Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

I ever do love atheist conspiracy theories.

Yes atheist are trying to take over the world all... like 10 of us. We're going to overpower the 900 trillion Catholics in the American Bible Belt.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I ever do love atheist conspiracy theories.

Yes atheist are trying to take over the world all... like 10 of us. We're going to overpower the 900 trillion Catholics in the American Bible Belt.
Click to expand...

fascinating post really, there is so much wrong jam packed into that post and those final two sentences in particular, it is really quite remarkable....

fascinating
 
The Big Dog said:
fascinating post really, there is so much wrong jam packed into that post and those final two sentences in particular, it is really quite remarkable....

fascinating
Click to expand...

Your criticism is just... devastating. No really I'm shattered. This is my serious face. Just look at how serious it is.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Your criticism is just... devastating. No really I'm shattered. This is my serious face. Just look at how serious it is.
Click to expand...

Well, where does one begin?

The fact that at least one million people are in camps is a "conspiracy theory"

That there are like "ten" atheists

that Catholics make up the Bible belt

It is like you just sprayed a handful of feces cliches against the wall hoping some would stick.

fascinating.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well I'm sure I'll be the first one against the wall when your revolution comes.
Click to expand...

Actually, as explained above, when the revolution actually came in countries run by Unyielding Marxist Atheists, usually it the religious clergy who were among the first ones against the wall. You might want to look it up before, you know, posting metaphorical claims that you are being persecuted because someone had the temerity to challenge one of your posts.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually, as explained above, when the revolution actually came in countries run by Unyielding Marxist Atheists, usually it the religious clergy who were among the first ones against the wall. You might want to look it up before, you know, posting metaphorical claims that you are being persecuted because someone had the temerity to challenge one of your posts.
Click to expand...

I saw your link. It's devastating how badly Christians have abused human rights.

What can we do to stop them?
 
The Big Dog said:
TBD asks: So now the question is: what are we to do about [human rights abuse in China]?

atheists answer: bitterly complain about TBD.

So it goes.
Click to expand...

That is a rather broad brush, those who choose to go down the rabbit hole with you do not represent atheists

There are many approaches taken by atheists who do not choose to chase you through the warren
 
What's the problem with Catholics being persecuted? The Catholic Crutch loves martyrs. You get a free lifetime -- sorry, deathtime -- pass to heaven if you're killed by a protestant or Jew or atheist or whatever. Sainthood comes later, in many cases, and that's flat out deification!

So jolly good, bang on, China.

Hope I'm being fascinating.
 
sackett said:
What's the problem with Catholics being persecuted? The Catholic Crutch loves martyrs. You get a free lifetime -- sorry, deathtime -- pass to heaven if you're killed by a protestant or Jew or atheist or whatever. Sainthood comes later, in many cases, and that's flat out deification!

So jolly good, bang on, China.

Hope I'm being fascinating.
Click to expand...

No.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually, as explained above, when the revolution actually came in countries run by Unyielding Marxist Atheists, usually it the religious clergy who were among the first ones against the wall.
Click to expand...
The Big Dog, you seem to be the only unbiased person on this thread wanting to deal in facts!

I was thinking of Richard Dawkins saying in an interview that "telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse", and that Islam is "one of the great evils in the world." Both of those ideas would be at home in the 're-education' camps in China.

If a group of like-minded people attained political power, you'd expect them to want to eliminate child abuse and great evils, however they defined those things to be.

Fortunately the Western world has secular governments rather than officially atheist ones like in China and the old Soviet Union. Do you think that any officially atheist government inevitably leads to repression of religion and free thought (at least when it comes to religion)?
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
Fortunately the Western world has secular governments
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am a firm proponent of secular government, myself.

GDon said:
rather than officially atheist ones like in China and the old Soviet Union. Do you think that any officially atheist government inevitably leads to repression of religion and free thought (at least when it comes to religion)?
Click to expand...

A better question to ask first would be... what kinds of governments have an official religious stance in the first place and why? That can easily be asked alongside the question of whether governments with an official religious stance inevitably engage in the repression of religion (other religions and religious stances) and free thought?

The answers to those two questions combined will give a pretty clear picture, quite frankly. So, I'll reverse things a bit for you. Do you think that an officially Christian government inevitably leads to the repression of religion and free thought?
 
Aridas said:
So, I'll reverse things a bit for you. Do you think that an officially Christian government inevitably leads to the repression of religion and free thought?
Click to expand...
No, the lessons from history suggest not. From the Wiki article on "Christian states":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_state

Today, several nations officially identify themselves as Christian states or have state churches, including Argentina,[8] Costa Rica,[9] Denmark,[10] England,[11] Faroe Islands,[12] Greece,[13] Greenland,[14] Iceland,[15] Liechtenstein,[16] Malta,[17] Monaco,[18] Norway,[19] Samoa,[20] Tonga,[21] Tuvalu,[22] Vatican City,[23] and Zambia.[24] A Christian state stands in contrast to a secular state,[25] an atheist state,[26] or another religious state, such as a Jewish state,[27] or an Islamic state.[28]​

The article notes that many Christian states have turned secular. Since this has been done without revolution in many cases, it suggests that Christian states allowed themselves to change and adopt secular values for those states.

In the article under "State atheism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism is the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems...

The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia. Currently, only China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam are officially atheist.​

Since the old Soviet Union moved from communism to the new Russian government, religious freedom has increased, suggesting that moving away from state atheism results in more religious freedom.
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
The Big Dog, you seem to be the only unbiased person on this thread wanting to deal in facts!

I was thinking of Richard Dawkins saying in an interview that "telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse", and that Islam is "one of the great evils in the world." Both of those ideas would be at home in the 're-education' camps in China.

If a group of like-minded people attained political power, you'd expect them to want to eliminate child abuse and great evils, however they defined those things to be.
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying here any fact. We are denying Big Dog's obtuse Christian propaganda and his unjustified attack against atheism as the main responsible of political repression in China. You are in the same line.

For example: your matching Dawkings and Chinese government is aberrant. This is because your theist propaganda roots in the unjustifiable assumption that any strong criticism against religion implies political repression. This is masked religious propaganda.

Democracy is the recognition that our enemies ideas have the same rights as ours. Chinese government's problem is not that they have ideas but that they are not democrats. And you? Is your strong criticism against Dawkings a menacing of a camp of internment for atheists if yours come to power?
 
GDon said:
No, the lessons from history suggest not. From the Wiki article on "Christian states":
(...)

The article notes that many Christian states have turned secular. Since this has been done without revolution in many cases, it suggests that Christian states allowed themselves to change and adopt secular values for those states.

In the article under "State atheism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism is the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems...

The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia. Currently, only China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam are officially atheist.​

Since the old Soviet Union moved from communism to the new Russian government, religious freedom has increased, suggesting that moving away from state atheism results in more religious freedom.
Click to expand...

If you want to denounce the terrible situation of unofficial religions in China, nobody here is going to contradict you. In spite of what your "objective" friend repeats maniacally.

If you mean that this is due to atheism, as your "objective" friend, we will not agree. If you want to say the same you have to explain the links that according to your "objective" friend exist between atheism and repression. And don't say that Dawkings is very radical. Forgive me for saying this is nonsensical.

And I don't know what a non-communist atheistic government would do. I personally don't like the idea because it involves mixing atheism and politics. The only examples we have in that sense are those of communist countries, which have never been a model of many things. Not because they were atheists, but authoritarian.

I believe that the concept to be defended is that of a secular state.
 
Last edited:
GDon said:
I was thinking of Richard Dawkins saying in an interview that "telling children they belong to a religion is child abuse", and that Islam is "one of the great evils in the world." Both of those ideas would be at home in the 're-education' camps in China.
Click to expand...

I agree: put in the head of children absurd ideas and fears before they can think the things by themselves is an abuse. Imagine that I terrorize my child from an early age with the idea that if he touches his penis he will be a pervert all his life and his blood will rot. Isn't this an abuse?
 
GDon said:
No, the lessons from history suggest not.
Click to expand...

If this is true, then a country holding an official religious stance does not inevitably lead to repression of religion and free thought. The next question that would proceed from there, then, is why such actually happens.

With said, though, I think that you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions, if you're actually trying to use the ensuing arguments. I'll deal with them more directly, though.

GDon said:
From the Wiki article on "Christian states":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_state

Today, several nations officially identify themselves as Christian states or have state churches, including Argentina,[8] Costa Rica,[9] Denmark,[10] England,[11] Faroe Islands,[12] Greece,[13] Greenland,[14] Iceland,[15] Liechtenstein,[16] Malta,[17] Monaco,[18] Norway,[19] Samoa,[20] Tonga,[21] Tuvalu,[22] Vatican City,[23] and Zambia.[24] A Christian state stands in contrast to a secular state,[25] an atheist state,[26] or another religious state, such as a Jewish state,[27] or an Islamic state.[28]​

The article notes that many Christian states have turned secular. Since this has been done without revolution in many cases, it suggests that Christian states allowed themselves to change and adopt secular values for those states.
Click to expand...

There are a couple things that are worth touching on here. First, that article doesn't deal at all with the repression of religion or free thought in the first place, thus, it is of tangential value, at best, to what's in question there. The articles on, for example, religious persecution would likely be of more use. For example -
The tendency of societies or groups within society to alienate or repress different subcultures is a recurrent theme in human history. Moreover, because a person's religion often determines to a significant extent his or her morality, worldview, self-image, attitudes towards others, and overall personal identity, religious differences can be significant cultural, personal, and social factors.

Religious persecution may be triggered by religious bigotry (i.e. members of a dominant group denigrating religions other than their own) or by the state when it views a particular religious group as a threat to its interests or security. At a societal level, this dehumanisation of a particular religious group may readily turn into violence or other forms of persecution. Indeed, in many countries, religious persecution has resulted in so much violence that it is considered a human rights problem.
Click to expand...
With that said, at last check, religious tolerance and Christianity only really started becoming at all related after a number of outright wars between Protestants and Catholics. The 30 Years War, especially. Second, your reasoning here is very, very flimsy and dodges addressing the reasoning for why the states that changed to secular states did so in the first place. Third, this line of argument gives the impression that you want to quietly narrow what kinds of repression of religion and free thought that you're talking about to some of the more extreme forms and ignore the many rather common and less extreme ways that governments that have official religious views tend to support that view to the expense of other views. Fourth, it may be worth noting that atheist China actually did go out of their way to peacefully change their constitution to include provisions for religious freedom, which has helped the situation there, though more before the 6-10 Office and Xi. Thus, China would qualify as an example of an atheist state that did exactly what you're talking about, albeit under a notably more authoritarian government model than an actual democracy.


GDon said:
In the article under "State atheism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism is the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems...

The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia. Currently, only China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam are officially atheist.​
Click to expand...

Bolding mine, of course. That phrase, alone, should tip you off, very clearly, that they're not dealing with any possible officially atheist government here. They're dealing with governments that were rather repressive by design. That atheism was chosen as a state religion to be enforced was fairly certainly a political move to limit or eliminate the power that religious groups (among the rest of the ideologies being repressed) could bring to bear, rather than any real ideological consensus. If we deal with China, specifically, of course, there's a very, very long history there of the leadership repressing religion and free thought that is not in line with the leadership's desires.

GDon said:
Since the old Soviet Union moved from communism to the new Russian government, religious freedom has increased, suggesting that moving away from state atheism results in more religious freedom.
Click to expand...

While true, this serves as an extremely limited data point, especially given the actual nature of the old Soviet Union's "commitment" to atheism. Reasonable analogies could easily be made to a number of countries that strongly endorsed a state religion and eventually moved away from them in light of the general population becoming unhappy at the religious persecution that they were seeing.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Since the old Soviet Union moved from communism to the new Russian government, religious freedom has increased, suggesting that moving away from state atheism results in more religious freedom.
Click to expand...

And that freedom only really exists for the Russian Orthodox Church as a function of nationalism and therefore state power under Vladimir Putin. The effect this has on groups in society likes Gays and Lesbians, Muslims and Jews etc. is not positive. Sometimes religious "toleration" only goes so far.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom