With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but...

[NeoGreen]

...for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person, whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

[trotsky]

1. Religion (and faith) create the framework.

* An all-powerful deity who has a plan for us.

* Said deity is so advanced, you cannot use your own reason to understand it or its commandments.

* The deity has given us instructions in this book.

* The book also contains atrocious shit justifying things like rape, incest, slavery, murder, and genocide.

And yet there are still those who believe that religion can never inspire people to do anything bad.

[Major Nikon]

5. Yeah, religion is never used to make good people do bad things

And even if it was used that way (and it ain't) whatabout those Chinese "atheists"?

[MineralMan]

2. He's a smart guy. Donald Trump should have him visit the White House

for a chat, eh?

[leftieNanner]

26. They can have tea

with Frederick Douglas.

[guillaumeb]

3. So the evil that the Chinese Government is currently engaging in is because of.....

religion?

Understood.

The quote is so simplistic that it needs no effort to refute it.

[Major Nikon]

4. Yeah, whatabout those Chinese "atheists"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[trotsky]

6. #Whataboutism n/t

[NeoGreen]

7. The conflation of Chinese Government/Atheism persecution of christians is a RWNJ meme...

...you would be best advised NOT to post that non-sense here on DU.

For reference only:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_politics

There is growing persecution of Christians by the Chinese government.

[trotsky]

8. Dude, if he can't whatabout the Chinese government, he's got nothing to say.

And what a bummer that would be, huh?

[NeoGreen]

9. Dude, if all he has is 'whatabouts' of the Chinese government...

...then he already has nothing to say, and thus would be no loss to robust dialog.

Riposte:

[guillaumeb]

11. Robust dialogue?

No, simplistic and reductionist framing, and easily refuted by my post. A post that generated some comments that attempted, and failed, to defend your post.

Allow me to reduce your "dialogue" to its essence:


religion=bad.

[guillaumeb]

10. Posting what is actually going on in China

is called acknowledging reality.

But if you prefer your memes to an actual discussion of reality, one might wonder why.

Does a discussion of this type of intolerance directed at theists violate some norms at DU?

[MineralMan]

12. This thread is not about that. Your attempt to make it about

that is the whataboutism. Why do you do that? It's rude, I think.

[guillaumeb]

14. Yes, yes.

We all know how strongly discussion about the topics is adhered to here.

[MineralMan]

16. ..

[trotsky]

17. Ah, more "eye for an eye" justice.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

Never change, g. You are such a great example of Christianity.

[NeoGreen]

13. There is no point in attempting to discuss 'reality' with anyone who...

...believes in magic.

To re-phrase Twain's meme:

"Never argue with those who believe in magic, they'll drag you into a fantasy and wear you down with magic-missiles."

[guillaumeb]

15. More "dialogue"?

Ask the Uighurs in the concentration camps about dialogue with their guards.

[NeoGreen]

18. Correct, it is not dialog, it is a dismissal...

...as I stated above, there is no point. You have repeatedly demonstrated an intractable inability to engage without the use of logical fallacies.

You sir, are dismissed.

[guillaumeb]

19. How heartbraking.

But, considering that you started with a logical fallacy, ironic.

[MineralMan]

21. Is the heartbraking pedal the one on the left or the right?

I can never remember.

[guillaumeb]

23. Yes.

[MineralMan]

20. What does a discussion about Frederick Douglass have to do with China?

If you don't know who Frederick Douglass is, I suggest looking the name up on Google. Perhaps you'll take his words more seriously if you do that.

Donald Trump also did not know who he was. I hope you have heard of Frederick Douglass before now. If not, I wonder why not.

What do you think of Frederick Douglass? Is his story not worthy of attention? Is that what you think? Is that why you attempted to hijack this thread with your Chinese story again? Please stop doing that. It's very rude.

Your constant attempts to divert from discussions about what prominent people have stated are symptomatic of something, but I'm not sure what that something is. I strongly urge you to read a little about the man discussed in the OP, and reconsider your attempts to try to change the subject in such threads. This one is an excellent example of a thread you should have left alone.

You might also look up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

Really. He has things to say. He has a bit more gravitas than random bloggers on religionnews.com or the patheos blog.

Do some research, won't you?

[guillaumeb]

22. The typical blend of ad hominem and reaction to what is done here constantly.

But when a theist does it, that is noteworthy.

The double standard is noted.

When I talk about China, and the extreme intolerance shown for theists, you have attempted to divert by asking what is the relevance, or with anecdotal diversion about this Chinese acquaintance that you have.

So when you speak of attempt to divert, I will wonder why this concern is so sporadic.

[Lordquinton]

25. Probably because you bring it up every time you can

Regardless of the subject you say "what about China?"

Could be a reason maybe.

[guillaumeb]

27. The spokesperson for MM?

Noted. In future, I will address you directly.

[Lordquinton]

35. Avoiding the comment?

Noted.

[bitterross]

29. Not the topic at hand. Stop with the distraction.

It's so tedious to have to deal with the distraction. You should stay on the topic of the OP or, of course, by all means start you own OP about the Chinese.

[guillaumeb]

30. Your objection is noted. eom

[bitterross]

32. And it will, based on the past, be ignored. /nt

[guillaumeb]

33. Given the constant such diversions here,

I am merely honoring the tradition of the group.

But I did actually respond earlier by reducing the post to its essence, which is:

religion=bad.

[bitterross]

36. Tradition, for tradition's sake is not good.

Funny how there is the meme, if Trump doesn't like foreigners why does he keep marrying them

If people don't like diversions off the OP, then why do they keep doing them?

[guillaumeb]

37. And simplistic, reductionistic memes are not good either.

But they do appear at times.

[trotsky]

38. Eye for an eye justice.

So much for what Jesus taught you to do.

[Major Nikon]

43. Literal Jesus or metaphorical Jesus?

[struggle4progress]

24. It's a strange slogan. It presumes that "good person" and "bad person" are somehow

invariant and non-overlapping categories, so "good people do good things" and "bad people do bad things," but then tries to become less idiotic by admitting "good people can do bad things" -- which it wants to attribute to the influence of a vague and undefined force, called "religion"

[marylandblue]

34. I think you are right, but people tend to think in categories

rather than blends.

[qazplm135]

28. So a good athiest

Never does evil?

[guillaumeb]

31. And who defines what a good atheist is?

Only evildoers do evil.

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. What???

[guillaumeb]

41. Read #s 28 and 31 in sequence.

[Major Nikon]

42. What???

[NeoGreen]

39. In addition...

...