Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[MRC_Hans]

Actually the important thing in this thread is that they have put 1 million people in camps and restricted the human rights of 90 million others.

... Ah, but I know this is way too complicated, way over the head of your simple accusing other posters of trolling agenda. But if you are ready for some surprises, read a few human rights abuse reports China. Perhaps visit the country and speak to the people that they have locked up in camps.

Be careful of the tanks!

I don't defend the abuses. But I have visited the country. About forty times. I have spoken to the people.

About trolling agenda: Just paraphrasing my posts is way below your standard. I'm disappointed.

Hans

 

[Hellbound]

"Official Black Hutu extremists massacre children in Rwanda.

And the concern is with the Official Black Hutu extremists!"


Yep. Bigotry.

Actually, TBD's argument is more in line with:
"Official Black Hutu extremists massacre children in Rwanda.
Blacks promote genocide!"

Using the correct phrasing makes the bigotry obvious.

Our argument is more specifically:
Official Atheist CCP cracks down on religious minorities.

And the concern is with generalizing the actions of a minority to all atheists!

 

[The Big Dog]

Funny how that works. Having your fly open draws the "your fly is open" card. Vomiting on the couch draws the "you vomited on the couch" card. Bigotry draws the bigotry card. Go figure

"Official Black Hutu extremists massacre children in Rwanda.

And the concern is with the Official Black Hutu extremists!"


Yep. Bigotry.

This is EXACTLY the type of post that is like magic to me. I barely have to argue, because our correspondents make arguments that are so incredibly flawed that they reveal the strength behind the things i have been explaining.

Lets take a look! Our correspondent declares "Official Black Hutu extremists massacre children in Rwanda" is "bigotry" against "Official Black Hutu extremists" because why? Are those descriptions inaccurate? No.

But the kicker, the real kicker, the thing that should make any skeptic shake their head in sorrow?

Our correspondent is making the "Official Black Hutu extremists" the victims and diminishing the "massacre of children in Rwanda."

This is EXACTLY what i pointed out earlier, but it never occurred to me that someone would post something so awesomely terrible in its scope and demonstrative impact! It is like a gift from heaven.

So, please continue to cast yourselves as the real victims here, atheists.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, please continue to cast yourselves as the real victims here, atheists.

You are too modest, Sir!

 

[jimbob]

Look, TBD, we get it. We understand that you view the existence of atheism as a personal attack on you and your worldview, and on the God you say you worship and revere. It's not. The cited incidents are an attack on innocent people by a totalitarian government, not an attack on Christians by atheists.

Are you worried that we scary atheists are going to completely wipe out your church and kill your god? Not going to happen. You can't claim to be a persecuted minority when you're in a majority across the world. We should be more worried about you. After all, there are many, many more documented examples of religious people attacking and forcefully converting people to their religion than there are of atheists forcibly deconverting the religious.
We should be more scared of you than you are of us.

The highlighted - and those that have occurred have tended to be members of regimes that were officially atheist, but were attempting to substitute a rigid ideology in place of religion, and with very similar features. Stalinism being the most obvious example.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I am glad that you were able to put together such an impressive strawman so quickly, particularly given that I did not accuse anyone of being horrific, AND I cited "arguments" from numerous different posters and you topped it off with a sniff and a

"it kinda falls into the rest of your world view quite nicely."

Which hat tip for that little snarky cherry on what was a spectacularly fallacious 'argument."

So, we're both glad.

 

[Myriad]

This is EXACTLY the type of post that is like magic to me. I barely have to argue, because our correspondents make arguments that are so incredibly flawed that they reveal the strength behind the things i have been explaining.

Lets take a look! Our correspondent declares "Official Black Hutu extremists massacre children in Rwanda" is "bigotry" against "Official Black Hutu extremists" because why? Are those descriptions inaccurate? No.

But the kicker, the real kicker, the thing that should make any skeptic shake their head in sorrow?

Our correspondent is making the "Official Black Hutu extremists" the victims and diminishing the "massacre of children in Rwanda."

This is EXACTLY what i pointed out earlier, but it never occurred to me that someone would post something so awesomely terrible in its scope and demonstrative impact! It is like a gift from heaven.

So, please continue to cast yourselves as the real victims here, atheists.

Your failure to understand why it's bigotry, whether real or pretended, doesn't reduce the bigotry one iota.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your failure to understand why it's bigotry, whether real or pretended, doesn't reduce the bigotry one iota.

Your spectacularly uniformed and indefensible accusation of bigotry diminishes the real issue the actual human rights violations by a considerable margin.

Atheists are not victims here, will never be the victims here, and I have suggested that they really stop trying to make that happen.

 

[halleyscomet]

Your failure to understand why it's bigotry, whether real or pretended, doesn't reduce the bigotry one iota.

Oh, I think he understood. He’s just rejecting ideas that don’t fit his narrative.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Atheists are not victims here, will never be the victims here, and I have suggested that they really stop trying to make that happen.

Atheists are the target of your hate, in spite of the important story you chose to hide it. An important story you have suggested nothing in order to right its wrongs.

 

[The Big Dog]

Although it is a nice contrast to see false claims of bigotry in a thread loaded with anti-religious attacks and actual bigotry.

 

[Rincewind]

Seriously - what did you really think was going to happen here?

 

[Crossbow]

Although it is a nice contrast to see false claims of bigotry in a thread loaded with anti-religious attacks and actual bigotry.

If and when there ever comes a day when you actually do give a hoot in hell about your fellow man, then please be so kind as to make sure to let the rest of know about such a remarkable event.

 

[halleyscomet]

Seriously - what did you really think was going to happen here?

Psst. He’s getting exactly what he wants.

 

[The Big Dog]

Seriously - what did you really think was going to happen here?

For atheists to discuss the actual pogrom without humiliating themselves by casting themselves as the victims

 

[Lambchops]

Psst. He’s getting exactly what he wants.

Yep. He actually believes that he is making some sort of clever point here, and that now, everyone will see just how dishonest and monstruous all atheists are.
And then they will all turn to the true Catholic faith, I suppose?

It's pretty fascinating really.

 

[sylvan8798]

I've stopped spinning.

 

[dann]

(sp?)

illiteracy

 

[David Mo]

that is not the real question, not all, in fact that detracts from the real question: which is how can we effectively stop this actual on going human rights abuses.

In your case I would speak to your lord to bless China as he did Norway. So China would be a secular and tolerant country.
As I believe that this system does not work I would do other things.
To begin with, dismantle fanatical speeches like yours, which hide under the cloak of democracy and human rights when you don't give anything but ultra-conservative fundamentalism.
I would also draw attention to other monstrosities occurring in the world. This shows that China is nothing but a smokescreen that ultra-conservatives like you use to hide your own monstrosities. A glance at pages like Amnesty International's is indispensable in this regard.
Finally, an understanding of history - the true, not the sacred history you intend to endorse - is useful in understanding the causes of human monstrosities.
From here on, what you decide is your responsibility. In any case, it would not be the subject of a forum on philosophy, but rather on politics and socialism

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes, you should have.

here is what the responses should have been:

Yes, that is appalling.

Or maybe

While I do not agree with your characterization of state atheism, I absolutely agree it is appalling.

Instead, the race to the bottom started in the very next post, suggesting that my post was more appalling in comparison to actual human rights abuses, to hate speech, to so many atheists playing the victim that the number of them who nailed themselves to the cross made Calvary look like a tea party.

But as "appalling" as the attacks on the poor atheists? Nope.

You see, as soon as one start saying my posts are hate speech, or that the Chinese have done good things, or whatabout the Aztecs, or whatabout the catholics, etc etc etc... you are in fact contradicting the lip service that the abuses was appalling.

More really good advice from TBD

"The Human rights abuses are appalling, but" NO. STOP! THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THAT YOU SHOULD WRITE HERE "even worse is TBD's" (massive trainwreck follows)

Like this, you mean? Like the numerous times I did just that, and you completely ignored it? You are a funny bunny, aren't you?

Before I go any further, I would like to unequivocally condemn all human rights abuses, including those committed by atheists.


Can I mention at this stage that I unequivocally condemn all human rights abuses, including those by atheists? Just so we're clear.



Firstly, in case there is any confusion, I want to state for the record that I condemn absolutely all human rights abuses, even those by atheists. In case I wasn't clear.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the highlighted parts of my post. I fail to see how my use of the words 'abuses', 'oppression' and 'persecution' could be construed as support.


I care because I am opposed to all human rights abuses: not sure if I've mentioned that yet.







PS: I unequivocally condemn and oppose all human rights abuses, even those committed by atheists. Did I forget to mention that?

Did I mention that I unequivocally condemn all human rights abuses, even those by atheists? TDB seems so sure that no-one has ever said this that I'm beginning to doubt it myself.
Or not.

Bump for The Big Dog. Hi TBD!! Yoohoo! Can you hear us?

Religions will be controlled, not outlawed. If you disagree, please show anything in this or your other links, that says that religions will be outlawed. These are the actions of a ruthless autocracy trying to tighten its grip on its people.
This is a process that I condemn, as I condemn all human rights abuses, even those by atheists.
I note that you have gone quiet on the 'no atheists are condemning this' front. Perhaps, out of a sense of Christian charity and humility, you could go so far as to openly acknowledge that, at least in my case, you were wrong.
WWJD, TDB?