Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[The Big Dog]

Ya, it's an ad hominem that wasn't one. Like i said.

Hans:

You have no idea what an ad hominem fallacy is, and this shows it:

Didn't say it was your fault, did I? Didn't even mention religion.

which: hilarious.

Signed

The Big Dog

 

[abaddon]

Whataboutism (whatabout tanzania folks!) and tu quoque fallacies.

Does it rebut my posts about China. You know it doesn't.

Is is a fallacious ad hominem?

You know it!

Is that the best they got?

It appears so.

sad?

Sad!

Dunno. Your church is supporting the chinese and aids in africa. Difficult to see anything moral in that, not least it's supporters.

Why do you support such nonsense?

 

[Aridas]

All communism needed in China was enough weapons and ammo to go around in Mao's camp to kill their opponents - and it's that simple.

His famous quote "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" came from 1927. I've yet to find any quotes from Mao on the necessity of using atheism instead of a weapon to get where he wanted to go.

It may be worth noting that I'm not in agreement with Marx on any necessity of atheism with regards to communism. It's likely also worth pointing out that communism and communist states are dramatically different things. The atheistic communism that The Big Dog wants to present as indicative of atheists is inevitably that of communist states, and One Party rule by nearly anyone invites abuse and power-hungry authoritarians.

 

[David Mo]

/by the way, the fact that the Chinese Concentration camps have been expanded has been described not just in a post linked in this thread, but in major media outlets throughout the world, including to cite another example, the wall street jouyrnal today. But the human rights apologists post sneering sarcasm instead...

When I want to know something, I prefer don't use pamphlets and go to impartial and reliable sources. In formal documents.
Human Rights Watch says "about a million" and Amnesty International says it is impossible to have an exact figure. Amnesty International, which is more serious, cites the sources of Muslim refugees, who, logically, tend to exaggerate. Then the international press inflates the figures and you say what comes to your mind, which is usually nonsense.

That there is a very serious problem with human rights in China nobody doubts it. But making ultra Catholic propaganda with him is a way to muddy him more. And I don't like los bailes de números because they take away seriousness of the issue.

 

[GDon]

You make it more complicated and confuse the issue. What is this materialism over idealism tosh?

'Materialism' is 'a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress' (according to Merriam-Webster).

'Idealism' is what some atheists do when they promote materialism.

If/when rational thought triumphs over theism the whole World will be a better place.

Would it be fair to say that your criticism about what the Chinese Communist government is doing is about means rather than ends?

 

[Aridas]

'Materialism' is 'a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress' (according to Merriam-Webster).

'Idealism' is what some atheists do when they promote materialism.

Under which definition of Idealism?

Would it be fair to say that your criticism about what the Chinese Communist government is doing is about means rather than ends?

To preempt Thor 2 a bit... the criticism would be regarding both. The Chinese Communist government isn't particularly promoting rational thought, after all.

 

[GDon]

Under which definition of Idealism?

Idealism: 'the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence' (Merriam Webster).

To preempt Thor 2 a bit... the criticism would be regarding both. The Chinese Communist government isn't particularly promoting rational thought, after all.

Hmmm... Take the education camps holding the Uighers, for example: according to the New York Times, as many as two million have been forced to submit to re-education. What rational thought should the Chinese Communist government be promoting? (Again, 'ends' rather than 'means')

 

[dann]

If China got rid of all religions, so that atheism triumphs over theism, science over superstition, and materialism over idealism: would China be a much better place? Is that an end worth striving for? (Assume they do it through wide-spread education rather than banning outright.)

Yes, it would be a better place, and yes, it's an end worth striving for.

You make it more complicated and confuse the issue. What is this materialism over idealism tosh?

If/when rational thought triumphs over theism the whole World will be a better place.

I agree. (Had to happen sooner or later. ) Except that if rational thought triumphs over theism, it will be because the world has become a better place, one in which people no longer feel the need for religion.

'Materialism' is 'a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress' (according to Merriam-Webster).

'Idealism' is what some atheists do when they promote materialism.

Would it be fair to say that your criticism about what the Chinese Communist government is doing is about means rather than ends?

GDon picks one of the definitions of materialism - and it's not the one that you would usually think of in the context of social or political philosophy, which would be:

Definition of materialism
1a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)
scientific materialism
b : a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress
c : a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused — compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISMmaterialism noun (Merriam-Webster)

If the current leaders of China were materialists in the sense of the c definiton, they wouldn't be trying to ban (certain kinds of) religion. That is actually an idealistic approach to religion and superstition.

Instead, they could have used the materialistic approach and tried to find out what religion is and where it comes from, which they could have learned by reading the first page or two of Karl Marx's Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

The Chinese leaders have chosen the idealistic, top-down approach (corresponding more or less to Merriam-Webster's definition 2a(2) by trying to ban religion instead of improving the living conditions of the Chinese:
'I, the ruler, decide that people should stop being religious. I don't need to know why they are religious and try to remove the cause of religion, i.e. the miserable circumstances of their lives. I simply tell them to stop, and if they don't, I punish them.'

(By the way, Hegel says that when an idealist is opposed, he sooner or later responds with violence. The behaviour of the Chinese leaders is a good case in point: 'We don't want people to be religious, we tell them not to be religious, and when they don't obey, we punish them.'
Who cares why they're religious, right?!)

So the leaders of China may be atheists, but they are also idealists.
Marx was an atheist and a materialist, but many people who call themselves historical materialists are actually idealists like the ones in China.

The Cuban approach to religion has been very different, and they seem to be much more aware of how the real world works: In the 1960s and '70s, they were hard-core atheists, but at the same time they primarily tried to improve people's living conditions - and managed to do so to a very large extent: jobs, education and health care for everybody. But when conditions worsened in the 1990s, they seemed to accept that in those circumstances it would be quixotic, i.e. idealistic, to try to ban or suppressreligion. There were more important things to fight.
Their approach to prostitution was very similar: They managed to purge the whorehouse of the USA in the 1960s and ´70s - not by punishing the prostitutes, but by retraining and educating them and providing them with meaningful jobs and thus an income. The UN recognized that prostitution had been abolished in Cuba.
But it was to return in the 1990s with a vengeance ...

 

[dann]

Hmmm... Take the education camps holding the Uighers, for example: according to the New York Times, as many as two million have been forced to submit to re-education. What rational thought should the Chinese Communist government be promoting? (Again, 'ends' rather than 'means')

Concentration camps aren't usually centres of higher learning. In the case of the 'education camps', my guess is that they are simply trying to train (for lack of a better word) the Uighers to be Chinese nationalists. I can imagine that they are also trying to make it appear to be rational in contrast to the irrational religion, but I can't imagine that it is much more than idealistic nationalism.
The need for the opium of the people usually increases in a concentration camp ...

 

[GDon]

Concentration camps aren't usually centres of higher learning. In the case of the 'education camps', my guess is that they are simply trying to train (for lack of a better word) the Uighers to be Chinese nationalists. I can imagine that they are also trying to make it appear to be rational in contrast to the irrational religion, but I can't imagine that it is much more than idealistic nationalism.

Again, that's 'means' rather than 'ends'. I think we all agree that the means being used are problematic. But are their stated ends -- atheism over theism, science over superstition, and materialism over idealism -- good (dare I say 'ideal') ones?

 

[dann]

That would depend on the means, so in this case I would say no. Improving the living conditions of the Chinese (and the Uighers etc.) seems to be neither the means nor the purpose. The purpose seems to be to MCGA, i.e. nationalism, and for that purpose you don't need a people that's happy, healthy and content. You need subordinates who obey you and not some other power, real or imaginary.
The Chinese leaders don't seem to favor atheism because religion is a sign of your unhappiness and discontent and may lead to bad decisions. (And as we've already seen, they are quite content with the right kind of religion, the one that isn't suspected of leading to opposition to their rule.)

 

[The Big Dog]

When I want to know something, I prefer don't use pamphlets and go to impartial and reliable sources. In formal documents.
Human Rights Watch says "about a million" and Amnesty International says it is impossible to have an exact figure. Amnesty International, which is more serious, cites the sources of Muslim refugees, who, logically, tend to exaggerate. Then the international press inflates the figures and you say what comes to your mind, which is usually nonsense.

That there is a very serious problem with human rights in China nobody doubts it. But making ultra Catholic propaganda with him is a way to muddy him more. And I don't like los bailes de números because they take away seriousness of the issue.

It is amazing that you managed to type that without actually addressing the actual article that was not posted by me. I mean you literally hand waved it away all in the defense of your insipid sarcastic post.

Amazing

 

[David Mo]

It is amazing that you managed to type that without actually addressing the actual article that was not posted by me. I mean you literally hand waved it away all in the defense of your insipid sarcastic post.

Amazing

You lie or have an awful memory. You have repeatedly assumed the figures of one million, more than two million, two millions and a few millions. Do you want I give you the exact references?
What is amazing is your habit to deny what you have done.

 

[The Big Dog]

You lie or have an awful memory. You have repeatedly assumed the figures of one million, more than two million, two millions and a few millions. Do you want I give you the exact references?
What is amazing is your habit to deny what you have done.

Spectacularly frivolous post, again.

Another poster linked an article that showed the latest, most up to date, analysis,which showed that the atheist cult leaders in China have EXPANDED their pogrom.

These figures and links supporting them have been supplied time after time.

“An estimated two million Uighurs and other Muslims have been rounded up and detained in these camps where they are forced to undergo patriotic training and “de-extremification”, according to witnesses and human rights groups.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11...chinas-network-of-re-education-camps/10432924

There it is the same link again, which I expect you will ignore. Or perhaps you will also accuse them of lying?

Gaze upon what passes for skepticism among human rights abuses apologists: you are teh lie!

What an embarrassment.

 

[Aridas]

Idealism: 'the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence' (Merriam Webster).

So, not a definition that validly can be used in the "materialism vs idealism" that you suggested. The valid one for that would be the second category.

2a(1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena

(2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason

b(1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real

(2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

Was this conflation an unintentional mistake or an intentional setup for a gotcha?

Hmmm... Take the education camps holding the Uighers, for example: according to the New York Times, as many as two million have been forced to submit to re-education. What rational thought should the Chinese Communist government be promoting? (Again, 'ends' rather than 'means')

What do you think the "re-education" that they're doing is in the first place is? Of special note, what is its intended purpose?

The purpose is to further control the population and generally strengthen the power, hard and soft, exerted by the government and the methods certainly reflect that.

As for what rational thought should they be promoting? It's a little bit more annoying to answer that, given that I didn't invoke the term in the first place, but merely noted that what they're actually promoting is distinctly different than rational thought, so your question is a bit off. The question wouldn't be what the Chinese Communist government should be promoting, it would be what all governments should be promoting, given the end goals in question. Rational thinking is better understood as a distinctly superior means to get to the ends I pointed out compared to what it was opposed to, rather than the real end, regardless. I'm a bit tired, at the moment, and don't feel like going further into that tangent right now, though.

 

[Thor 2]

'Materialism' is 'a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress' (according to Merriam-Webster).

'Idealism' is what some atheists do when they promote materialism.

This is only in your perception. Atheism essentially has nothing to do with materialism in that sense so why throw it in there.

Would it be fair to say that your criticism about what the Chinese Communist government is doing is about means rather than ends?

Leave the Chinese government out of it. I am making a general comment about mankind being better off once we leave all the woo behind.

 

[The Big Dog]

Unyielding Marxist Atheists attack church, injure infant.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...-police-christians-churches-religion-news/amp

Oh well, I hear religion is “woo” so maybe this is a good thing and the outrageous human rights abuses of religious are a good thing.

 

[GDon]

This is only in your perception. Atheism essentially has nothing to do with materialism in that sense so why throw it in there.

C'mon. Do you think that atheists are levitating above the rest of humanity, as paragons of rationality? Are you are not at least curious about how some might build off atheism (like "materialism vs idealism" and "science vs superstition") to influence political realities?

Leave the Chinese government out of it. I am making a general comment about mankind being better off once we leave all the woo behind.

"Leave the Chinese government out of it"? So the Chinese Communist party members are not REAL atheists?

I think this thread highlights the dangers of "woo" being defined as just "what theists do". Why people on this thread don't just admit that atheism can lead to its own streams of woo (like "Atheism +") and leave it at that, I don't know. I'm a theist. Lots of woo in theism. But maybe no woo in atheism?

 

[GDon]

So, not a definition that validly can be used in the "materialism vs idealism" that you suggested. The valid one for that would be the second category.

Was this conflation an unintentional mistake or an intentional setup for a gotcha?

I'm not sure what you mean. When the Chinese Communist government sees the battle as "materialism vs idealism", implying that materialism is preferable over idealism (similarly with "atheism over theism"), how do you think they define those terms? And do you agree with them?

 

[Aridas]

C'mon. Do you think that atheists are levitating above the rest of humanity, as paragons of rationality?

Of course not.

Are you are not at least curious about how some might build off atheism (like "materialism vs idealism" and "science vs superstition") to influence political realities?

You seem deeply confused about the nature of atheism, among other things. The kind of confusion that makes it difficult to figure out where one would need to start to clear it up.

"Leave the Chinese government out of it"? So the Chinese Communist party members are not REAL atheists?

Are you intentionally twisting what was said into something that would be nonsensical in context or is this just you demonstrating your deep confusion again?

I think this thread highlights the dangers of "woo" being defined as just "what theists do".

Luckily, it isn't defined like that! So, quite seriously, why did you even suggest that it was?

Why people on this thread don't just admit that atheism can lead to its own streams of woo (like "Atheism +") and leave it at that, I don't know.

Because atheism fundamentally cannot lead to much of anything, by its nature. Atheism is a descriptor of the absence of a particular belief. Nothing more. It can very certainly be a part of all kinds of more comprehensive philosophies, world views, and ideologies, of course, both ones that are good and ones that are bad. Atheism isn't good or bad in and of itself, and nor is an atheist inherently either good or bad. The same applies to theism, incidentally. Far more pertinent criteria tend to be used to determine good or bad. To compare, when Christianity and Islam are criticized for supporting violence or harmful behaviors, that they're theistic has nothing to do with any valid criticisms. The very closest to criticism of theism is along the lines of the fact that there are that many people who invoke fallacies as they try to claim things as proof that their preferred god is real.

I'm a theist. Lots of woo in theism.

There's lots of woo pushed by religions. Do you dispute this? Going further, theism is inherently a positive claim, but one that has not been shown to be validly supportable despite so much effort being put into doing so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, of course, but quite sets the stage for woo and invites woo, especially when humans are hardwired to seek agency and like explanations that invoke such even when none is in evidence.

But maybe no woo in atheism?

Atheists are not even remotely immune to woo, of course. It's hard to say that atheism itself involves woo, though, much as that's inherently a triviality.

I'm not sure what you mean. When the Chinese Communist government sees the battle as "materialism vs idealism", implying that materialism is preferable over idealism (similarly with "atheism over theism"), how do you think they define those terms?

Likely, they're using them in the standard and valid way for the terms in that context, unlike you were.

And do you agree with them?

You do like posing vague trap questions, eh? Either that, or your confusion really is incredible. This question should have already been far more than answered by the previous statements that have been made, though. There are elements of truth in what they claim, regardless. Convincing propaganda tends to require elements of truth to be believable, after all.