Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[lionking]

Oh no, you see i just used the same reasoning supplied by someone else to destroy their arguments. I know you will not agree or certainly not conjure up a good counterpoint.

It is fine. Someday maybe?

Another extremely problematic word. Many would call it a lie.

 

[Aridas]

Yes, "pick and choose" does mean one specific thing. If I tell you that the grass is purple, context does not allow me to claim that in this case purple means green.

To make that example more accurate when it comes to what you're doing, we'll say that dann claimed that "grass is purple." Your objection that he's wrong would be along the lines of "grass isn't royal purple," which, while it may be true, isn't actually a valid counter because it doesn't address what was being claimed.

When dann claimed people "pick and choose" what to believe, given the inherent unthinking whimsical nature of the phrase "pick and choose",

Interesting assertion. I just googled "pick and choose" for the fun of it. I came up with lots of different definitions and descriptions of the phrase, none of which invoked whimsy. A number of them specifically required it to be done thoughtfully, too, for that matter. I find your assertion to be outright false on inspection.

I'm responding to what dann actually said. That is all I can go on. You are interpreting his phrase to be the exact opposite of its actual meaning, and claiming that I'm jumping to unwarranted conclusions when I don't do the same.

When your premises are not in line with reality or normal usage, it's no surprise that your conclusions aren't, either.

Of course you would consider it to be wrong for me to ascribe dann's claim to him, as long as you take the opposite of what he said as what he actually meant. Here, let me show you where he claimed I was limiting the conversation to fundamentalist Christians,

In response to you making claims that apply well to fundamentalist Christians and much less so to other kinds of Christians, and you specifically referring to Christians in what he was responding to? I'm not impressed with your reading comprehension here. That wasn't limiting anything. You made a claim about your credentials regarding how well you understand Christianity. He addressed that claim in that post. That's not claiming that you were limiting the conversation to fundamentalist Christianity.

as well as to where you did.

The appropriate interpretation of what I said there is "believers that are quite deep down the rabbit-hole, so to speak, and give excessive respect to authority." I pointedly did not say "Christians," in fair part because doesn't only apply to Christians. Muslims serve as a very easy example of another major religion that has quite a few people that would fall into that, for reference.

I suppose that our discourse is not going to be fruitful, given your propensity for interpreting some phrases to mean their opposite in order to make them not wrong.

Perhaps. If you're set on assuming falsehoods that quite aren't in evidence or that the available evidence directly contradicts, that does quite limit what progress can be made.

 

[dann]

I admire your patience and persistence, Aridas!

 

[Aridas]

I don't know what non-religious theists you're talking about. I do not know if they are many or few. It would be better for you to be a little more precise.

Here's... a couple peeks into that. Those are indeed specifically for the US, in this case, but that's mostly for ease. Either way, this was referred to a bit earlier in the thread.

If you are referring to Buddhism, I don't think the main brancehes of Buddhism are not religious. Regarding the Buddhist gods you can consult Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities . As far as I know, the fundamental currents of Buddhism are organized around monasteries, rites and priests. This is what I have seen in Tibet, Nepal, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cambodia and others. Perhaps you only consider certain ideas of Western Buddhism that are rather abstract. You could say what you are thinking more concretely. That would make easier the debate.

Hmm. Secular Buddhism is a bit more recent than I had been under the impression that it was. There's also a wikipedia page on Nontheistic religions that would serve as a decent start to that topic for you, likely.

You are not reflecting the debate correctly.

In the post that you quoted to respond to there, TBD was not claiming that that article was evidence that atheism was at fault. Therefore, your point that that article didn't invoke atheism was meaningless from the start.

If you have more reasons than the Big Dog has given, perhaps you could contribute them and we could have a rational debate, instead of reading Big Dogs's repetitive psalmody. It would be a relax for our eyes.

You didn't finish reading what I said, did you? I do not support TBD's attempts to assign the blame to atheism here.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your wishful thinking and trying to ignore important factors in play is as prominent as ever. There are important elements of Christianity that motivate believers to try to spread the religion. There are no important elements of atheism that motivate atheists to spread atheism.

Except for the desire felt by some but not all atheists for religious people to stop believing in and spreading the false and harmful doctrines of religion. But that's a matter for individual atheists rather than something inherent to atheism itself.

 

[jimbob]

Oh no, you see i just used the same reasoning supplied by someone else to destroy their arguments. I know you will not agree or certainly not conjure up a good counterpoint.

It is fine. Someday maybe?

If you really think that, then you are being particularly stupid. I pointed out that the Chinese regime is suppressing potential dissent (including non-compliant religions) because it is authoritarian, not because it is atheist.

You went off on one about the Crusades - which was such a non-sequitur that I didn't bother to reply to it. It made no sense in the context of a reply.

You might call that victory, but if I am being generous, that is a very eccentric interpretation.

Once more.

Religious doctrine has often mandated the suppression of differing views. Authoritarian regimes aim to suppress differing views.
Totalitarian regimes aim for total control and involve either a state religion, or a replacement for religion.

Some authoritarian regimes have been religious. Some have not.
Some religions have allowed differing views. Many have not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your wishful thinking and trying to ignore important factors in play is as prominent as ever. There are important elements of Christianity that motivate believers to try to spread the religion and suppress other beliefs. There are no important elements of atheism that motivate atheists to spread atheism or suppress other beliefs.


Thank you!

Yet authoritarian atheist regimes attack religion with a fanatic consistency.

As shown.

As this thread is all about.

Seems anti religion is the element of atheism that our apologists wish to ignore.

As shown, again.

 

[David Mo]

And the Crusades were because the rulers in Europe were authoritarian too right? I mean, right? Just using your thinking here.

authoritarian and atheist are not mutually exclusive, I have explained this a dozen times. In fact authoritarian is the condition on which they use to exploit their enmity toward religious and religious faith.

You didn't explain anything. You proclaimed. Why not in reverse? Attack to religions is a way to consolidate the personal and party power. Demonstration: Chinese government only attacks "clandestine" religions. Yesterday I have seen a documentary about the cult of ancestors in front of the Imperial Palace. It was promoted by local authorities and it was crowded. Chinese government has no problem with that popular religion because it is "Chinese". What the guideline is, atheism or nationalism?

The Crusades were launched to the cry of "Dieu le veult" and the re-conquest of the "Holy Land" for Christianity. Just use your intelligence here.

We are not discussing here whether religion is an ideology of power. Of course it is. All ideology reflects power relations. We are discussing whether religion or atheism is the direct ideological cause of a form of power. Use your intelligence here.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you really think that, then you are being particularly stupid. I pointed out that the Chinese regime is suppressing potential dissent (including non-compliant religions) because it is authoritarian, not because it is atheist.

We have been pointing that out for 32 pages of this thread, but it hasn't made much impact. TBD is too consumed by his anti-atheist ideology to be capable of attributing suppression of religion to anything else.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you really think that, then you are being particularly stupid. I pointed out that the Chinese regime is suppressing potential dissent (including non-compliant religions) because it is authoritarian, not because it is atheist.

You went off on one about the Crusades - which was such a non-sequitur that I didn't bother to reply to it. It made no sense in the context of a reply.

You might call that victory, but if I am being generous, that is a very eccentric interpretation.

Once more.

Religious doctrine has often mandated the suppression of differing views. Authoritarian regimes aim to suppress differing views.
Totalitarian regimes aim for total control and involve either a state religion, or a replacement for religion.

Some authoritarian regimes have been religious. Some have not.
Some religions have allowed differing views. Many have not.

Some authoritarian regimes are religious

Say, folks, maybe authoritarian isn’t the key in explaining why this and other atheist regimes are anti religious.

Oh dear... maybe the big dog has proven again the point. Perhaps this anti religious pogrom has to do with:

Atheism!

I am delighted that our apologists are finally getting a glimmer of understanding!

Fantastic.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yet authoritarian atheist regimes attack religion with a fanatic consistency.

As shown.

As this thread is all about.

Seems anti religion is the element of atheism that our apologists wish to ignore.

As shown, again.

Once again I repeat. I am not anti-religion. I bend over backwards to accommodate religion. I am anti-lies and specifically in this thread I am anti YOUR lies - the ones you continue to repeat about human rights abuses perpetrated by the tyrannical authoritarian Chinese government.

 

[The Big Dog]

We have been pointing that out for 32 pages of this thread, but it hasn't made much impact. TBD is too consumed by his anti-atheist ideology to be capable of attributing suppression of religion to anything else.

And perhaps our atheist bretheran have been so devoted to protecting their pet ideology that they are missing the obvious.

Authoritarian + atheist = anti religious suppression.

 

[arthwollipot]

Some authoritarian regimes are religious

Say, folks, maybe authoritarian isn’t the key in explaining why this and other atheist regimes are anti religious.

Oh dear... maybe the big dog has proven again the point. Perhaps this anti religious pogrom has to do with:

Atheism!

I am delighted that our apologists are finally getting a glimmer of understanding!

Fantastic.

Did the Catholic regime's anti-Protestant authoritarianism derive from atheism too? What about the Israeli regime's anti-Palestinian authoritarianism?

History is littered with intolerant religious regimes suppressing other religious groups. I suppose all of those were because of atheism.

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is? What am I saying? Of course you don't.

 

[The Big Dog]

Once again I repeat. I am not anti-religion. I bend over backwards to accommodate religion. I am anti-lies and specifically in this thread I am anti YOUR lies - the ones you continue to repeat about human rights abuses perpetrated by the tyrannical authoritarian Chinese government.

Too bad the atheist comrades in China are not so accommodating.

Perhaps one should take a moment to focus on those atrocities?

 

[The Big Dog]

Did the Catholic regime's anti-Protestant authoritarianism derive from atheism too? What about the Israeli regime's anti-Palestinian authoritarianism?

History is littered with intolerant religious regimes suppressing other religious groups. I suppose all of those were because of atheism.

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is? What am I saying? Of course you don't.

What a silly, silly claim. It is not I who have been claiming that the on going pogrom is because of authoritarianism. We are now talking about an intolerant atheist regime suppressing all religions. You literally just made the very point I have been patiently explaining. Well done.

I get that you will deny this, of course, and it is fine.

 

[arthwollipot]

And perhaps our atheist bretheran have been so devoted to protecting their pet ideology that they are missing the obvious.

Authoritarian + atheist = anti religious suppression.

Authoritarian + Catholic = anti Protestant suppression.

Authoritarian + Jewish = anti Muslim suppression.

Authoritarian + Confucianism = anti Taoist suppression.

History is littered with authoritarian regimes cracking down on religious groups they don't like. Not all were atheist. The common factor - the only common factor - is totalitarian authoritarianism.

 

[arthwollipot]

What a silly, silly claim. It is not I who have been claiming that the on going pogrom is because of authoritarianism.

That's right. You've been misattributing it to atheism when in fact it is because of authoritarianism. You have misunderstood and misrepresented the Chinese government policy of sinicisation of religion.

We are now talking about an intolerant atheist regime suppressing all religions. You literally just made the very point I have been patiently explaining. Well done.

I get that you will deny this, of course, and it is fine.

I literally just remembered why I resolved not to respond to your vicious and hateful lies any more.

 

[arthwollipot]

Too bad the atheist comrades in China are not so accommodating.

Perhaps one should take a moment to focus on those atrocities?

As I said before. If you had wanted to make a thread about atrocities, you could have done that. Instead, you chose to make one about atheism. That's on you. You did that.

 

[jimbob]

And perhaps our atheist bretheran have been so devoted to protecting their pet ideology that they are missing the obvious.

Authoritarian + atheist = anti religious suppression.

Authoritarian + atheist = anti religious suppression.

Authoritarian + religious = anti religious suppression of all but the approved religion.

The key is the authoritarianism.

Tolerant + atheist = religious tolerance
Tolerant + religious = religious tolerance

 

[David Mo]

Here's... a couple peeks into that. Those are indeed specifically for the US, in this case, but that's mostly for ease. Either way, this was referred to a bit earlier in the thread.

Hmm. Secular Buddhism is a bit more recent than I had been under the impression that it was. There's also a wikipedia page on Nontheistic religions that would serve as a decent start to that topic for you, likely.

In the post that you quoted to respond to there, TBD was not claiming that that article was evidence that atheism was at fault. Therefore, your point that that article didn't invoke atheism was meaningless from the start.

You didn't finish reading what I said, did you? I do not support TBD's attempts to assign the blame to atheism here.

Well, it seems we agree in the basic points.

Your link about religion detachment in US is interesting, but it doesn’t shed light about the total rate of deists (or non religious theists) in Western countries. I suppose we should look for in the inquests about “believers in some Spiritual Force” or similar. I imagine that the number of this kind of believers is not high.
In any case, my opposition to this kind of believers is substantially lesser than to religious people. “Spiritualism” seems to me an erroneous ideology but much less dangerous that submission to a church.

NOTE: I don't know what particular post of the Big Dog you are referring. In any case, it was important to highlight that even the articles provided by him doesn't mention atheism as a cause of attacks against churches in China. Or only in a circumstantial manner. And his references to "reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch" in this sense were simply false.