Oh okay, the guy who said that American women deserve to be raped and that the Jews deserved the holocaust because they were liberals is lecturing me on morality. Unfortunately, this isn't a fschmidt statement that shocks me.

I just find it odd that because you don't believe in a personal God, and certainly don't believe in the Yahweh, you think we should look to the first four commandments as a source of morality, you know, those arbitrarily superstitious rules from Bronze Age Middle Eastern nomads. Pretty sure society has progressed a lot since then.

So fschmidt, I'll bite. What do the following things have to do with being a good person?

1. Don't believe in any other God except Yahweh (pretty sure you're okay with believing in whatever fictitious God that supports your view that women are inferior to men, it doesn't have to Yahweh).

2. Don't make sculptures

3. Don't say say God or Jesus as an idiom

4. Don't work on Saturday (or Sunday)

Do you honestly believe the above is necessary for a moral society?

The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The Pentateuch is a pretty much a synonym for that. True, the ten commandments are in this, specifically Exodus and Deuteronomy.

But in the FSTDT quote (which is on such a high level of batshit insanity even for you) you specifically refer to the Torah as the Old Testament which is unambiguously wrong. I just assumed you were making the same mistake again.

Then again, this is tautology, so who really gives a fuck.

While this doesn't sound as offensive as fschmidt's persistent Holocaust analogy (and I appreciate your comment on the fact that such analogy is indeed offensive to those whose family was affected), your parallel with Apartheid is still very far-fetched. Apartheid in South Africa used to be official; the lack of attraction on behalf of most American young women to guys "like us" (I agree with the quotes as the whole concept is questionable) is solely a matter of taste. You woudn't go for an unattractive woman, would you?



The problem is that, without the system of God-given commandments, there's no clear guideline as of what is moral and what is immoral. Ancient Greeks' infamous homosexual relationships between an older man and a younger man must have been considered noble by them, but can hardly be considered as such even by the modern Western soceity (except some fervently pro-gay activists). And the Nazis sincerely believed that killing Jews and others whom they didn't see suitable for life is something they had to do for the sake of humanity. Muslim terrorists sincerely believe that their terrorist activity (which they refer to as jihad) is encourageable and morally correct. Same holds true for the Crusaders of the early Middle Ages. Obviously, you can't rely on all those "values". Only the commandments given by God (and whitnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed it down the generations) can be used as a standard.

Yes, I would, up to a certain limit.

I would never refuse a woman for being socially awkward, while women make things very hand for socially awkward men.

And yes, I would accept an ugly women. It's still better than incel. I would have no issue about dating a 300 lb woman, a woman who'd be at least a 2/10 (as a 6.5 I don't think I have to stoop as low as go for a 1), and would accept to date a single mom.

The problem is that, without the system of God-given commandments, there's no clear guideline as of what is moral and what is immoral. Ancient Greeks' infamous homosexual relationships between an older man and a younger man must have been considered noble by them, but can hardly be considered as such even by the modern Western soceity (except some fervently pro-gay activists). And the Nazis sincerely believed that killing Jews and others whom they didn't see suitable for life is something they had to do for the sake of humanity. Muslim terrorists sincerely believe that their terrorist activity (which they refer to as jihad) is encourageable and morally correct. Same holds true for the Crusaders of the early Middle Ages. Obviously, you can't rely on all those "values". Only the commandments given by God (and whitnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed it down the generations) can be used as a standard.[/quote]

What the hell? All those examples are because of religion. Ancient Greece: Greek mythology. Nazi Germany: Positive Christianity (google it). Muslim terrorists: Radical Islam. Crusaders: Catholicism.

On the other hand, look at how far ahead Europe is because they're secular. Lower rates of violence all around (except that of violence toward women in a few areas like Sweden) and lower degrees of wealth inequality.

Even then, a secular state is guaranteed by our Constitution, the Establishment Clause to be specific.

And no, the commandments were given by God and witnessed by "hundreds of thousands if not millions of people" lol. There is absolutely zero evidence that there was ever an exodus of about a million Jews from Egypt into Israel. There's no written records of it (nor the Israelites subsequent genocides (yeah, plural) against the people living in and around the Promised Land) and no archaeological evidence that supports this. In the end, it's just a fairytale, like those of Odin or Zeus.

And how far ahead are they? Eurozone is in a deep fiscal crisis, with some of its members almost defaulting on their debts. Is that called "far ahead"? And the moral values in the contemporary Western society are causing the decay of that society. Europe appears especially prone to this: birth rates are extremely low by Europeans but extremely high by Muslims. The secular Europe, unfurtunately, appears to be "far ahead" in terms of the gravity of its existential threat.



Today's Jews are direct descendants of the Jews who left Egypt and settled in Israel. There is no way this story could have possibly been made up without being whitnessed by millions. We even know the exact dates of the Exodus, the splitting of Red Sea, and the Receivign of Torah at Mount Sinai. Exact dates! How do you imagine making such a thing up so that the exact dates of the described events are known and remembered?



Are you expert in archeology? Have you ever been to Israel? If not, all your atheistic preaching has no credibility. Also, the world itself simply could not have come to existance by a series of coincidences; this would've been more of a miracle than what Torah relates about the creation of the world. And our emotions, fears, etc., are too complicated to be a mere result of chemical reactions in our brain; rather, it's a real testimony of the existance of soul.

I never knew that Love-Shy contained this many religious fundamentalists. But whatever, I destroy dogma for a living.

Okay, #1: The eurozone is an monetary crisis, not a fiscal one. Unless you have a link that correlates the "moral decay" (which isn't even a measurable thing) and a deregulated financial sector, then shut up. Not sure what a high birth rate of Muslims has to do with anything unless you're a bigoted Islamophobe.

#2. There are no exact dates. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves that these supernatural events actually happened. They are myths. They are part of Abrahamic mythology.

#3. Are you fucking stupid? There is no archaeological evidence. None. This indicates that it didn't fucking happen because an event this big would've left, well, something. And there is nothing.

As for the solar system: Google nebula and accretion disk.

Emotions are definitely caused by chemicals. We have fucking drugs that manipulate your emotions like anti-depressants. And guess what? These drugs don't contain any immaterial supernatural woo! They contain fucking chemicals!

When were you indoctrinated? Studies have shown you're most prone between ages 4-14.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.

You're insane. You're really drawing a comparison between Nazism and Liberalism?

Funny how practically every intellectual is "liberal." Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, Howard Zinn, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc.

Aren't you a socialist anyway? What the hell do you even mean by "liberal"? The opinion that women should have equal rights?

I almost feel like just sending a transcript of everything fschmidt has ever said to CPS to free his children from his sheer bigotry and idiotic perception of the world.

Oh c'mon Mikey, you don't sincerely believe that. I specifically remember you criticizing Margaret Thatcher for cutting spending directed at helping the working poor, and your family suffered as a result. Guess who fought her tooth and nail every step of the way and somewhat succeeded in reversing her supply side venture? The Labour Party. Guess what the Labour Party is? Liberal.

This is a liberal:

Intolerant just like a Nazi.

Why wouldn't you try living in Saudi Arabia for at least a while and see how nicely they would treat you, a gread defender of all Muslims (in spite of being an atheist fanatic himself)? The point is that European population is shrinking in numbers, while Muslim population is growing. And unlike you, they believe in what their religion says (yes, it opposes mine, but is based on the same initial premises); and, more importantly, they act on what they believe in. Without further "justifying" them (because I don't), I'm only trying to make a point that your liberalism woudn't pay any dividends under their dictatorship.



You can repeat this mantra hundreds of thousands of times, but it won't make it any more true. We celebrate Jewish holidays on dates where the celebrated event took place historically. And we are descendants of Abraham, so, if he's a myth, then I must be a myth as well.



If anybody is fucking stupid, it's someone who denies the evidence. There is an exact location in Hebron where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are buried along with their respective wives (except Rachel whose grave is also identified). That's one of many other evidences of Biblical truth. But you've never been there, so why bother. It's easier to deny than to come and check.



It's nothing more than demagogy. Only a naive dumbass can blindly believe that anything in the Universe came to existance by accident. From the complicated miscroscopic world of the cell (or even the molecule) to the infinite world of outer space and halaxies, to the precision of the so-called laws of nature - everything points to the existance of the Master.

When I was indoctrinated? If anybody is indoctrinated, it's you, because you seem to deny the obvious. As for me, I gradually came to realization that the world is neither accidental, nor masterless. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely he is to realize that.



I'm not sure about the accuracy of your definition of Liberalism. Liberalism is definitely not that holy, but accusing it in targeting decent and intelligent people as a matter of principle is totally out of context.