom, if they don't care what their (God)parent thinks, then they are a child of the father of lies, let that delusion march on. If they don't want to be apart of a (Godly)family let them enjoy their solitude, ignorance is bliss....

This is where reason and logic come into play.
Emotions are real, and people experience them irregardless of perspective.
Knowing that killing or murder will anger the kin of the deceased a rule would be placed forbidding murder not on the grounds of morality, but because of the implications for the efficient functioning of a society.
If a loved one is killed by an act of violence, a drunk driver or any other method, the family and those who love that person will experience the emotions of hurt, sadness, anger, rage.
This would give them a personal justification and motivation to enact revenge.
Acts of revenge spiral into blood feuds so this would be detrimental to society because of the way such things escalate, thus a no killing law.
The purpose of laws in a society are not to enact the moral will of some group, this is where most societies screw things up, the laws of a society should only serve the purpose to keep the society functioning because humans are more successful in large numbers.
The same rules of logic could be applied to anything, and basing the laws on the functioning of society only would prevent moral bias.
Ideally such a system would place as much power as possible in the hands of the individual, the second most power on the city, then county, then state, then national.
Such a system would place no laws to restrict a persons moral prerogative, but would prevent such morality from being the basis for creating laws.
Things like abortion would have to be weighed logically as well.
What are the trends for the population?
Are more people desperately needed?
How many people are looking to adopt?
Can the parent care for the child?
Is something wrong with the child?
Is the child the result of an emotionally damaging rape that could result in a difficult childhood?
Is the parent mentally impaired?
What does the parent want to do?
What are the feelings of the potential father?
The order of importance would be what the population needs and the desires of the parents.
It would work as a 3 way vote if it met certain criteria.
The moral prerogative of the mother would take president.

The better part of reason is good faith, which is now used up. Sorry, but when people willfully injure me, knowing that I will be constrained to forgive them, the system is tainted, the society that makes the calculation of who is important enough to have the right to a grievance is evil, and I have no vested interest in the maintenance, perpetuation, or survival of that society.

Which is exactly what a morality based system does.
It divides and caters only to those of compatible beliefs, while ignoring the rest.
Oh you are a naturalist who believes people should be naked, well screw you, we are a old time religion based society and we don't take kindly to nakedness.
Meanwhile God is facepalming.
A system which works on logic to better society without such constraints would serve all.

Um, no. Once good faith has been used up, the argument against defection and non-compliance is also used up. There is a line, and tribal societies make sure you know they have the right to cross it. Which is why their fall to the invader is always such a viewing pleasure. They are not individuals, nor are they animals since they pretend to lawfulness. If the invaders make them out to be subhuman, what is that to me? What they did to non-conformists is now done to them. That is all the justice anyone needs.

Logic solves such problems much more efficiently than emotions and morality, emotions and morality are the problem.
I can tell from what you wrote you take issue with foreigners coming to your country and having a different cultural perspective.
You assume because I am a believer in logic and reason I support the influx of immigrant refugees and workers.
Well check this out.
The world is facing a resurgence of nationalism, the U.S., Europe, India have huge swaths calling for more autonomy.
If someone steps back and observes the problem, I mean really look at it, don't just regurgitate what the republican, democrat, labor or whatever party has to say, really look at it...
Jobs are displaced to places with lower wages.
People in those places are trained to work those jobs.
Those people travel to places with higher wages to better their lives.
Here in the U.S. it is painfully obvious, in Mexico the wages are around $5 a day, and the employees are trained by U.S. companies to do the job.
If they can get a job here they will receive more for an hour of work than they do for a day there.
On top of this the working conditions are safer.
People here don't have enough jobs, and the jobs we have are under paid because we have a glut of labor.
The republicans want to build a wall, and create tarrifs the democrats want to increase the minimum wage.
We have large oceans and too much trade with our businesses in Mexico to even stop drugs from getting in, a wall might slow the people down, but they will find a way in.
The Mexicans are not doing anything citizens in the U.S. don't already do, we go and work as contractors in foreign countries for more pay any chance we get.
The only way to stop it is to make it unprofitable.
Stop money transfers to Mexico.
Well that also stops U.S. businesses from operating in Mexico.
That stops more Mexican workers from being trained by U.S. companies in Mexico.
The problem is, then there are fewer jobs in Mexico and more people even more desperate to get here and work.
This might also strain some U.S. companies that rely on Mexican production for some of their profits.
This could cause closures and more job loss.
Now the taxes the government are lower and the cost of border security goes up.
So local changes wont fix the problem.
The actual problem is globalism itself, and how it exploits developing nations.
The globalization of the labor pool has devalued labor.
The low minimum wages in foreign countries have stagnated wages in the first world.
Globalization trains foreign workers, and they try to get the highest paying jobs they can, just like everyone else.
All of this is simplified, and blame is placed on different people from different places for doing the same thing as anyone in their situation would.
Religion, race, culture is all blamed for the suffering of stagnant wages, soaring cost of living, increasing crime and violence.
The cork is out of the bottle on the genie of globalism, and without it a lot of companies will go belly up.
With it the first world will equalize with the third world and all the working class will simply be the impoverished.
A world wide minimum wage could save everyone and stop the exploitation, but the people with money and power do not want that.
A universal income would help, but such cannot be sustained with the low income of first world nations because of reduced tax throughput from lower average paying jobs.
A depression is the only outcome possible, because without a global oversight globalism will wreck the first world which is paying the bill for the third world.
The Left have their heads in lala land, and think higher minimum wage will fix the first world working impoverished, the Right think walls, tariffs and a free market will solve the problem.
Nationalists and isolationists think stepping away from globalism which all of their companies rely on will solve all the problems.
So propaganda sources paint each faction as some evil trying to destroy the western world.
They turn your attention to race, religion, culture, political affiliation and the human exploitation and the collapse of people into peasants continues as we all sit around supporting it by ignoring it.

You hate logic, yet you´re being very logical, as I see it.

So as a result of your shown narrow mindness, you only love yourself? (As you hate all others)

As such,I don´t know why you start this thread, as the only reason seems to be to vent some emotions, which is OK of course.
Hope you feel better now,OP.

I just love Christian men. When they don't get sex from their uptight wife, they come to me for relief. Once I suck them off, they will come back for more.

There is no debate on good and evil, anyone who does not realize this are somewhere in the clouds.

When people deliberately go out with not one bit of moral recognizing other rights to live and not be murdered, not be slaves, not be sold for others to take their body parts, the only real transplant are from live people, that evil, if they use children as sex and to murder later it evil for both, it evil.

There is no debate of any ideas other than they are a danger to others period. These people think they are Gods, really they put themselves in place of judging anyone to be of their use, their lives do not matter, your life does not matter to them, unless you are the ones who pay them as in for a body part or anything they deem important to their causes.

Now, what has gone on in the dark comes to light, yes, I do believe in God, the Lord God, do I lump everyone, and I am talking about Israel and Jewish people in the same group, heck no, they maybe in this group, they are not all in the group, some do not even know of the group. Is the groups all Jewish, no, not by a long shot.

This video tells a story, they missed some of them, one one guy they listed as the main one is just part of a bigger group, they are pretty much not the Jewish people. Ceil Rhodes wasn't Jewish and that just one I know of that not mentioned. So, watch this video think that there is a relative meaning to this, only if you are aiming for world domination. Not peace in terms most use. They do worship something and it not the Lord God. Just because you do not believe does not mean they do not. They also worship futurism. It where they guide people to their needs and take the inventions to be used. They do not invent anything except their plan, generation after generation for a plan, it not families or just families it members of their group people they bring in to help with the plan.

This video has the ones from early 1900s, now the British were in on it, not just them, they did host them and sure knew of it.

[link to www.geoengineeringwatch.org (secure)]

Know debate is usless when this is the way they work. David Rockefeller was in the thick of this by world war 2, and know Soros is very likely one of theirs.

[link to www.geoengineeringwatch.org (secure)]

Quote

So propaganda sources paint each faction as some evil trying to destroy the western world.
They turn your attention to race, religion, culture, political affiliation and the human exploitation and the collapse of people into peasants continues as we all sit around supporting it by ignoring it.

Divide and conquer going very well.
You said great stuff. Thank you.

Just wanted to add that according to UN, almost 98% of refugees are economical migrants here in EU.
What we see is that most of them come not to work, only for free monies.

It makes the minmal wage thingy even more complex, doesn´t it?
And let´s not forget how children get exploited for half a dime in mines and stuff.
Flooding over the West with third world parasites is not going to fix that though.

So basically you dislike people who attempt to set the morality of good vs evil anywhere they want to according to their needs and desires...

Blame it on the marihuanas, lol

Many Conservatives, who are also deists, abhor cannabis.

Not once did I insinuate that hate was involved with my opinion. I am offended that someone with all the God given abilities of logic and reason is unable to even consider mysteries beyond themselves. Being offended is not hate.

Thanks for this, very interesting!

Then you hate conservatives, because atheists, anti-deists and legalistic people run on feelings rather than logic.

In every anti-Christ culture, whether atheist or deists, without supernatural intervention, society collapses in filthy degrading sex, war and baby murder, just look at history.