Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

abaddon said:
Ah, yes, see the whole concept of "lying for jebus" is an actual thing. It is a policy. The lying itself, while a sin, is obviated by the sudden rescue of some lost soul.

This works, of course, right up to the point that the rescuees get so browned off that they actively oppose the rescuer because nobody is going to like an idiot. The rescuer then rationalises this by thinking that the victim just didn't see the supernatural glow of jebus through all of the hateful bigotry they propound. This poses a problem. Was it the hateful bigotry? They then conclude that this is not possible and proceed to double down, all the while being unable to figure out what it is about jebus and their faith that is so obnoxious.

This is not new. I see such actors here and elsewhere on other fora. It is scummy, I will grant you.
Click to expand...

And it is worth pointing out that there are plenty of devout Christians who manage to be sincere and honest in their arguments and behaviour. I happen to disagree with them but I can respect their views and how they justify them.
 
:slp:

Huh?... Oh, I see the air balls continue.

Someone seems still not to notice, btw, how "Christianity" (cough) in the US is allied to the growing white supremacy movement; one of same tone, language and inspiration as the, OMG... atheist Nazis. That's only possible if, golly, the part one is warming up to is the Nazism, as embracing atheism would be deadly contradiction even for these hearty souls of, oh, say, "holy discourse."

Now, Nazism is fine, as in embracing that one merely acquiesces to the "power and wealth" part of Satan's purported temptation of Jesus -- the true calling for a people whose consistent behavior, whose fruit, is that of Golden Calf worshipers wearing Christian fleece so they can, well, fleece gleefully. How expedient and wise! An example to all aspiring blaggards.

...and making the proposition defended herein all the more transparently borne of malice.
 
It struck me how much alike the arguments of the atheist apologists are to holocaust denial, lip service to the actual event, while desperately trying to diminish the true scope of the atrocities, to wit:

"To be sure, on a global scale the human rights abuses in China (and everywhere else they happen) are an abomination. But witnessing someone exploit those abuses to further their personal agenda is, in the context of this forum, an double abomination."

Ya see folks, the holocaust was bad, but not as bad as posts on the internet.

Another example is that holocaust deniers always try to change the subject, for example if one is an American, they say things like what about Native Americans? Just like we have seen repeatedly in this thread, and while I do not wish to pick on one poster:

You keep picking on the holocaust, but what about Tudor England?

It is much easier to see how poor the apologists arguments are when one realizes that the style of arguments are just borrowed from holocaust denial.

anti-religious Chinese Human Rights abuse deniers.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
:slp:

Huh?... Oh, I see the air balls continue.

Someone seems still not to notice, btw, how "Christianity" (cough) in the US is allied to the growing white supremacy movement; one of same tone, language and inspiration as the, OMG... atheist Nazis. That's only possible if, golly, the part one is warming up to is the Nazism, as embracing atheism would be deadly contradiction even for these hearty souls of, oh, say, "holy discourse."

Now, Nazism is fine, as in embracing that one merely acquiesces to the "power and wealth" part of Satan's purported temptation of Jesus -- the true calling for a people whose consistent behavior, whose fruit, is that of Golden Calf worshipers wearing Christian fleece so they can, well, fleece gleefully. How expedient and wise! An example to all aspiring blaggards.

...and making the proposition defended herein all the more transparently borne of malice.
Click to expand...



Nutjobs.jpg

Worth pointing out that the woman on the left later admitted to cheating on her husband with a Tea Party leader.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
Truly breathtaking dishonesty. It is quite obvious that I was referring to your own post, about there being an internet crackdown on every single religious person in China. Not only was this obvious from the beginning, I have repeatedly pointed this out to you in subsequent posts. There is no possibility of you being honestly mistaken here.
Click to expand...

Lets break that down, Deniers:

My claim:

"Good morning folks, while one can claim that they condemn human rights abuses, when one cites to actual Chinese propaganda attempting to justify the atrocities, one’s acts speak louder than any big red font."

The "rebuttal":

"Truly breathtaking dishonesty. It is quite obvious that I was referring to your own post, about there being an internet crackdown on every single religious person in China"

It starts out with a personal attack, but did you notice what was missing? Any attempt to rebut or even address the fact that our correspondent was using actual Chinese propaganda sources or to support the ridiculous assertion that I was dishonest!!

Bit surprised that I had to point this out to the Deniers, it is that obvious.
 
The Big Dog said:
It struck me how much alike the arguments of the atheist apologists are to holocaust denial, lip service to the actual event, while desperately trying to diminish the true scope of the atrocities, to wit:

"To be sure, on a global scale the human rights abuses in China (and everywhere else they happen) are an abomination. But witnessing someone exploit those abuses to further their personal agenda is, in the context of this forum, an double abomination."
Click to expand...

How exactly does that in any way diminish the scope of the atrocities?

What is an atheist apologist?

Hans
 
jimbob said:
View attachment 39086

Worth pointing out that the woman on the left later admitted to cheating on her husband with a Tea Party leader.
Click to expand...

"worth" pointing out for the sole purpose of diverting and therefore denying anti-religious Chinese Human Rights abuse.

Someone seems still not to notice, btw, how "atheism" in China is allied to the growing anti-religious Chinese Human Rights abuse.

(this post will shortly be declared a double abomination, but no Denier will criticize a post claiming the US Christians are "Nazis" because of course)
 
MRC_Hans said:
How exactly does that in any way diminish the scope of the atrocities?

What is an atheist apologist?

Hans
Click to expand...

Oh as I have pointed out, by claiming that completely innocuous things like accurate posts on the internet are at least twice as bad.
 
MRC_Hans said:
How does that make the atrocities less bad?

Hans
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? I did not say that it makes the abuses “less bad” in fact even a second’s thought would make that absolutely clear. What I said was that comparing actual abuse to utterly frivolous things like posts on the internet is an attempt to diminish the scope and importance of the event.

Hey Abuse in China is bad, but not as bad as TBD’s posts.

What a disenegenuous question.
 
Here we see the typical antics of the internet troll. Always bending statements with no regard for the truth:


The Big Dog:
It struck me how much alike the arguments of the atheist apologists are to holocaust denial, lip service to the actual event, while desperately trying to diminish the true scope of the atrocities, to wit:
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans:
How exactly does that in any way diminish the scope of the atrocities?
Click to expand...

The Big Dog:
Oh as I have pointed out, by claiming that completely innocuous things like accurate posts on the internet are at least twice as bad.
Click to expand...

Notice the allegation that 'bad' is somehow a fixed quantity, thus trying to claim that the extra abuse by misusing the situation to further a personal agenda makes it twice as bad (at least twice as bas, even).

Notice also how an attempt to slander atheists at large (Atheists, even) id suddenly an "innocuous and accurate" post, even after it has been systematically refuted and even after The Big Dog as acknowledged that the atheism in China is at best a concurrent factor.

MRC_Hans:
How does that make the atrocities less bad?
Click to expand...

The Big Dog:
Is that a serious question? I did not say that it makes the abuses “less bad” in fact even a second’s thought would make that absolutely clear.
Click to expand...

And:

The Big Dog:
It struck me how much alike the arguments of the atheist apologists are to holocaust denial, lip service to the actual event, while desperately trying to diminish the true scope of the atrocities, to wit:
Click to expand...

Rewind and repeat....

Hans
 
The Big Dog said:
Lets break that down, Deniers:

My claim:

"Good morning folks, while one can claim that they condemn human rights abuses, when one cites to actual Chinese propaganda attempting to justify the atrocities, one’s acts speak louder than any big red font."

The "rebuttal":

"Truly breathtaking dishonesty. It is quite obvious that I was referring to your own post, about there being an internet crackdown on every single religious person in China"

It starts out with a personal attack, but did you notice what was missing? Any attempt to rebut or even address the fact that our correspondent was using actual Chinese propaganda sources or to support the ridiculous assertion that I was dishonest!!

Bit surprised that I had to point this out to the Deniers, it is that obvious.
Click to expand...

It would help your case considerably if you would adress my actual points.

I used a Chinese government-approved website to counter your assertion that "every single religious believer in China was facing an internet crackdown". The point that pretty much everyone here except you has been making, is that the Chinese government is only cracking down on religious groups that threaten its totalitarian grip on the country. By showing that government-approved websites were not subject to a crackdown, I refuted your argument.
You then used this post to try to claim that I was trying to justify putting one million Muslims in camps.
I corrected you on several occasions previous to this latest post, when you tried to make this point. You clung to this claim despite the clear evidence you were wrong, hence my accusation of dishonesty.
All of this is well-known, and not in any dispute by anyone except you.

If you want to escape my charge of dishonesty, then all you need to do is show how I was "justifying the atrocities" by addressing a point that was not about those atrocities.

Save yourself, your soul and the reputation of your religion. We're all watching this. Go ahead.
 
A denier used an actual CCP propaganda website to counter the facts that the Chinese were cracking down on all religious people. That folks is next level denial.

Deniers do not understand that an attempt to diminish the scope and effect of abuse through disingenuous arguments does not alleviate the actual human rights abuses.

at this point, CCP human rights deniers are the fundamental equivalent of holocaust deniers.
 
Is there ever an appropriate use of whataboutism?

If someone started a thread called "Religious people slaughter the faithful," in the case of say, Sunni v. Shia (or ISIS v. everyone, Christian Hutus vs. Tutsis, etc.), would that be roughly analogous to this thread?

I know it can be a distraction, but it can also be an illustration of how fascists shut down competing ideologies in general. Not even ideology in Rwanda, just factional blood lust. I can't decide if that's whataboutism or a legitimate attempt to refute the premise that atheism in particular is a driver of discrimination.

Rwandans happen to be mostly at least nominal Christians, but religion did not drive the machete attacks (that I know of). Would it have been inaccurate to say "Christians kill 500,000 in Rwanda"? If not inaccurate, would it have been misleading? Would it be considered honest?
 
The Big Dog said:
A denier used an actual CCP propaganda website to counter the facts that the Chinese were cracking down on all religious people. That folks is next level denial.

Deniers do not understand that an attempt to diminish the scope and effect of abuse through disingenuous arguments does not alleviate the actual human rights abuses.

at this point, CCP human rights deniers are the fundamental equivalent of holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

You could keep banging that drum, or, as a radical alternative, you could adress my actual points. Up to you, You're the one that believes you have a soul that needs saving.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
You could keep banging that drum, or, as a radical alternative, you could adress my actual points. Up to you, You're the one that believes you have a soul that needs saving.
Click to expand...

Sure, you use Chinese propaganda to deny Chinese human rights abuses
 
"Official Chinese government-backed website. Note the puzzling absence of crackdown."

equals

Using Chinese propaganda to deny Chinese human rights abuses.

End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom