Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

dann said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously you cannot be wrong in your interpretation of Squeegee's anecdote, so it must be my stubborn refusal to interpret words the way they were obviously meant. I suppose I was being to charitable by ascribing it to people being separated by a common language.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...


No, it's not very different. Usually wars in the name of national security are also based on weapons of mass deception: fictious attacks, false flag operations and other lies. I have no beef with your quarrel with TBD.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Yes, obviously you cannot be wrong in your interpretation of Squeegee's anecdote, so it must be my stubborn refusal to interpret words the way they were obviously meant. I suppose I was being to charitable by ascribing it to people being separated by a common language.
Click to expand...


No, at least you're right about that: I'm not wrong when I point out that the sentence I've referred to and quoted several times by now is a contradiction in adjecto.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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.

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


No, I'm not imposing any meaning other than what the words mean: an atheist fearing the wrath of God is a God-fearing believer, not an atheist, but may have been one at a certain point in time.
You ignore the posts from people who have no difficulty seeing this.
So far I haven't ignored anything you said.
 
dann said:
No, at least you're right about that: I'm not wrong when I point out that the sentence I've referred to and quoted several times by now is a contradiction in adjecto.
Click to expand...

I suppose we can add lack of familiarity with sarcasm to the list. Keep going, I'm sure you can convince Squeegee and everyone else that his grandfather was a "God fearing believer" as you now put it. Don't let your past failure to convince anyone hold you back, I'm sure that you can do it if you make more unsupported and uninformed claims!
 
dann said:
No, I'm not imposing any meaning other than what the words mean: an atheist fearing the wrath of God is a God-fearing believer, not an atheist, but may have been one at a certain point in time.
You ignore the posts from people who have no difficulty seeing this.
So far I haven't ignored anything you said.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
The wheels on the bus go round and round

Authoritarians like control and tend to engage is human rights abuses regardless of religious affiliation or lack there of.
 
Dancing David said:
The wheels on the bus go round and round

Authoritarians like control and tend to engage is human rights abuses regardless of religious affiliation or lack there of.
Click to expand...

The wheels on the bus go round and round

Atheist Authoritarians like control and tend to engage in anti-religious human rights abuses.
 
Return to the topic of the thread. The thread is not the other posters, their grandfathers, any nightmares posters are having, or any of that.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...

The problem there is the assumption that everyone is inhumanly certain of everything. Thus theists are certain of some god and atheists are certain of no god.

This is, of course, a false position. Experiencing some level of uncertainty and doubt is simply part of the human condition, particularly at EOL.

It is both entirely understandable and also partly universal. Plenty of both atheists and theists experience that when they are EOL. The theist asks "what if there is no god?" and conversely, the atheist asks "what if there is a god?" It cuts both ways. And plenty never ask at all from either side. It doesn't demonstrate a darn thing either way.

Personally, if I die and it turns out that there is a god of some description, I will be judging him, the ****, rather than the other way around.
 
The Big Dog said:
The wheels on the bus go round and round

Atheist Authoritarians like control and tend to engage in anti-religious human rights abuses.
Click to expand...

You seem to focus on the specific case, which is the topic of your thread.
There is general case of authoritarians engaging is human rights abuses regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation.

There are authoritarians that are secular, and those that are religious.

They engage in human rights abuses, Russia colludes with the Russian Orthodox Church , the Saudi use their religion for cover, as does the Myanmar government, Duterte of the Philippines seems to engage in secular repression, on a co equal basis to anyone that threatens his authority. This also seems to be true of local and state Mexican governments and police departments.

Without making a long post it seems that long list of religious and secular authoritarians can be made. I don't know if the two column would meaningfully outweigh the other.
 
Hmmm, I'm sure I haven't seen all the posts, but it as far as I can tell no churches were destroyed, and no faithful were denied the ability to attend church. Since that was the topic of this thread, I don't see what is left to discuss.
 
dann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tangentially... it may be worth adding something like some statistics about Muslim views on suicide bombings against civilian targets specifically to defend Islam, as a side note. Those other 1.8 billion Muslims aren't even remotely 100% against attacks like that, after all, though the numbers do vary significantly from place to place. Chances are decent that the numbers for the Muslims in China will rise, regardless, as persecution continues.
 
The Big Dog said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/world/asia/china-church-dynamite.html

1 million muslims in camps
Click to expand...
Your link does not appear to support your quote.

However it does say this:
Under President Xi Jinping, the government has destroyed churches or removed their steeples and crosses as part of a campaign that reflects the Communist Party’s longstanding fear that Christianity, viewed as a Western philosophy, is a threat to the party’s authority.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose it's possible you can see that the operative words there are "threat" and "authority"?

As for the "one million Muslims", they are actually Uighurs and it is the Uighur region being controlled. Why? Because...
in a region where this religion is categorically associated with subversion, separatism and terrorism
Click to expand...
Which is something the authoritarians in the Chinese Communist Party won't allow. Not atheists, authoritarians.

This is much the same as if a couple of million US citizens decided that they are going to secede from the Union over some civil rights or other they fervently believe in that the rest of the country abhors. They want to set up their own government and country instead. Who knows! That would probably be allowed in the USA, land of religious freedom. Oh wait... That happened, didn't it. How did things turn out?
 
Norman Alexander said:
As for the "one million Muslims", they are actually Uighurs and it is the Uighur region being controlled. Why? Because...
Which is something the authoritarians in the Chinese Communist Party won't allow. Not atheists, authoritarians.
Click to expand...

Uighurs are Muslims. here is a discussion of that part of the human rights abuse from the Muslim perspective.

China holds one million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps

The world's next major human disaster is in the making in China. This time, we should act before it's too late.

By the way, the claim that "in a region where this religion is categorically associated with subversion, separatism and terrorism" is the position of the Chinese in order to falsely justify human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing.

And people wonder why I use the phrase human rights abuse apologists...
 
Aridas said:
Tangentially... it may be worth adding something like some statistics about Muslim views on suicide bombings against civilian targets specifically to defend Islam, as a side note. Those other 1.8 billion Muslims aren't even remotely 100% against attacks like that, after all, though the numbers do vary significantly from place to place. Chances are decent that the numbers for the Muslims in China will rise, regardless, as persecution continues.
Click to expand...


Yes interesting chart Aridas and you beat me to it. I was going to look up some stats on this subject as I recall a survey taken in Egypt not long ago, showing an alarming percentage of Egyptians supporting the violent actions of the few.

Dann no doubt will dismiss this however.:boxedin:
 
The Big Dog said:
Checks in: avid atheist human rights abuse apologists are mostly spending their time attacking the messenger.

unyielding + marxist + atheism = human rights atrocities
Click to expand...
Actually, atheists are spending time bickering with each other because your premise is so thoroughly debunked that no-one is bothering with it any more.

Who would have thought that atheists can't agree on something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom