to be someone who doesn't think clearly and draws illogical conclusions on a frequent basis.

You just gave me an opportunity to clarify.

have looked to China as a positive example of the lack of religion.

Do you, perhaps, have links to some of those posts? I will go read them right away.

just so a random poster will believe I'm not straight up lying.

Believe me or not, don't care. I've seen it multiple times in the short time I've been here.

That I'm lying? Have some testicles and say it outright.

That's what.

What do testicles have to do with it? I have a couple of those, but they do not affect my posts. I type with my fingers, and think with my brain.

What an odd thing to say...

1. I'm not a blatant liar, of which there is zero evidence in my posting history. Thus it's pretty safe and reasonable to assume, ok, that happened.

2. Or I am.

The ridiculousness of expecting me to have queued up posts from weeks or months ago to satisfy your need for absolute direct evidence is pretty high.

3. I don't care one bit about this.

That one is true. You made a claim, but cannot back it up with evidence. So, never mind. This is the Religion Group, and it's full of claims from people who have no evidence to back up their claims about deities and the like. It's standard fare here.

Now your testicles thing...that was really funny. Very clever, too, in its own way, I suppose.

noted to ignore you in the future.

As Joe Pesci said:

You think I'm funny?
Funny how?
Do I make you laugh?
Do I amuse you?

It would jump out at me.

I thought it was a very odd thing to say, too. While I have those, my brain is in my head, which is where my thoughts come from. My testicles have a different function, which has nothing whatever to do with posting on DU.

People put that odd concept into words in a number of ways: Grow a pair! is one of them you see pretty often. It is terribly sexist to assume that those organs have anything to do with courage or forthrightness. Yet some people seem confused about that. Generally, it seems to be men who say such things. Perhaps they think their intelligence is stored somewhere in them.

I find it rather amusing, though. Talk about misplaced ideas about how humans function! But, odd ideas are pretty common here in this group. Ideas that really don't make much sense.

I never hear anyone tell a woman she needs a pair of ovaries, somehow. I know many courageous, assertive women. None of them have testicles, as far as I know.

We don't often see such blatant sexism as you've expressed here. It's nice to know where you stand.

this is why the left can't gain traction, because every common euphemism becomes a test of one's purity.

I have no interest in that. Call it testicles, balls, ovaries, huevos, whatever you want to call it. it all means the same thing, you know and everyone knows it, but it's a chance to tsk tsk people can't seem to avoid jumping on.

Is that it? Not a Democrat? Now I think I understand.

again you're ridiculous.

right/left spectrum?

the left struggles with gaining traction with folks who would benefit from their economic policies but are turned off by claims of sexism because someone said the word testicles.

I'm not on the right, that's for sure, and no one would think so reading any of my posts.

What was sexist was your implication that courage requires testicles. When you told me that I needed some testicles to tell you the truth, you implied that I didn't have any, so I couldn't have the courage to say what I thought. Here are your exact words:

"Have some testicles and say it outright."

In fact, testicles have nothing to do with that, or women would never be able to speak their minds. Obviously, women do speak their minds, so implying that testicles are related to courage is a sexist remark, and just plain untrue.

See how easy that is to figure out? Words mean stuff.

all the rest is silly outrage over nothing.

That's obvious. It's clear to everyone here. Here's how you used it:

"Have some testicles and say it outright."

It's not actually a euphemism, either. It is the proper name for the gonads of the mammalian male. "Balls" is a euphemism. "Huevos" is a euphemism, since it means "eggs" in Spanish. Both of those are euphemisms for testicles. Testicles or testes are the proper names.

However, if you replaced testicles with "balls" or "heuvos" in the sentence above, the sentence would still be sexist, since it implies that courage requires a person to have those male gonads. See, only men have testicles, so the implication is that only men can have courage. If you think about it hard enough, I'm sure you'll understand.

Most posters on this Democratic site would apologize when called out for making a sexist remark, rather than digging in and defending it.

cannot understand that they are using sexist language, even when it is explained clearly to them. It's like someone defending the use of the n-word because they've used it for years. Makes no sense at all.

All evidence points in that direction.

His answer was that I am ridiculous. I suspect you won't get an answer either.

But, apparently, I need to get some testicles, according to the poster. I have a couple, but maybe they're worn out, since I'm 73 years old.

so what does that say about about me?

I can't see how it matters, frankly. We're not showing or comparing our gonads here in the Religion Forum. It is our brains and our thought processes we share here, and I don't think our gonads are involved with our participation.

In reality, I have no idea of the gender of most people who post here. I can't see that it matters very much, really, in most cases.

If we did not, we would not exist, since there would be no reproduction. That's what the gonads are for.

You really could consider linking something to substantiate your claim.

of progressive secularism.

But often these examples of progressive secular countries can pass some very Islamophobic legislation. So there are limits to tolerance.


My point, often repeated, is that neither theism nor atheism leads inevitably to intolerance.

We both know the answer.

Basically most of the modern democracies. They all guarantee human rights. None are perfect, but they cannot honestly be classified as “intolerant”.

In the deeds of many of its citizens, including some with strong Christian religious beliefs, however we are extremely intolerant. Tolerance is a behavioral issue of individual people. Examples of intolerant people, even in tolerant societies are everywhere. Within a society, groups of people living in that society can display varying levels of tolerance and intolerance.

One needs only look at the news to see this.

Am I understanding that athiesm should not be associated with China because the Chinese political system is bad? I would say that their system would not work here, but there are many happy Chinese people who have more freedom now than in the past. Conversely our system would not work there.

But they do sometimes view religion as something that can be used as a tool to bring about political unrest. And I agree with this premise, but the facts of each case must be considered.

There are happy people in every place, as well as very, very unhappy people. I've not been to China, so I can't speak about the general mood of the people there. Have you been there?

I am fluent in Chinese, so I have many friends in China, as well as in the US. Understanding the thinking behind what we call propaganda is worthy of study. They were once gripped by a civil war followed by the greatest famine in human history. They recoognize that the politics of division can be very harmful, so often the messages are gear d toward promoting cooperation. It has its drawbacks too but certainly China is not a country of people who are all being oppressed. If anything, they are quite free now, and many of the current limitations are more economic in nature.

the Tienanmen incident. He's now a naturalized US citizen. He would argue with you, I'm sure. I will not. This post is not about that, you see.

Please tell me more, so I'll understand why you support it.

Expecting another country with another culture to be like us isn't very realistic. It's really more of an example of American exceptionalism.

but thanks for your input, too.

I don't think you can make it black and white that their system is good or bad just like you can't do the same for America's political system. We faced one of the greatest challenges we have faced in our lifetimes. I think it could be said that China has climbed out of a massive depression that started in the 70s and has steadily gotten better. It could be said that they have done an excellent job in climbing out and that their people are benefiting as a result. And of course a country is made up by its people, and the Chinese education system is pretty amazing in terms of the students they are turning out.

It is what it is. That was not the point of my post in the first place. You may have missed what I was getting at. That happens a lot around here.

See, I'm not the one who regularly brings up China in this group. I'm responding to one who does that by creating a new post.

The only oppression I saw was there was no real freedom of expression, at least for the press. The Chinese newspapers printed in English always had nothing in them that was negative about the Chinese government and quite a bit that has highly critical of the West.

China has over 4 times the population of the US with roughly the same geographic area. They don't have the benefit of geographical isolation and many of their close neighbors are hostile towards them. Their history is very much different than the US. The idea that they can be expected to behave the same as here is ridiculous. If the US were subject to the same destabilizing forces, I'm quite sure we would be far worse than China. Look at the freedoms that went out the window after 9/11.

My take on how they view their situation is that they are really happy that China is prosperous, really proud of their vibrant modern cities, that they have personal freedom within the boundaries of propriety established by the regime, and they are worried that it could all go away. Their parents all lived through the cultural revolution. Nobody wants that ever again.

Atheism never commands anyone to do anything. There's no doctrine with atheism. There's no instruction manual (other than the dictionary) which tells you what you're expected to know. There's no dogma with atheism. There's nobody who is telling you how you're expected to act. There's no theology with atheism. There's nobody who spends all their time trying to figure out what atheism really means. Atheism was never and will never be comparable to religion in terms of a motivating force.

So when someone points their finger at a group of atheists and says 'gee look they aren't any better than religionists' it's really more of a proof of ignorance than anything.

I have definitely met some very opinionated atheists. it is not the ideology that's doing something, rather the people who follow that ideology. I think it could be said that people who call themselves atheists are not all the same.

I think there are plenty of people who spend time considering the meaning of atheism.

Just as I said in the opening post of this thread.

Just because an atheist has an opinion that doesn’t constitute a discipline that concerns itself with the nonexistent tenets of atheism.

use the right wing tactic of saying atheism=communism.

The largely atheistic countries of Northern Europe would show us atheism also equals the exact type of Social Democratic Government that progressives want.

Instead of vainly attempting to defend the indefensible, it's a deflection to try to avoid answering the problem of horrible things done by some religion. Very weak, logically, and also very transparent.

But, when you have no argument, deflection is the only recourse. Except that silence is a much better alternative in most cases.

atheists are all over the place politically. So communists are a subset of atheists.

appears to equate the two.

He describes numerous oppressions by China's government and links it to their atheism.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218302165

And take any opportunity to cast aspersions on atheists.

except there is some sort of "Creator" and religion is a good thing.

it's 100% a distraction meant to derail, cause now we're stuck not talking about the actual subject at all.

It's not a value judgement, it's just improper labeling.

I have been fortunate to have dated some ladies from China. Their complete lack of Christian contamination is so refreshing that I now only seek out Asian women.

But I would take issue with you on something M-man. While it is true that we have little influence on TPTB in China, we all want to see a better world. Being informed is always a good thing. Thus informed, we can make personal choices as to how we act towards China, even if it's small potatoes. Surely our boycott of South Africa had some effect on ending apartheid.

I support the BDS movement against Israel for example, though it doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

As for oppression of Christians in China, I have no problem with that, for reasons stated in my opening paragraph. Allowing people to believe something is different than preventing the kind of political interference we have here in the USA. You yourself were angered over Pompeo's rapturizing. China is trying to quash bugs like him. I wish them Godspeed.

I want everyone to be able to make their own personal decisions, and that includes religious decisions. I think such decisions are personal, however, and have nothing to do with anyone else. So, I reject all proselytizing, encroachment of specific religious beliefs on governance, and prejudice based on religious beliefs.

Those things bother me a great deal, but personal beliefs bother me not at all, as long as they remain personal and aren't used as cudgels or forced upon others.

Chinese people are allowed to believe whatever they want so long as they don't organize into groups that bring about social unrest. Worth noting again that 50 years ago can I have the greatest famine in human history, and many Chinese people view the idea that social unrest it's something that could bring this type of thing again so they support the notion of anything that would start to cause people not to cooperate with each other.

And as I make points like this, it's not about which government is better or if China is good or bad, but rather that I understand where they're coming from, and so often people don't want to know the details but rather just pass judgment. And I'm not saying that that is what you were doing here.

It's about the use of China to put forward a whataboutism logical error. I have no desire to visit China. I don't speak the language, and there are many places that speak languages I do know I have yet to visit.

China is responsible for China. I am not.

It seems like this thread is about people's preconceived notion of China and then using that as a basis for their argument. And it is further part of an attempt to define atheism. There certainly is more of an Alan Watts style of atheism, for lack of a better example, that is more prevalent in the east, and has its roots in Chinese philosophy.

I can remember the old Soviet Union, too - sort of an institutionalized atheism. It didn't work there, either. A government simply cannot force its citizens to believe one way or another.

As to American atheists, more power to them, but it's a heck of a lot of work to be an atheist. I'm not. In fact, I have become convinced over my six decades of life that there is nowhere, no one or nothing that is not God.

So I guess I'm definitely on the opposite end of the ol' atheist continuum.

I don't care what people believe. I also don't care to be bludgeoned with others' beliefs. Believe what you want, but don't bother me with it in any way. I'm not interested.

Are you speaking from experience?

I've read "Letter to a Christian Nation" "God is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" and other books that present rational arguments against faith that are now lost to the mists of memory.

I would not say it was a heck of a lot of work to read the books. I would like to reread "Letter to a Christian Nation" soon.

It's vital to argue against your arguments.

Still my faith has been irrepressible.

It would take a heck of a lot of work on someone's part to destroy it.

That's fine. That does not mean that it is difficult to be an atheist, though. That has never been difficult for me. I simply stopped being able to believe in deities and all that sort of thing. It was no longer possible for me, so I am an atheist. That was all there was to it.

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2018, 05:00 AM - Edit history (1)

What's easy for you is difficult for me and vice versa.

I can't write legibly with my right hand. For instance. But my left hand is AWESOME.

(Kinda surprised at the Pro-Communist comments in this thread though. Not gonna lie.
this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, right?)

The Chinese Communist Party probably doesn't really care if you light sacrifices to the Kitchen God. But if you say a thing about the Communist Party your whole family disappears.
Don't be surprised if your Chinese friends say, "We love it now! So many things to buy!"

But there are indeed limits.

It is highly unlikely that even if you cross the line “your whole family disappears”. The end of the Cultural Revolution was the end of that era. These days it is “soft” totalitarianism. People, as I and others have noted, have considerable *individual* freedom. Nobody I met had any reluctance, for example, to speak to me about life in China.

I don’t see one comment in this thread that is “pro communist”, unless you consider correcting false statements about China “pro communist”.

None for me thanks.

So, you have no experience being an atheist? That is what I was asking about, since the poster claimed, "...it's a heck of a lot of work to be an atheist."

By definition. You would be a believer in one or more gods.

There used to be a poster here, who sadly has passed away. He came to the conclusion that the god of the Bible exists, but is an evil tyrant. To his credit, he stayed true to his conscience. Rather than suck up and try to score a cushy afterlife for himself, he refused to worship that god, and instead aligned himself with the opposition.

He was not an atheist. Atheists just don't believe any gods exist. I may talk about the character traits of this one or that one, or discuss what the stories say they did, but it is in the same sense that someone talks about any fictitious character. It doesn't mean I think they're real.

I would align myself with the opposition.

To that poster's credit indeed...wow!

Not always that way for me, to be sure. Not fun or easy being a teenager who found religion absurd and rejected it. But as an adult, it is just who i am.

Psst. The Religion group is not where we talk about our beliefs.

There is a "Seeker on Unique Paths" group. It's a unique path..because no one seems to be using it.

When I post something about belief I think that's where I'll go...

Admit something: Everyone you see, you say to them, “Love me.”
Of course you do not do this out loud; Otherwise, someone would call the cops.
Still though, think about this, this great pull in us to connect.

Why not become the one who lives with a full moon in each eye
That is always saying with that sweet moon language
what every other eye in this world is dying to hear.” - Hafiz

To each their own. To answer you, it isn't an Advaita path, but one of Hermetic alchemy. Sort of ancient. Not for everyone. And, yes, ultimately after achieving balance you achieve unity.

(But somebody on here said psst, this religion group isn't where we talk about our beliefs.)

That's no problem either. I meant no offense to anyone on here and was not aware that the religion thread was not a place to state beliefs. I withdraw any opinion.

You can talk about anything you want anywhere you want (!) but I think that the Religion group in general is a


This OP is a clapback to another OP which is a clapback to another and ...

Cause people do get all worked up. Thx for the reply, though.

with an incredible history and culture.

civilizations on the planet.

Noah's Flood

Why?

I've never been to the northern part of China.

it’s easy to criticize and outright dismiss China as a communist country. However, I think it’s more of a pragmatism than communism. If you looks at the facts such as declining poverty rates, improving education, life expectancy, growing economy, etc. - you would say that the country must be doing something right. Then you have folls who blame China for lack of environmental regulations, blame it for pollution, etc. How convinient that most manufacturing from the developed world was moved to China and so it is unfair to apply same rules to them, they are manufacturing stuff for the entire world. Also, worth noting, Chinese people and culture are non-violent, their citizens don’t own weapons or kill kids in schools. Despite communism, chinese traditions are strong. This is different from Soviet Union, where everything pre-communism was destroyed and replaced. And thanks god chinese are largerly non-religous, because only religion can make good people do bad stuff. Although I consider communism as a religion, chinese communism is worlds different from soviet union style cause China has market economy and they are free to travel abroad.

It is about using China as an example of why atheism is bad. I made no judgment about China. It does discourage religious worship, but that's its business, not mine.

This thread is about whataboutism and diversion. It is a response to another thread about China in the Religion Group.

and we shouldn’t compare

Not in any way.

Chinese government as a kind of put down.

are not different from american atheists when it comes to superstitious beliefs. If you have chinese friends you’ll find their views near identical in this particular area. China is not a democracy, their governemnt has national interest in restricting religion. However, with human development comes appreciation of freedom so decades from now China may very well become the world’s largest democracy.

The Chinese government is creating the most sophisticated citizen-monitoring and behavior-control system in the world. They have imprisoned a million Muslims in "re-education" prisons. The Government controls the internet and all other media. Anyone suspected of criticizing the government is imprisoned. A so-called "anti-corruption' campaign is being used as an excuse to eliminate opposition and consolidate power. I don't think you can get to democracy from here. The Tianmen Square democracy movement was the last best chance for democracy, and it was snuffed out like a candle, all the organizers thrown into prison. That was 30 years ago, and the Chinese government will never allow such movement to get started again.

And it was much worse than China back in those days, no internet of any kind, no one can leave the country or enter the country from outside unless diplomats or olympic athletes. Chinese people at least have freedom of movement in comparison and many have access to the rest of the world. The government tries to pull every trick in the book to keep it as is but the very same governemnt wants to compete with the rest of the world and enjoys market economy. I’d give it 30 years before we start seeing major changes in China and it is not only possible but likey, IMO. It doesn’t mean that democracy will change the country for the better, could be worse - e.g. a civil war with millions of casualties.

Where do you live in San Francisco? It's been ages since I've lived there. I used to live on Woodward St.

Not In China. You need government permission in advance for most life changes. You are looking at China through rose-colored glasses.

And see it for yourself.

And I hope you have a wonderful experience.

I taught a group of Chinese students in 2016. One was the daughter of high party officials, one was working for Walmart in China as legal liaison, one was studying our judicial system on a sabbatical from a teaching post, and one was studying the rise of Christianity on China's major cities by researching mission groups in the US. Overall, they all wanted Trump to win. A real shocker for me, but conversations showed they knew nothing about him. They saw religion on a spectrum from irrelevant to fascinating. None of them voiced hostility. They had quite a spread of wealth between them and there was a definite pecking order. They had a broad sense of hope and optimism that reminded me of early 1960s America. They all believed that China's moment was approaching and various groups I would ask about one-on-one, Uyghurs, Tibetans and Taiwanese were all viewed as misinformed, uneducated, and likely to fall in line as soon as China brought prosperity to them. Every moment of unrest was viewed through the lens of maintaining social cohesion, dealing with tradition, and keeping people safe. Of course, there were events they had never heard of, and I didn't share my news experience during Tiananmen Square, though I did name drop the event.

They definitely see themselves at the center of the world economy and made a distinction between "Russian" communism and Chinese, which apparently had no conflict with making a buck abroad. They also had the best haircuts in my experience, all very stylish. This is a far cry from 1989, when hair care was frighteningly bad. One woman had her hair done when she went back over holiday because nobody in America was up to her standard, a statement I frankly found shocking.

If someone wants to practice religion I'm good with it. If they do not, I'm also good with it.

I will never understand why anyone ever feels differently on this. Why can't everyone mind their own business?

The government must always be perceived as truthful and correct. Such a system cannot tolerate competition in the marketplace of ideas, and so the government must either exert control over, or alterantively stamp out, unofficial schools of thought.

But I also have to think that for a resurgent power reclaiming ancient glories, a reminder of the white man telling them how to live (and die) has to go over like a lead balloon.

Are you suggesting that we should only be concerned with US issues?

I do see many posts in this group regarding sex abuse by priests in many other countries, so why the double standard?

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2018, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

...and the only reason we discuss the crimes of priests in other countries is because of the systemic coverup of these crimes by the catholic church across the globe. If it wasn't for the church, we wouldn't have to discuss this coverup of crimes against children.

Most abuse happens in families. So if we eliminated families......

Perhaps you and the Major should start a gif group.

corporations who have ignored and covered up a culture of sexual harassment and worse towards female employees. the Boy Scouts covered up abuse. Even Congress has been complicit in allowing a culture of sexual abuse to thrive.

although not nearly as ubiquitous as RCC with its much longer spread and history. But I would never compare sexual abuse against children with that of adults. The first one is akin murder and deserves capital punishment.

the rest of their lives. That said, I have equal empathy for young adults who suffer abuse that can have equally negative effects on their career and mental health for the rest of their lives. We, as a society, need to address abuse whenever and wherever it occurs.

And I was incorrectly accused of engaging in whataboutism for pointing out the obvious.

lessen the responsibility of the church in thousands of cases of abuse and their cover up. It is a societal problem, and it may be related to a feeling of entitlement among many men.

That something bad occurs in more than one place does not excuse it in any of them. Pointing out other instances does not remove the guilt in the one being discussed.

It is individuals who abuse others. And generally, abusers are male.