Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[arthwollipot]

query, we know that you said that my post was more appalling than, for example putting a million human beings in Chinese atheist reeducation camps, but I have been wondering if there is a scale for that?

I did not say that. You are lying again.

 

[David Mo]

I did not say that. You are lying again.

It is his method to make impossible a rational debate. Since he has not many ideas he repeat them till exhaustion. Your exhaustion, of course. He is a broken record and never ceases to repeat the same notes.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, it is. But the idea that you think that this is characteristic of atheism rather than an activity of the totalitarian government of China is even more appalling.

I did not say that. You are lying again.

Yeah, actually you did.

The fact that you might have not bothered to read the article linked in the OP is no excuse.

Hell, the title of the thread includes the phrases "destroy churches" and "attack the faithful" yet you posted that it was, what was it???

Ah yes "even more appalling"... "that you think that this is characteristic of atheism."

Much worse then than destroying churches, attacking faithful, putting at least a million people in atheist reeducation camps.

How many holocausts would you say that "thinking that this is characteristic of atheism" is?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Currently, only China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam are officially atheist.

Strange then, given the contention that atheist governments inevitably lead to oppression of religions, that both Cuba and Vietnam enjoy good levels of religious freedom, taking into consideration the totalitarian nature of their respective governments.

 

[David Mo]

The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia. Currently, only China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam are officially atheist.

If atheism is the main cause of repression in China, one cannot understand that other officially atheist countries like Vietnam and Cuba -- which assume to be communist, like China -- barely have restrictions on the practice of religions.
You yourself cite the data that goes against your thesis.

ADDED: I have not seen the above comment by Cosmic Yak. Consequently I insist.

 

[David Mo]

In Spain general Franco killed about twenty priests and imprisoned about two hundred. Was he an “Unyielding Communist Atheist”? See yourselves:

What do you think, GDon?

 

[GDon]

I agree: put in the head of children absurd ideas and fears before they can think the things by themselves is an abuse.

Exactly, and wouldn't you be against such abuse? Imagine a politically powerful group of like minded people -- wouldn't they try to do something to stop that abuse?

Now, atheism is not defined as "telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse", but it is easy to speculate that there is a line between those two ideas. We can look at history to imagine what might happen if a country declared itself to be an atheist state.

If atheism is the main cause of repression in China, one cannot understand that other officially atheist countries like Vietnam and Cuba -- which assume to be communist, like China -- barely have restrictions on the practice of religions.
You yourself cite the data that goes against your thesis.

I have never said that atheism is the "main cause" of repression, simply that metaphysical implications within atheism leads to repression of religion and free-thought. History arguably supports that lesson.

Here is what the article says about Cuba:

Until 1992,[84] Cuba was officially an atheist state...[8][85]

Originally more tolerant of religion, the Cuban government began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools after the Bay of Pigs invasion. Its prisons were being filled with clergy since the 1960s.[87] In 1961 The Cuban government confiscated Catholic schools, including the Jesuit school that Fidel Castro had attended. In 1965 it exiled two hundred priests.[88]

In 1976 the Constitution of Cuba added a clause stating that the "socialist state...bases its activity on, and educates the people in, the scientific materialist concept of the universe". In 1992, the Dissolution of the Soviet Union led the country to declare itself a secular state...​

So, originally more tolerant of religion, Cuba began to crack down [might one add 'almost inevitably'?] on religions, until it declared itself a secular state. Similar to what happened in the Soviet Union. How is that against my hypothesis?

As for Vietnam: where did you get your information from? Here is the Human Rights Watch non-profit group: Vietnam: Sharp Backsliding on Religious Freedom

There are lots of articles of Vietnam cracking down on religious groups, especially Buddhists and Catholics.

While of course there are political aspects to this, I suggest that it may well be inevitable for an atheist state to take on the idea that religions should be restricted and eventually eliminated, much like some atheists like yourself and Dr Dawkins believe that telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse, and then acting on that idea when given sufficient political power.

 

[GDon]

In Spain general Franco killed about twenty priests and imprisoned about two hundred. Was he an “Unyielding Communist Atheist”? See yourselves:

What do you think, GDon?

I'm thinking 'how is this relevant?'

Do you think my argument is that only atheist states kill priests and crack down on religions? Quote me please, if you do.

Religious states would tend to want to crack-down on religions for the same reasons I am proposing for atheist states: metaphysical ideals driving political actions. It's not that atheist states are different, it is that they are no better.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

I have never said that atheism is the "main cause" of repression, simply that metaphysical implications within atheism leads to repression of religion and free-thought. History arguably supports that lesson.
....

There are no universal implications within atheism, because atheism is not as such a single metaphysical standpoint.
So here: simply that metaphysical implications within religion leads to killing of humans. History arguably supports that lesson.

Neither is true in the strong sense. So stop claiming that.

 

[GDon]

There are no universal implications within atheism, because atheism is not as such a single metaphysical standpoint.

I'm not saying there are universal implications within atheism, nor claiming that atheism is a single metaphysical standpoint.

One could claim that their atheism just refers to a lack of belief in gods or God, and there are no metaphysical/philosophical implications. That is fine. But equally one can be an atheist based on metaphysical naturalism, and so draw implications from that. When a government declares itself an atheist state, then one wonders how much that plays into their attack on religions, especially when the atheist state declares that it is in a struggle between atheism and theism.

Neither is true in the strong sense. So stop claiming that.

I don't know why you are putting qualifiers on my views: 'strong', 'universal', 'single'. It is a bad habit to get into, since it leads to strawmanning and talking past each other.

 

[Aridas]

I have never said that atheism is the "main cause" of repression, simply that metaphysical implications within atheism leads to repression of religion and free-thought. History arguably supports that lesson.

Again, you seem to be trying to ignore the simple fact that atheism isn't even remotely a metaphysical framework and is fundamentally incapable of producing the implications that you're trying to attribute to it. In contrast, there's far, far more information of use related to the repression of alternative beliefs to be found when it comes to looking at what kinds of governments would choose to pointedly declare themselves atheist states in the still quite religious world of today and why.

Of course, if your heart's set on wasting time trying to make and support anti-atheism propaganda by making up some absurdly circumstantial and half-assed case that depends on invoking anti-atheist biases and ignorance to cover up how bad its flaws are, it's unlikely that we can stop you. We're under no compulsion to be supportive of such crappy logic, though.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
One could claim that their atheism just refers to a lack of belief in gods or God, and there are no metaphysical/philosophical implications. That is fine. But equally one can be an atheist based on metaphysical naturalism, and so draw implications from that. ...

No, let me show you.
A is B, therefore ...
Atheism is methodological naturalism, therefore ...

Nothing follows from atheism as such and atheism is not just metaphysical naturalism. You don't have to use metaphysical naturalism, you can do it without metaphysics.
So you are again front-loading what atheism is.
Some people use religion as a reason to oppress other humans, therefore religion is EVIL!
Some people use atheism as a reason to oppress other humans, therefore religion is EVIL!
I reject both.

 

[Aridas]

But equally one can be an atheist based on metaphysical naturalism, and so draw implications from that.

In which case, it would be improper to call what you're talking about "atheism." Much like it's improper to try to talk about special traits of Sikhism as if they applied to all of theism. With that said, I'll repeat yet again, metaphysical naturalism is far more comprehensive than atheism when it comes to making a world view, but there's still the is-ought problem in play there. Metaphysical naturalism deals with how things are, not how we should act and what we should value. Thus, there are no implications that can validly be derived from it that would support pretty much any behavior. At least in that case, though, there's more "meat" to grab onto when it comes to forming beliefs about what's likely to be true, though, which could be more realistically part of clashing beliefs.

When a government declares itself an atheist state, then one wonders how much that plays into their attack on religions, especially when the atheist state declares that it is in a struggle between atheism and theism.

When a person keeps trying to turn the focus away from the quite clear big picture to a little spot near a corner in that big picture and tries to assign a very special and unevidenced significance to it that would make it the focus of the picture, one might wonder what their real goal is, since it's quite clearly not to understand the big picture and the place that the little spot has in that picture.

 

[GDon]

Nothing follows from atheism as such and atheism is not just metaphysical naturalism. You don't have to use metaphysical naturalism, you can do it without metaphysics.

Yes you can. Not my point.

So you are again front-loading what atheism is.
Some people use religion as a reason to oppress other humans, therefore religion is EVIL!
Some people use atheism as a reason to oppress other humans, therefore religion is EVIL!
I reject both.

Okay. Me too.

 

[GDon]

Metaphysical naturalism deals with how things are, not how we should act and what we should value. Thus, there are no implications that can validly be derived from it that would support pretty much any behavior.

There are whole books written about what metaphysical naturalists should do. See moral naturalism for example.

Looks like people are talking past my point. I'll make this my last post on this thread. Thanks everyone for your time!

 

[David Mo]

Exactly, and wouldn't you be against such abuse? Imagine a politically powerful group of like minded people -- wouldn't they try to do something to stop that abuse?

Now, atheism is not defined as "telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse", but it is easy to speculate that there is a line between those two ideas. We can look at history to imagine what might happen if a country declared itself to be an atheist state.

You can speculate all you want. My solution is a public and secular school. I don’t think you will say that it is aggressive.

I have never said that atheism is the "main cause" of repression, simply that metaphysical implications within atheism leads to repression of religion and free-thought. History arguably supports that lesson.

This is your personal speculation.

Here is what the article says about Cuba:

Until 1992,[84] Cuba was officially an atheist state...[8][85]

Originally more tolerant of religion, the Cuban government began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools after the Bay of Pigs invasion. Its prisons were being filled with clergy since the 1960s.[87] In 1961 The Cuban government confiscated Catholic schools, including the Jesuit school that Fidel Castro had attended. In 1965 it exiled two hundred priests.[88]

In 1976 the Constitution of Cuba added a clause stating that the "socialist state...bases its activity on, and educates the people in, the scientific materialist concept of the universe". In 1992, the Dissolution of the Soviet Union led the country to declare itself a secular state...​

So, originally more tolerant of religion, Cuba began to crack down [might one add 'almost inevitably'?] on religions, until it declared itself a secular state. Similar to what happened in the Soviet Union. How is that against my hypothesis?

As for Vietnam: where did you get your information from? Here is the Human Rights Watch non-profit group: Vietnam: Sharp Backsliding on Religious Freedom

There are lots of articles of Vietnam cracking down on religious groups, especially Buddhists and Catholics.

While of course there are political aspects to this, I suggest that it may well be inevitable for an atheist state to take on the idea that religions should be restricted and eventually eliminated, much like some atheists like yourself and Dr Dawkins believe that telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse, and then acting on that idea when given sufficient political power.

You continue sticked to Wikipedia. You can see its inconsistence here. It is claimed that the state begins to be tolerant with secularization. But at the same time it is stated that the same atheist state was more or less tolerant. Why? The Wikipedia article says nothing. It is obvious that the mention to Bahía Cochinos implies that these oscillations were due to political causes and not to Fidel Castro and other leaders' atheism that was ever the same.

You speculate that persecution of a religious group necessarily implies atheism. Franco's case shows you how an ultra-Catholic regime can shoot Catholic priests because they defended political ideas different from the dictator. And with the help of the Catholic Church for more incoherence!

Be that as it may, you cannot deny that atheist states like Vietnam or Cuba do not behave in the same way as China or Stalin with religions. Therefore, you cannot deduce the attacks against China's clandestine churches from atheism. It lacks the main element.

That's what history teaches when you're well-informed and don't stick to your particular speculations and Wikipedia.

What about religious ideologies and churches? Are they totalitarian in themselves?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, actually you did.

The fact that you might have not bothered to read the article linked in the OP is no excuse.

Hell, the title of the thread includes the phrases "destroy churches" and "attack the faithful" yet you posted that it was, what was it???

Ah yes "even more appalling"... "that you think that this is characteristic of atheism."

Much worse then than destroying churches, attacking faithful, putting at least a million people in atheist reeducation camps.

How many holocausts would you say that "thinking that this is characteristic of atheism" is?

TBD, your claim about atheism is just a very little turd on top of the dung heap of atrocities. But it still smells that you want to use these events to further your personal agenda.

To allege that it means the remark is actually worse than the atrocity can only come from a megalomaniac. Or a liar.

Hans

 

[David Mo]

What about religious ideologies and churches? Are they totalitarian in themselves?

Atheism lacks an element of intolerance that religions have in abundance: the divine mandate. Any Catholic who wants to oppose a Catholic dictatorship, such as General Franco's, must turn to the sources of his belief, the Bible. Then he will have a hard time, because the Bible itself is a source of intolerance. To emancipate himself from this annoying condition, he will have to make a thousand illogical contortions and finally resort to his own common sense, if he has one.

The atheist does not have this hindrance. If he resorts to a higher authority, it must be Reason, but, in principle, Reason is a common good for all humanity. Authoritarianism can happen, but it is a contradiction in itself and must make infinite logical contortions in order to justify itself.

I do not doubt that there can be a dogmatic atheism. But against its own principles. This is not the case with religions.

 

[The Big Dog]

TBD, your claim about atheism is just a very little turd on top of the dung heap of atrocities. But it still smells that you want to use these events to further your personal agenda.

To allege that it means the remark is actually worse than the atrocity can only come from a megalomaniac. Or a liar.

Hans

Yet those are the words that were written, as I have already shown.

And it is proven that Unyielding Marxist Atheists are leading these atrocities to promulgate their dung heap of atrocities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, we must that people quite literally, of course. So watch what you write.

No, nothing is proven about their belief system. Only about their rhetoric.

But worry not. We can live with small turds.

Hans