"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

Thomas Borchert wrote:

fails to grasp the meaning of
'omnipotent',


Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the 1930s:
"Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all the time
and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he would come
up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either Winston
Churchill, or you are a Nazi.

A better question to ask, Tom, is why did Germans, in so large numbers,
become Nazis, or actively support them and their rise to power; the horrors
that Germany would unleash onto Europe and most of the world?

Marissa Reichert wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

fails to grasp the meaning of
'omnipotent',


Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he
would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.



You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Marissa Reichert wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

fails to grasp the meaning of
'omnipotent',


Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he
would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.


You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.

Yeah, Winston was also a Nazi. Sure. Thanks for your important
contribution.

Marissa Reichert wrote in
:



Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Marissa Reichert wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

fails to grasp the meaning of
'omnipotent',


Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all
he
would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.


You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.

Yeah, Winston was also a Nazi.


No, but if he did half the **** he did in his life nowadays, he'd be in
the dock at the hague.

Sure. Thanks for your important
contribution.


No problem fjukkwit.


Bertie

Marissa,

No objective standard. As I wrote, that was "my opinion". I stand by
it.

A better question to ask,

It's a good question to ask - but it has nothing to do with our
discussion. You like herring of the red variety, it seems.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Marissa,

Here is a
little refresher on Joe Stalin:


Again: Stalin is a red herring. He did not commit his atrocities "in
the name of atheism".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Marissa,

Here is a
little refresher on Joe Stalin:


Again: Stalin is a red herring. He did not commit his atrocities "in
the name of atheism".

Exactly! Atheism contradicts doing something "in the name of...."
But somehow 20 million people were killed (or worse!) without this
cause. I can't even imagine how horrible it must have been.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Marissa,

No objective standard. As I wrote, that was "my opinion". I stand by
it.

Perhaps, but sometimes it is useful when opinions have some supportable
factual basis.



A better question to ask,

It's a good question to ask - but it has nothing to do with our
discussion. You like herring of the red variety, it seems.

Oh of course not. Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
stopped Nazi horrors, right?

Marissa,

Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
stopped Nazi horrors, right?


Huh?

Nobody has been talking about banning, but if human societies would
have come to the consensus to favor rationalism instead of religion
(one might argue that the Nazi ideology as well as communism were some
kind of quasi-religion - and people have done so at length) and that
would have stopped the Crusades, the genocide of native Americans (both
North and South), the Inquisition, the Pope advocating having as many
children as possible in modern-day Africa, 9/11 and all those other
examples of atrocities in the name of religion, that would have been
plenty, wouldn't it?

If reaching such a consensus is at all possible in humans is a
different and very interesting question.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Marissa,

Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
stopped Nazi horrors, right?


Huh?

Nobody has been talking about banning, but if human societies would
have come to the consensus to favor rationalism instead of religion
(one might argue that the Nazi ideology as well as communism were some
kind of quasi-religion - and people have done so at length) and that
would have stopped the Crusades, the genocide of native Americans (both
North and South), the Inquisition, the Pope advocating having as many
children as possible in modern-day Africa, 9/11 and all those other
examples of atrocities in the name of religion, that would have been
plenty, wouldn't it?

I was unaware that a very significant portion of Africa's population were
following all of the pope's advocations.
By following your position, we could also argue that being anti-religious
is a religion in its own right.
Furthermore, I inquired about an objective score for positives as well.
Are they just to be dismissed with one brush since there were conflicts in
medival Europe, etc.? Frankly, you could make a better case for the
slightly less ludicroous position that Europe is responsible for creating
and exporting the world's problems all over the globe over the past 600+
years or so.