Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[dann]

Of course, if you want to see non-religious propaganda in action, you can always get your news from Russia Today, or Wikileaks, or Sarah Huckerby-Sanders.

I'm afraid that it's a little more complicated than that!
Now and then, what you get from RT is actually non-religious anti-propaganda:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12430706#post12430706
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12431314#post12431314

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, indeed you are being remarkably credulous.

Just as much as any religious news source you trot out. You do know that Al Jazeera is backed by the ultra-religious Qatari government, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

Of course, if you want to see non-religious propaganda in action, you can always get your news from Russia Today, or Wikileaks, or Sarah Huckerby-Sanders.

State funded does not mean propaganda, unlike the pro human rights abuse sources (and posts) that have been cited in defense of actual human rights abuses.

If you would have told me a few months ago that people on ISkep would have been actively defending human rights abuses just to support atheism I would have believed that very unlikely. Oh well, live and learn

 

[Cosmic Yak]

State funded does not mean propaganda, unlike the pro human rights abuse sources (and posts) that have been cited in defense of actual human rights abuses.

If you would have told me a few months ago that people on ISkep would have been actively defending human rights abuses just to support atheism I would have believed that very unlikely. Oh well, live and learn

Apart from your deliberately dishonest interpretation of arthwollipot's post, how many other members here do you consider are actively defending human rights abuses?

Second time of asking. Double double dare you to answer.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The Great Dog asks us to demonstrate against the violation of human rights in China. We have all done it, but he pretends not to have heard and continues with his psalmody. On the other hand, when we ask him for his opinion on this he pretends that he has not heard and goes back to his psalmody.

One sees that for him there are monsters that are not monsters depending on whether they make the sign of Cross or not.

Big Dog: this is how people here see you. You have a choice:
Either change your posting style and approach, so that you no longer seem to be a dishonest and trollish monomaniac
Or
Keep doing what you're doing, in which case you knowingly accept these conclusions. Bear in mind that your religion will be judged by your actions, and not kindly.
Ball's in your court, old bean.

 

[David Mo]

Making a note here: The Big Dog is against putting people in concentration camps. Might be relevant to some other stuff going on in the world right now.

Do you mean Guantanamo, Gaza Strip, internment camps for inmigrants in USA (children) or in Europe borders? Yes, internment camps are not specifically Chinese.

 

[The Big Dog]

Apart from your deliberately dishonest interpretation of arthwollipot's post, how many other members here do you consider are actively defending human rights abuses?

Second time of asking. Double double dare you to answer.

Double dare! Oh my, I have been double dared!

Numerous posters, including you of course.

That close enough to satisfy the double dare?

/I just got double dared on a site for “skeptics.”

 

[abaddon]

Double dare! Oh my, I have been double dared!

Numerous posters, including you of course.

That close enough to satisfy the double dare?

/I just got double dared on a site for “skeptics.”

Why are you surprised to see that, when your argument consists of nothing but slurs and pointless smileys?

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you would have told me a few months ago that people on ISkep would have been actively defending human rights abuses just to support atheism I would have believed that very unlikely. Oh well, live and learn

If someone had told me a few moths ago that you would tell a lie like this, I would not have been surprised at all.

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

If you had told me a few moths ago that you would lie about this, I would not have been surprised at all.

Hans

Clearly not lying. You did see the posts quoting actual Chinese propaganda, right?

Oh well, at this point reasonable people should consider unfounded attacks on posters criticizing the Chinese pogrom as avid support for the despicable Chinese atrocities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Clearly not lying. You did see the posts quoting actual Chinese propaganda, right?

Oh well, at this point reasonable people should consider unfounded attacks on posters criticizing the Chinese pogrom as avid support for the despicable Chinese atrocities.

Lying, misrepresenting, distorting. And you complain about Chinese propaganda. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Better read up on what your religion says about lying.

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

Clearly not lying. You did see the posts quoting actual Chinese propaganda, right?

Oh well, at this point reasonable people should consider unfounded attacks on posters criticizing the Chinese pogrom as avid support for the despicable Chinese atrocities.

Lying, misrepresenting, distorting. And you complain about Chinese propaganda. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Better read up on what your religion says about lying.

Hans

Makes a note....

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Makes a note....

Makes 5 notes and an origami swan....

 

[The Big Dog]

An update regarding the ongoing human rights atrocities in China, crosses burning, churches razed, all in the name of the godless atheist leadership in China

https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia...in-latest-religious-crackdown-20180905-h14yqs

Oh well, expect to see misplaced attacks on the big dog

 

[MRC_Hans]

An update regarding the ongoing human rights atrocities in China, crosses burning, churches razed, all in the name of the godless atheist leadership in China

https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia...in-latest-religious-crackdown-20180905-h14yqs

Oh well, expect to see misplaced attacks on the big dog

I'm for people being allowed to believe in what they want. The world is not like that, not only in China, but in many other places.

Hans

 

[Aridas]

That is so unfair, Aridas! T2 just thought he had an argument, and then you ruin it for him!

Not entirely. That such information should certainly be kept in context is certainly true, regardless. Yet, overall, it's still much more problematic for your contention that all the other Muslims are "good" people who reject terrorist behavior when it's shown that large numbers of them endorse even some of the worst of it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Apart from your deliberately dishonest interpretation of arthwollipot's post, how many other members here do you consider are actively defending human rights abuses?
Second time of asking. Double double dare you to answer.

Double dare! Oh my, I have been double dared!

Numerous posters, including you of course.
That close enough to satisfy the double dare?

/I just got double dared on a site for “skeptics.”

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?

This point has been made twice already but, as TBD is studiously ignoring it, I see no harm in raising it again.

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.

Got to admire the gall, if nothing else.
Moving on from this bare-faced and shameless lie, can you name any other of these "numerous posters"? As you are, by your own belief system, going to hell, you may as well get good value for money for the sentence of eternal suffering you have earned.

 

[The Big Dog]

Got to admire the gall, if nothing else.
Moving on from this bare-faced and shameless lie, can you name any other of these "numerous posters"? As you are, by your own belief system, going to hell, you may as well get good value for money for the sentence of eternal suffering you have earned.

Already did

 

[dann]

Not entirely. That such information should certainly be kept in context is certainly true, regardless. Yet, overall, it's still much more problematic for your contention that all the other Muslims are "good" people who reject terrorist behavior when it's shown that large numbers of them endorse even some of the worst of it.

Where did you see my alleged "contention that all the other Muslims are “good” people wh reject terrorist behaviour"?

I hope that you noticed the "question wording":

”Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

Would it surprise you that many Muslims in Middle Eastern countries consider the bombings of civilians to be an attack on Islam, and that these bombings make them think that violence against civilian targets in the enemy’s country is justified? Would it surprise you that even atheists might have similar feelings if they were subjected to similar bombings?
And where do you see the questions about what the Quran has to say about all of this? If I remember correctly, that was T2’s claim: That the Quran turned these people into homicidal hijackers of planes. I don’t think that was what the questionnaire was about, but I may have overlooked something.


(And what I remember saying originally was that 1.8 billion Muslims wouldn’t dream of flying planes into buildings and that the Quran didn’t tell them to do so. However, it doesn’t surprise me at all that some of them sympathize with people who do destroy buildings that belong to the people who bomb their countries.)

 

[Aridas]

Where did you see my alleged "contention that all the other Muslims are “good” people wh reject terrorist behaviour"?

<snipped for irrelevance to this part of the response>

(And what I remember saying originally was that 1.8 billion Muslims wouldn’t dream of flying planes into buildings and that the Quran didn’t tell them to do so. However, it doesn’t surprise me at all that some of them sympathize with people who do destroy buildings that belong to the people who bomb their countries.)

True enough. I'll retract the claim that you did say that. You simply object to letting 1.8 billion Muslim be represented by those who actually did fly planes into buildings. That, itself, is fair. Objecting to Islam being portrayed as the sole factor in such a decision is entirely fair, too. On the other hand, trying to deny Islam's influence and that some of the texts that many of them use in an authoritative manner outright condone or recommend a follower to do such a thing is just as bad as trying to belittle any other important factor in play. That the Quran doesn't specifically demand Muslims to crash planes as part of a terrorist act is completely irrelevant when a specific method to accomplish goals that it did demand wasn't stated in the first place. I'm fairly sure that Thor 2 is quite willing to admit that Islam was not the sole reason in play, regardless.

If we trace this particular discussion back, of course, it looks like it starts with you denying Islam as a factor in play at all and Thor 2 pointing out that your reasoning for denying that Islam could be a factor was... terrible. Which it was. And your rebuttal to that went off in another direction entirely.

Would it surprise you that many Muslims in Middle Eastern countries consider the bombings of civilians to be an attack on Islam, and that these bombings make them think that violence against civilian targets in the enemy’s country is justified? Would it surprise you that even atheists might have similar feelings if they were subjected to similar bombings?

Are you trying to claim that that is the only factor in play?

And where do you see the questions about what the Quran has to say about all of this? If I remember correctly, that was T2’s claim: That the Quran turned these people into homicidal hijackers of planes.

Take a moment to reread if you don't believe my earlier summation of the start of this. I didn't see anywhere where Thor 2 claimed that, on review. Feel free to point me at something that I missed though, if I did?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Double dare! Oh my, I have been double dared!

Numerous posters, including you of course.

That close enough to satisfy the double dare?

/I just got double dared on a site for “skeptics.”

Got to admire the gall, if nothing else.
Moving on from this bare-faced and shameless lie, can you name any other of these "numerous posters"? As you are, by your own belief system, going to hell, you may as well get good value for money for the sentence of eternal suffering you have earned.

Already did

I'll just leave this here. No further comment needed.