China: Putting Muslims into concentration camps for reeducation away from Islam - Polidicks

How so? I've done good deeds myself with literally zero thought put into why I did them and no concern at all for even getting thanked for it. Granted it's usually something fairly minor and frequently for a friend or family member, but there's no ulterior motives at all there.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109738/c8295b54-4d20-4c87-a08a-f4b28fda613e/Belief in Heaven among Christians who are liberal.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109738/80a822e4-f05b-4dc0-b5f0-d6a06d8c203d/Belief in Hell among Christians who are liberal.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/109738/1d47b3e0-2016-4c34-b419-057d1cb1cf7e/Interpreting scripture among Christians who are liberal.png Liberal Christians seem to have a pretty good idea of what the afterlife is, and a number of them still subscribe to the Bible being the word of God, literally or not. Belief in a creator is a bad thing to my view because, to me, willingly believing in something without evidence is one of the most ignorant things you can do. I find it harmful in the overall scheme of things. It's a way of closing off questions you don't have answers to, and writing them off short. The difference between Mr. Rogers and God is that Mr. Rogers is a normal man, who preaches good with no mechanism of persuasion other than because it is the ethical things to do. God can tell you to do good things because he has ultimate power over you and because of that, you respect (and therefore "fear") his word. You can defy Mr. Rogers and you're just likely a dick, and there are no consequences. You can't willingly defy God and expect nothing to change if you believe in God. Why they chose to worship God is irrelevant to the situation. They worship him, therefore they follow his word. Like Alice said, the entire premise of the Christian god is about the afterlife, doing good on Earth, and then getting to heaven when you die. You can't deny heaven or hell and still call it Christianity. (You could, but that would be disingenuous) There very well is a difference. Literally just the other night I had a homeless guy come up to me when I walked up to Whataburger and he asked me for some cash to get food. I told him I would be happy to get him some food if he wanted to come in with me, and he did. He thanked me for the food after, and we went our ways. I've done this a few different times when I have the chance, and I am not a believer in any kind of afterlife, religion, spirituality, or karma. I do it because it's nice to help people, even when there is no outcome.

You sure took a black and white view to my very quick breakdown of how I see it that implied no judgement what so ever. Dont say someone doesn’t see nuance and then fail to see any nuance yourself.

Your first mistake was trying to rationalize evil. Its very easy to pigeon hole the world evil as acts that we do not morally agree with and also place such people commit them on a pedestal but the failure is that evil itself is not a rational force. Evil does not ask for rational decisions, nor illogical decisions that can be rationalized. Evil are actions taken by normal people that commit horrendous atrocities to others and often times they're either non the wiser or do not take the emotional impact. That is not to say they are sociopathic but the phrase, 'I was just following orders' is a perfect example of how evil can work. We rationalize evil as being acted by broken people with broken mentalities that strive to fulfill those mentalities by any means. It is quite the opposite, some of the most horrific crimes committed by man have been incredibly rationalized, civilized and optimized with complete removal of any emotional throughput except in its acceptance as everyday life in the common man. In such a case, the actions take on what makes them horrific, a system designed to blunt any emotional trauma a populace would endure when doing something horrific and instead be indifferent but no different from counterparts that would be shocked. Evil is an abyss, you cannot rationalize it. Likewise, you can say that religion preys on insecurities but so do the fantastical dreams and utopias designed by secular visions. The ultimate world of freedom envisioned by Karl Marx and acted upon by Lenin, a wholly secular vision of the world is near on gospel in the way it is described as is many of the different cultural references I've seen here on these forums when speaking about the future. Utopian thinking and Religious Adherence both demand the same crutches and half explanations but in different ways. In this context, science as a cultural tool is in no better position and equally as vulnerable to abuse and it too attempts to perform feats like rationalizing death and evil even going so far as to provide a 'cure' for the former just as Heaven and Hell provide a cure for those seeking to escape the abyss that is the last sleep you ever take.

I'm saying its easy to crutch ourselves with 'bad person doing a bad thing' but that fundamentally falls apart once you hit Gulag/Prison/Concentration camps.

Because often times these systems are designed with wholly malice in mind. These are political tools. These have a rational instrument to them that would not exist in what is commonly referred to as an evil person. We know what 'evil people' are. They're spree killers. Serial Killers. Rapists. People with mental issues and negative histories behind them. The people that design these camps? The minds needed couldn't be any of those things because those minds are generally incapable of disassociating from them. The people that design these Re-Education camps are normal people, doing normal jobs and following orders.

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing in the last couple of posts you made makes any sense. It all sounds like some psuedo psych garbage.

I'm at work unfortunately, I'll come up with a simplified while I'm cuttin' fish.

1) I never once came anywhere close to saying there isn't a difference. I said that it's hard to draw an easy line between them. 2) I very much doubt you're as pure as you think you are. For example, I am certain that you personally enjoy being thought of as a good person by others. Does that come into play when you made that choice? I'm sure it did. Why else would you tell us about it in such a personal way, especially making sure we know you've done it multiple times? What does that add to the argument beyond making yourself look good? You could have easily told a story about other people, something even more clearly self-sacrificing, and it would have worked better for the argument. This issue goes all the way back to Plato's Republic and the discussion about the Ring of Gyges. Essentially, it's a ring that makes you become invisible at will, and it leads to a discussion about whether virtue is good in itself or whether it's only good because it produces good results. One of the people in the conversation, for example, asks whether someone would still do good actions if every time they did something good, everyone thought they had done something evil. So they got the punishment, ridicule, disrespect, dishonor, etc. of being evil, even though they knew it to be good. They also discuss the opposite. It really goes into the question of motivation and why we do what we do. I would still argue that people's motivations are FAR too complex to simplify it down to, "Well, if you're not doing something for pure goodness, then it isn't really good."

Fair enough. Misunderstanding of semantics on my part. I do enjoy people thinking I'm not a dick, but my goal isn't to do things to get people to think favorably of me. When I made that choice, what came to mind (in my empty car at 4am) was that I wanted to help the guy. I didn't break down the story in a personal way, and the only reason I stated I have done it more than once was to counter the inevitable remark that it was just a one-off deed and not an indication of being a good person. I don't have an example with other people on hand, and I can't tell you something more self-sacrificing that happened in clear memory just a few days ago. This is also the first time I have ever told anyone about this specific instance, or that there were similar instances in the past. If the food was already bought and paid for and he said something to ridicule me, then yeah, he could keep the food. I'm not going to take it away from him. I couldn't tell you for certain, but likely no. That doesn't change the motives or the intentions of the initial act though. No one is required to keep doing good deeds for their previous deeds to be valid. If the question is "Would you do the right thing even if it was the worst decision?", then this is all a matter of cultural norms. I don't really know how to tie that in with what I said. But, doing something good is simple. If your actions benefit someone, and at no expense to anyone but yourself, then you can likely chalk it up as a good deed. No magical Greek rings needed. Getting people to do good is great, no matter what the motivation is. But the good deeds of someone who does them of their own volition are arguably more noble than someone who did them out of incentive. I don't think I ever said it soured the deed, the deed just isn't charity. Getting people to do great deeds is an awesome goal to strive for. Getting people to do great deeds not because of a fear of their god/authority/etc., but because of their own want to do good is even better.

Say, for the sake of argument, that you have a child. This child, by their very nature of being a child and therefore something of a rambunctious little nude ape, has made a mess of their room Now, your child is a child, which is to say they are beyond the crawling and toddling stages. They are a fully fledged child, which is to say a juvenile individual of the species Homo Sapiens, and by virtue of their genus they have inherited some considerable learning capabilities, a highly plastic brain which, at this stage of development, is primed and ready to learn literally everything there is to learn in the entire world Which puts you in something of an interesting situation You want the child's room to be clean. They will not be a child forever, and cleanliness is a very important trait for a healthy adult to have. It seems reasonable to you, the parent, that the child should, at this point in their life, start learning that trait For the sake of this argument, let's reduce your pool of options down to just an isolated two. Not to dismiss any other potential options, but merely to minimize the possibility that this little exercise will wander too far from its salient point or get bogged down in the minutiae So your options are now this You can, over a considerable period, and admittedly not without some considerable difficulty, teach your child the value of cleanliness as its own reward, the value of a clean living space Or You can, over a considerably shorter period, with considerably less difficulty, teach your child that if they clean their room, they will get a reward wholly unrelated to the task Which of these two options is setting a bad example for the child to grow up with? Which of these two options do you think is going to foster a more capable and personally responsible adult? Which of these two options are more likely to produce an adult human who keeps a clean house? Now, just in case you wind up not having time for me again, I'll try and preemptively expand on my own salient point for the benefit of the audience The first option is the correct one. That is the child who is going to have a clean house, and have a greater sense of personal responsibility. To directly quote a friend I previewed and workshopped this post with: You can't just teach a child through positive reinforcement on it's own, because it largely fosters bad behaviour and doesn't instill the importance of the action itself If you don't teach them importance of the action itself, what incentive is that child going to have to maintain a clean living space once the rewards stop coming? So what if people aren't all good who do good for good's sake? Does that mean we should just give up trying instill the value that they should? Why should the handful of bad actors completely spoil it for everyone else? What actual reason is there to object to the notion that good ought to be done for its own sake as its own reward? Maybe it's just a flimsy pretext to call back to another recent post, but that sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric of futility to me Feel free to correct me, though

How would you go about killing off religion?

Education, critical thinking and reading skills, taxing churches etc. May not completely eradicate it, but would get us on the way.

Education and better quality of living eventually leads to secularism which leads to abandonment of religion. You see this happening in many western countries already. Any attempt to directly subdue religion will often empower it. Though to be honest, i don't believe atheism itself should be the goal, we just need secularism

Religion and belief can take so many different forms that completely getting rid of them is nigh impossible. Secularism is particularly efficient at reducing the followings of large, organized religions like Christianity, but does not work on every religion, especially the weirder ones. There are people who have a psychological need to believe in something and secularism just cannot fulfill them. These people have existed throughout all of history and will continue existing. You cannot get rid of them and you cannot get rid of religion. If your goal is to promote secular values or scientific beliefs and make them the dominant values of your society, you can do that. Hell, that has already been done. But saying that religion is evil and needs to be destroyed will get you nothing. You will be fighting a losing battle. By all means argue your position with other people and try to convince them, just be polite and respect their beliefs as long as they are not harmful.

The good thing is that religion that takes hold of an educated and skeptical mind is demonstrably more harmless than one that's in an uneducated mind that can't even consider the idea of being wrong. Fair enough on those who have to believe for reasons of their own health, I wish them only the best.

Thanks, mate. I'd consider myself a progressive social democrat, and a lot of Christians are like me. Please don't take the crazies' opinions as facts, because believe me, millions of Christians do in fact love thy neighbour, and possess a deep love for the poor and humanity. Remember, skeptical and progressive Christians follow the Bible much more to the T than the insane, batshit homophobic, racist bigoted Christians do.

Oh My thinking was more that religion (say Christianity) in an educated mind is harmless more because they don't follow the Bible to the T.

By follow the Bible to the T, I mean as in progressive and skeptical Christians are acting like God intends them to: by being accepting and loving towards their neighbours. Following the Bible mindlessly and leaving no room in your mind open for interpretation, not listening to anybody that might have a differing opinion is the exact opposite of what Jesus intended. I was saying it sort of figuratively, sorry!

No I think I got what you're intending to say entirely. The issue I have is that when a Christian is tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, it is in spite of the Bible, not because of it. If the book itself is a true and accurate reflection of what God wants, morally, out of humans, then ignoring the parts that don't match contemporary morality while accepting the feel good "love thy neighbor" bit is something I personally don't understand.

I can see entirely where you're coming from, and to a certain extent I agree. Christianity's inherent problem is simple: God is explained in terms someone from the 1st century AD only would understand and the ancient Bible is inherently hypocritical and prone to cherry picking. I do cherry pick the Bible, and a lot of it is a load of bullshit. I'm sort of a contrarian Christian, I believe the Bible needs a major update or rewrite ASAP because tbf, the Bible is written cryptically and a lot of the time is straight up fucking daft.

You're suppose to love your neighbor regardless of their sins, not tell them or correct them on their sins. Whether one believes homosexuality is a sin or not shouldn't effect one's kindness and charity toward them. It's the whole point of the "He who is without sin cast the first stone" message. Unfortunately, it's a message rarely remembered by Christians today.

How do you rationalize "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" with "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" since I thought he was referring to the Mosaic law there which is full of Old Testament brutality.

Multiple irrelevant quotes. Nothing to see here. Then you get Christians who "love" their homosexual neighbors by trying to un-gay them as a way to help them "reach heaven". Genuinely believing that such a thing is a sin in the first place is pretty fucked up and disrespectful towards people who haven't done anything wrong.

Explain why so many educated people are turning to eastern sets of belief, like buddhism and hinduism? Education =/= atheism and to even suggest such a thing is a very high school way of looking at how we think about life

Ultimately, the Bible is a collection of texts written hundreds of years apart by different authors, some parts of which have been lost. All of these were human and to top it all off, the Bible has been translated enough times to produce significant errors. For extra fun, there was this medieval Christian monk who argued that if our reason was given to us by God, then science and any other products of that reason should be trusted and that if any of that contradicts what is said in the Bible, we should just assume the stuff in the Bible is a metaphor. Sadly could not find the quote.

Which is a good reason not to accept it as Gospel.

My point isnt specifically about the god that catholics, christians, muslims and jewish all loosely share, im talking about far eastern beliefs.There is a lot more to religion than rationalizing fear and you guys are really skimming over that to focus on religion being the symptom of some issue. Religion isnt inherently negative

This is actually a holocaust.

That's not medieval. That is present day Catholic dogma. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church #159: Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."