Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

David Mo said:
All religions have gods, prophets and sacred texts that indicate what believers should do.
Click to expand...

And how many religious people actually read those texts? Fewer than half of American Christians have read more than half the Bible, for example. And how many religions actually teach a literal interpretation of their texts, and teach the whole text rather than selecting passages?

To choose a religion is to choose between one and the other.
Click to expand...

Choosing a religion is oftentimes a matter of geography rather than anything else.

The atheist has no gods, sacred books or prophets who speak in the name of a god.
Click to expand...

It can have people who are revered at the head of them, though. I don't know enough about Xi to comment, but Chairman Mao was certainly set up to be revered like a god. The Kim family of North Korea are the same.

I don't see why those ideologies and ones like them should be considered any different from religious ideologies, or why they should be no-true-Scotsmanned out of consideration as being atheist ideologies.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It depends what you mean by both "atheism" and "the cause". If Xi is pushing atheism as being central to his brand of Communism (regardless of what he personally believes), and some of the people who are burning Bibles and patrolling camps imprisoning Muslims are doing so because they believe in Xi's brand of Communism then does that count as atheism being "the cause of their wickedness"?



The question for me is whether something which can be said about one particular religion or religious person (or one particular philosophy being branded as atheism, or one particular atheist person) is being used to disparate every religion and religious person and/or every philosophy being branded as atheism and every atheist.

It seems to me that this thread was created to disparate atheism as a whole, and I've had plenty of experience of atheists on this board taking examples of violence and intolerance perpetrated by religious people in the name of religion as a reason to disparate all of religion and religious thought.



I don't have any enemies.
Click to expand...

"Enemies" in the broadest sense. People who think the opposite of ours. Opposing ideologies. We all have enemies in that sense. If you don't like the word, put another one.

We have shown in this forum that Mr. Xi's atheism is not the cause of his campaign against the underground churches. The obvious cause is that, according to the Chinese authorities, they are a danger to the security of the state. Not a single piece of evidence of the relationship between atheism and persecution has been presented here. Perhaps you would like to try to find one.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And how many religious people actually read those texts? Fewer than half of American Christians have read more than half the Bible, for example. And how many religions actually teach a literal interpretation of their texts, and teach the whole text rather than selecting passages?



Choosing a religion is oftentimes a matter of geography rather than anything else.



It can have people who are revered at the head of them, though. I don't know enough about Xi to comment, but Chairman Mao was certainly set up to be revered like a god. The Kim family of North Korea are the same.

I don't see why those ideologies and ones like them should be considered any different from religious ideologies, or why they should be no-true-Scotsmanned out of consideration as being atheist ideologies.
Click to expand...
They don't read the book because they have authorized mediators. Prophets or priests who speak in the name of God.
Of course many people need political leaders as others need gods. But between charismatic leaders and gods there are still differences. But this is another issue.
 
David Mo said:
They don't read the book because they have authorized mediators. Prophets or priests who speak in the name of God.
Click to expand...

Just as most people who follow leaders like Kim, Mao, and Xi will not have read philosophical works on atheism but will instead be accepting what they are told about it by those in authority.

But between charismatic leaders and gods there are still differences.
Click to expand...

And there are differences between different gods, and between different human leaders.
 
David Mo said:
"Enemies" in the broadest sense. People who think the opposite of ours. Opposing ideologies. We all have enemies in that sense. If you don't like the word, put another one.

We have shown in this forum that Mr. Xi's atheism is not the cause of his campaign against the underground churches. The obvious cause is that, according to the Chinese authorities, they are a danger to the security of the state. Not a single piece of evidence of the relationship between atheism and persecution has been presented here. Perhaps you would like to try to find one.
Click to expand...

There has been numerous pieces of evidence, including the statements of the leadership and the fact that they are cracking down on all faiths and the monstrous history of totalitarian attacks of atheist states against religious. I have also submitted the statements of experts on the subject, including most recently from Amnesty.

The thing that amazes me the most, to be honest, is the fact that the atheist apologists refuse to even consider that there can be more than one cause. Further, if religion is a threat to the state than clearly atheism is an integral component of that state. Also, saying that the reason they are doing it is because they are authoritarian is saying nothing at all.

This should be obvious, but I fear that too many posters egos are inextricably tied up with atheism that they can brook no criticism.

Really fascinating to me actually.
 
Last edited:
Another point, if I were to say that the obvious cause of the Inquistion was because non-Catholics were a danger to the States of various Catholic countries, you would of course agree, but would find it laughable if I asserted Catholism was not a cause.

That is just the case here. Think of atheist attacks on religious people as the Atheist inquistion (just much larger and industrialized in its viciousness)
 
The Big Dog said:
The thing that amazes me the most, to be honest, is the fact that the atheist apologists refuse to even consider that there can be more than one cause...
Click to expand...

It only happens when one adds your obvious motivations to the equation.

The fact that many participants in this discussion created a thread or jumped to the opportunity to debate consensual sex between two adults as if it were a religious topic (probably because they couldn't take that "attractive" activity out of their minds) all with mod's green light, it doesn't give you the reason in this topic-apparent thread you created.
 
aleCcowaN said:
... a high rank military officer unplugging the mikes, what prevents you from hearing the most poignant speech against the Vietnam war Forrest is giving in a massive rally ...
Click to expand...


You appear to have seen a very different version of the movie than the rest of us. You have seen a version where Forrest Gump is giving "the most poignant speech against the Vietnam war." The rest of us have seen the version where he gives some kind of speech, but nobody (nobody in the movie theatre, that is!) knows if it is for or against the Vietnam War. (Or if it's about the Vietnam War at all!) That is the cowardly trick that the director of the movie plays on us: Everybody is allowed to imagine that he gave a speech that we would have applauded, Conservatives as well as Liberals, militant anti-communist U.S. American patriots as well as make-love-not-war hippies.
You have told us about the version of the film that you didn't actually see but imagined that you saw!
I think you should watch it again and tell us exactly what Forrest says "against the Vietnam war."
He doesn't say a single word against the Vietnam War!

And another one:

By the way, I make a living teaching English Lit! I know about magical realism ...
 
The Big Dog said:
The thing that amazes me the most, to be honest, is the fact that the atheist apologists refuse to even consider that there can be more than one cause.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Somehow, I get the impression that this claim is completely and utterly false. That people dismiss your attempt to blame atheism, specifically, is not them rejecting that there can be more than one cause.

I realize that this has probably been asked, but I don't feel like trawling through the thread. What inherent belief(s) of atheism are you suggesting are actually coming into play here? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Full stop. It doesn't have any specific morals or principles that it supports, though there are certainly principles and morals that frequently lead to it and some of those can easily lead to conflicts.

The Big Dog said:
Further, if religion is a threat to the state than clearly atheism is an integral component of that state.
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A bit more seriously, no. Religions influence people in various ways. That influence can certainly be destabilizing or a threat to other forces that seek to maintain or increase their influence. Either way, most religions are also treated as a threat to the state in theocracies, which alone would be enough to show that your claim is utter nonsense.


The Big Dog said:
Also, saying that the reason they are doing it is because they are authoritarian is saying nothing at all.

This should be obvious, but I fear that too many posters egos are inextricably tied up with atheism that they can brook no criticism.

Really fascinating to me actually.
Click to expand...

It's also somewhat fascinating see how intent you are on ignoring fact and reason in favor of making up something to support your desires.
 
Aridas said:
:rolleyes: Somehow, I get the impression that this claim is completely and utterly false. That people dismiss your attempt to blame atheism, specifically, is not them rejecting that there can be more than one cause.

I realize that this has probably been asked, but I don't feel like trawling through the thread. What inherent belief(s) of atheism are you suggesting are actually coming into play here? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Full stop. It doesn't have any specific morals or principles that it supports, though there are certainly principles and morals that frequently lead to it and some of those can easily lead to conflicts.



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A bit more seriously, no. Religions influence people in various ways. That influence can certainly be destabilizing or a threat to other forces that seek to maintain or increase their influence. Either way, most religions are also treated as a threat to the state in theocracies, which alone would be enough to show that your claim is utter nonsense.




It's also somewhat fascinating see how intent you are on ignoring fact and reason in favor of making up something to support your desires.
Click to expand...

Gaze at the complete lack of reasoning of the human rights abuse apologists. Just gainsaying. Do us all a favor next time and just type “nuh-uhhhh.”

I won’t think any less of you.
 
The Big Dog said:
Really fascinating to me actually.
Click to expand...

No,it isn’t. You opened this thread with a bunch of dishonest assertions you have repeated continuously with an objective in mind. As is often the case, you have achieved your objective, while refusing to answer simple questions.

This thread was never meant to be a discussion at all.
 
The Big Dog said:
Gaze at the complete lack of reasoning of the human rights abuse apologists.
Click to expand...

Which people are you referring to? Have you received any disagreement, at all, with the position that what Xi and his government are doing is appalling?

That it is appalling, however, doesn't excuse your fallacious attribution. Furthermore, your fallacious attribution greatly distracts from focusing on the appallingness of what's going on there, especially when it's part of a general pattern of behavior on your part.

The Big Dog said:
Just gainsaying. Do us all a favor next time and just type “nuh-uhhhh.”
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd prefer that to your claims being ridiculed with valid reasons attached. Do us all a favor and stop relying on fallacy and nonsense to try to make a case?

The Big Dog said:
I won’t think any less of you.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
David Mo said:
All religions have gods, prophets and sacred texts that indicate what believers should do. To choose a religion is to choose between one and the other. The atheist has no gods, sacred books or prophets who speak in the name of a god.
"Coincidentally" almost all the sacred books and prophets order to eliminate heretics or unbelievers.
Tis is the main difference between believers and atheists.
Click to expand...


A very clear distinction for you and I David but somehow lost on the dann's and Squeegee's who will muddy the waters and try to create confusion.
 
lionking said:
No,it isn’t. You opened this thread with a bunch of dishonest assertions you have repeated continuously with an objective in mind. As is often the case, you have achieved your objective, while refusing to answer simple questions.

This thread was never meant to be a discussion at all.
Click to expand...

It was, but self pitying atheists destroyed it.
 
David Mo said:
All religions have gods, prophets and sacred texts that indicate what believers should do.
Click to expand...


No, they don't.

To choose a religion is to choose between one and the other.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

The atheist has no gods, sacred books or prophets who speak in the name of a god.
Click to expand...


It would be a contradiction in terms for an atheist to have gods, obviously.

"Coincidentally" almost all the sacred books and prophets order to eliminate heretics or unbelievers.
Click to expand...


No, not at all. You know too little about all religions and almost all sacred books and prophets. Your sweeping generalizations are what appeals to T2, which should make you suspicious. It's a sign that you're on the wrong track.

Tis is the main difference between believers and atheists.
Click to expand...


If we stick to the one thing that you got right, i.e. that atheists don't have gods, then, yes, that is the main difference between most atheists and most believers, I guess. But what was your point again?! It doesn't seem to have much to do with my post:

"T2 seems to be unable to grasp the fact that believers choose what to believe and what to dismiss from various scriptures - be that "detailed instructions" or general nonsense."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom