Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[MRC_Hans]

I feel like in all this bickering amongst ourselves we're losing sight of the real picture, which is that The Big Dog lies about the motivations of totalitarian governments.

But we all know that. We can't bicker about that.

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

But we all know that. We can't bicker about that.

Hans

 

[David Mo]

You will probably have to collect various information about the real situation in China, if you don't wanna take my word for it.

To demand the Big Dog to be informed is like to expect drawing blood of a stone. He only reads and understand what confirms his previous beliefs.

Atheism means the belief that gods doesn’t exist. Many atheists think that religious beliefs are not good. If the Chinese politics against clandestine churches were ruled by atheism the Chinese government would not foster traditional religions and Buddhism. Everybody can understand this... except the Big Dog.

 

[dann]

So you continue with this personal attack because that is really all you have available now.

There is really nothing personal about it. I don't know you personally, and I wouldn't want to. I think that most of the contributions to this thread and many others from wareyin, TBD and you are excellent examples of certain kinds of argumentative behavior, and in this thread particularly the kind of cherry picking that begins when you want to identify your adversary with certain negative traits and therefore pick only those and blow them up to represent everything that your opponent is. TBD wants to tell the world that atheists are bad, so he picks the example of a self-proclaimed atheist, Xi, because to TBD Xi is the incarnation of atheism. At the same time, Xi is reduced to being just that, an atheist, so whatever he does, he must be doing it because he's an atheist. He can have no other reasons to do it.

You, his opponent, at least in some ways but not much in this thread, do the exact same thing, but with religion: The 1.8 billion Muslims are reduced to being represented by the 9/11 hijackers; to you they represent what not only Islam but religion as such is all about. And they can't have had any other reasons for their act than religion. You are as certain that they did it because the Quran told them so as TBD is certain that Xi persecutes religion because his non-existent Atheist Bible tells him to. That the Quran doesn't exactly tell them to go to prostitutes is the obvious example of the ability of these guys to pick and choose what to believe in and which scriptures to obey. Even the most fanatical Islamists seem to have a choice.

It's not difficult at all to glean that from your writings, since your writings tend to be rather one-dimensional:

And you somehow manage to glean from my writings that:

"it would never occur to you that the way that people are motivated to do all kinds of things is sometimes circumspect and complicated."

Wow! You managed to see all that from my sparse scribblings.

 

[David Mo]

And again, this way of one-dimensional thinking is one that you have in common with TBD:
T2: People fly planes into buildings because they are Muslims. There can be no other reason for them to do so.
TBD: Xi persecutes believers because he's an atheist. There can be no other reason for him to do so.
Congratulations! This thread could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship between the two of you!

There is an evident difference between both acts:
Fundamentalist Muslims fight in the name of Allah. Even if other causes may be put forward, they are subordinated to the first claim: Only Allah is great! This means a religious combat.

Mr. Xi's government has closed the clandestine churches in the name of sinization and the national security. You can propose atheism as a secondary cause but this is contradictory with the Chinese government's support to Buddhism and traditional religions and the agreements with other tolerated religions as "official" Catholicism. Mr. Xi's atheism cannot be considered as a main cause of his politics. Neither Marxism nor communism, in the other hand.

 

[dann]

No. Even if your nightmares weren't about your mother and you just brought her up for no reason, you still had nightmares.

Yes, like I said, I had nightmares. That is the only part of it that you got right.

Unless your nightmares were completely unique, they were not real.

Only unique nightmares are real? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. It makes no sense at all that common nightmares aren't real nightmares or even that they are somehow less real than unique ones. Could you please explain this unique approach to dream analysis?!

Nightmares, by definition, are frightening. You admit to having them about things that don't exist and never existed at all. Therefore, you were terrified about things that don't exist. That you woke up and the fear went away did not make the fear any less of a fear. This has happened to you, but you claim it cannot have happened to Squeegee's grandfather. Interesting.

No, you are the one who is digging himself even deeper into the hole when you want to argue that I have talked about Squeegee's grandfather's dreams. Nobody ever mentioned them in this thread - Squeegee certainly didn't, so I would very much like to hear why you think that this is what happened to his grandfather: That he had nightmares about God punishing him and then woke up and his fears would go away.

Of course it is not up to you to allow Squeegee's grandfather anything. That's why it is so preposterous that you feel you have the authority to proclaim his belief system based on an incomplete anecdote.

I've 'proclaimed' that the allegedly incomplete anecdote, i.e. that "the one thing he," Squeegee's allegedly atheist grandfather, "was terrified of was that God was angry with him for abandoning his faith," is a contradictio in adjecto.
That you now want to fill out the blanks in the allegedly incomplete anecdote with your claim that Squeegee's grandfather's fear of God was all a dream is what's preposterous.

 

[dann]

There is an evident difference between both acts:
Fundamentalist Muslims fight in the name of Allah. Even if other causes may be put forward, they are subordinated to the first claim: Only Allah is great! This means a religious combat.

Have you ever heard of people fighting in the name of something other than what they are actually fighting for? I.e. have you ever heard of people pretending to do anything for reasons other than what they are actually doing them for?


ETA: By the way, there is much more than one evident difference between the two acts!

 

[dann]

That is a possible alternative. I'm not going to claim special knowledge of Squeegee's grandfather, regardless.

PS I just stumbled upon ad from an Alzheimer's patient's wife, who is trying to find people who can help her, which makes me think that beginning dementia might have played a role in the case:

• at udfordre ham mentalt, så han får brugt sin hjerne på en konstruktiv måde, og ikke bliver overladt til sig selv, med tankemylder, fejlkonklusioner, paranoia og angst til følge

My translation:
"- to challenge him mentally so that he gets to use his brain in a positive way and isn’t left on his own, which will result in confusing thoughts, wrong conclusions, paranoia and fear."

But, of course, it's still only a possible alternative explanation.

 

[MRC_Hans]

To demand the Big Dog to be informed is like to expect drawing blood of a stone. He only reads and understand what confirms his previous beliefs.

Atheism means the belief that gods doesn’t exist. Many atheists think that religious beliefs are not good. If the Chinese politics against clandestine churches were ruled by atheism the Chinese government would not foster traditional religions and Buddhism. Everybody can understand this... except the Big Dog.

I know, but that won't keep me from stating the fact.

Hans

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm sorry, Squeegee, but what you described what not "a tiny amount of doubt":

"the one thing he was terrified of was that God was angry with him for abandoning his faith."
A tiny amount of doubt would be something that you would begin to describe with the words: "It's probably nothing, but recently I've ..."

And now you're imposing your own meaning onto my words and lecturing me on what I meant when I typed them. Since other people have had no difficulty whatsoever understanding me, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the issue isn't with what I said, but with what you're projecting onto what I said.

Now you've moved on to something completely different: phobias! I'm sorry, but again it doesn't really correspond to your highlighted sentence above, but let's hear more about this: Did your grandfather break out in a sweat if he saw a depiction of God or if somebody mentioned God?

Not only are you ignoring part of what I said, you're also mischaracterising phobias.

And even if you want to rationalize his fear of God by referring to arachnophobes, I will still point out to you that spiders are real, however rare lethal spider bites may be. God isn't. And that's the reason why the wrath of God is not just "exceedingly unlikely," it's non-existent.

And you're not actually paying attention to what I did say in the part you're not ignoring. I hope for your sake that your misunderstanding is deliberate, because what I said was quite clear.

Irrational fears are a thing, being afraid of something that is "exceedingly unlikely" is also a thing, so I guess that what you are trying to tell us is that your grandfather was an agnostic and not an atheist ...

And we're on to the old-age debate about the definition of atheism and the definition of agnosticism. I can't be arsed.

Prior to this post, I've ignored the times you've straw-manned me in this discussion, and the times you've tried to personalise it and make insinuations about me. But given that you seem unwilling or unable to engage me on even the simplest things that I've said, and as I have absolutely no interest in one of those discussions where I have to spend an hour tediously explicating every half a sentence I've previously typed while we argue back and forth over what the meaning of "is" is, I think I'll bow out of this here.

You are wrong, and you are not approaching this discussion in the manner of someone who wants to understand or to learn. You are free to choose to continue to believe that you are right, and you're free to believe that you have won whatever points you were hoping to win with the approach you've taken.

 

[David Mo]

Have you ever heard of people fighting in the name of something other than what they are actually fighting for? I.e. have you ever heard of people pretending to do anything for reasons other than what they are actually doing them for?


ETA: By the way, there is much more than one evident difference between the two acts!

Of course. Almost all religion wars hidden power conflicts. But it is very different to launch a quarrel in the name of Allah that in the name of national security. And this is what Chinese government is doing. Furthermore, the fact that Chinese government tolerates and even fosters other religious devotions implies that atheism is not the main worrying of Chinese government.

I am not denying that Mr. Xi’s atheism can influence his religious politics. I am refuting the Big Dog's claims in the sense that atheism is the main responsible of the closure of clandestine churches. His statements like “Firm Marxist Atheist” is the cause of the crackdowns are simply ridiculous. “Fundamentalist Muslims attack a German market” is a description of facts.

 

[wareyin]

To repeat, then, because you completely failed to address it, many of the definitions make it perfectly clear that picking and choosing does not need to be whimsical. Picking and choosing can be done whimsically, of course. There was never any argument against that. The counterargument was that it does not need to be done whimsically and, in fact, it clearly wasn't being used in that way at the place in question. That's the crux of the matter. You're demanding that it needs to be whimsical and, when presented with evidence that it does not need to be such, you're asking me to restrict the allowed evidence to only the information that confirms that it can be used like that and throw out the evidence that it does not need to be? Trying to dodge this fact continues to demonstrate that you're not interested in discussing the matter honestly.

I have made it clear that picking and choosing is commonly understood to be whimsical with evidence that people talking about religion and law automatically assume and use it to mean capricious. This, to anyone with your self-proclaimed wonderful reading comprehension, should show that in context, dann's claims in no way made it clear that the way he was using the phrase was only to be interpreted as thoughtful. I am not asking you to ignore that the phrase is also somewhat rarely used in a different way, I am asking you to actually read the evidence provided that shows it is common to be interpreted as I interpreted it. Not just that it can be whimsical, but that it is common to understand that phrase as exclusively whimsical.

And had you read for content, I never denied that it can be used in that way. That was also never actually in question. Your logic is akin to demanding that "car" is only allowed to refer to a Model T Ford because "car" can refer to a Model T Ford.

You have denied that it dann could have used it that way. I have provided evidence that it is not unusual for discussions of law and discussions of religion to have used it that way.

AHAHAHAHAHA! That's a fine example of irony, right there. You're pointedly denying how a term was actually clearly used in favor of what you are trying to claim is standard use, after all.

I've given you examples that prove there was no such "clear" usage. That you ignore them to cry that "in context", no one could use the phrase "pick and choose" as anything but whimsical shows either dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension on your part. As you keep claiming a superior ability in reading comprehension, I'm left with only one way to interpret your claims.

No. That's not what I claimed repeatedly, had you been paying attention. You fail, yet again.







If only that flaw was in what I actually said, you might maybe have a point. You've failed at your attempt at reading comprehension and you want to poke at me for things that I didn't actually say. Care to try again?

Very well, please explain how your claim that I was limiting my focus to fundamentalist...you know what? Never mind. It is clear that you are not willing or able to actually discuss this honestly and without needlessly personalizing the argument. I have shown your claims of things being clear by context to be baseless, and I have shown that despite your claims I was not focusing my argument on any limited subset of fundamentalists. Feel free to have the last word, if you feel you must to save face somehow.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, like I said, I had nightmares. That is the only part of it that you got right.




Only unique nightmares are real? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. It makes no sense at all that common nightmares aren't real nightmares or even that they are somehow less real than unique ones. Could you please explain this unique approach to dream analysis?!




No, you are the one who is digging himself even deeper into the hole when you want to argue that I have talked about Squeegee's grandfather's dreams. Nobody ever mentioned them in this thread - Squeegee certainly didn't, so I would very much like to hear why you think that this is what happened to his grandfather: That he had nightmares about God punishing him and then woke up and his fears would go away.




I've 'proclaimed' that the allegedly incomplete anecdote, i.e. that "the one thing he," Squeegee's allegedly atheist grandfather, "was terrified of was that God was angry with him for abandoning his faith," is a contradictio in adjecto.
That you now want to fill out the blanks in the allegedly incomplete anecdote with your claim that Squeegee's grandfather's fear of God was all a dream is what's preposterous.

Nightmares aren't real, but you are terrified in them. God isn't real, but an old man was terrified of him. Both are examples of being terrified of something that is not real. Neither is proof that one believes in what one was terrified of. That I used your nightmares to illustrate that it is possible to be terrified of something you don't believe in does not mean that I claimed that Squeegee's grandfather was dreaming. I would say that this should have been clear in context, but I'm actually starting to wonder if this is a case of American English not being understandable to European English speakers, and vice versa.

 

[The Big Dog]

Checks in: avid atheist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + marxist + atheism = human rights atrocities

 

[Hellbound]

You need to get your freezer looked at.

HTH

Jim

Well, see, that's why I need advance warning, so I can defrost it up before I leave.

 

[David Mo]

Checks in: avid atheist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + marxist + atheism = human rights atrocities

The problem is the messenger doesn't know what he's talking about. And when asked, he doesn't answer. More than a messenger he looks like a parrot with a learned psalmody.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Checks in: avid atheist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + marxist + atheism = human rights atrocities

Yawn. False.....

 

[The Big Dog]

Yawn. False.....

According to official party propaganda outfits where you get the "information" you have posted in this thread?

Pravda maybe?

 

[dann]

Nightmares aren't real, but you are terrified in them. God isn't real, but an old man was terrified of him. Both are examples of being terrified of something that is not real. Neither is proof that one believes in what one was terrified of. That I used your nightmares to illustrate that it is possible to be terrified of something you don't believe in does not mean that I claimed that Squeegee's grandfather was dreaming. I would say that this should have been clear in context, but I'm actually starting to wonder if this is a case of American English not being understandable to European English speakers, and vice versa.

No, it's not a question of American English versus European English. It's a question of your abstraction from fear in a dream state where you can't distinguish between what's real and what's not, and fear when awake where you can: When you are sleeping, you don't know that the scary .... whatever ... isn't real. When you are awake, you know the difference between reality and dream-state illusion.
That you don't want to recognize this difference is another example of the stubbornness that Aridas has already pointed out when you insist on one definition of words that were obviously not meant the way you would like to interpret them.

 

[abaddon]

Checks in: avid atheist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + marxist + atheism = human rights atrocities

Checks in: avid papist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + papist + theism = human rights atrocities

Why does this question terrify you so much TBD?