My point is that if there is a simple thought-exercise in pure logic that will disprove the existence of God -- any God -- then among billions of believers someone would have thought of it before you. You missed the point. The GP's point was that you can't point to the millions of believers and say that they *must* have known better, because there are incidents that show otherwise.
Nobody's trying to disprove the existence of God, or your God. The most people are doing is trying to show that your claims about your God are *inconsistent*, under a commonsensical reasoning process.
In fact, the simple questions you raise have been explored in great depth, in thousands of theological treatises. They're good questions, in exactly the same sense that a scientific question can be good, in that it triggers deep exploration that provides many answers and even more questions.
But your questions are absolutely not unanswerable, and are thousands of years too late to be at all novel. Typical student thinking. Hopefully you are still a student, because if not you missed the most important lesson of any university education. Philosophically, any inconsistent system could be obscured away by making the system incomprehensibly complex, and thus one could not even see the contradiction. You could raise objections after objections, introduce rules after rules, interpretations after interpretations, and thus obscure the argument until you don't know what you're arguing in the end. To some people this answers the question, but to others it's just some highly complex ways to obscure the root problems.
To me, the problem of religion is basically not what people believe, but the unquestioning attitude of people towards their church and religious leaders. The lack of critical thinking and skepticism. Blind faith.
And are you suggesting that the most important lesson of any university education is... to learn about God? I thought that was the business of Church.
If I'm not mistaken the tolerance decreased sharply after the event. On a more macro scale I feel more sorry about this than for the individuals who were arrested or maybe killed in the incident.
Sound can kill. If you stand next to a speaker when 160db of sound comes out of it, you'll be dead. A fork can kill too. If you stand next to me when I thrust a fork with full force into your eye, and through your eye into your brain, you'll be dead.
If you had to debunk every piece of crap thrown at you you'd never get anything done. And the Chinese government is a popular target (for whatever reasons).
Not defending them though, just saying that your proposed solution might not be that feasible if the original problem is a concern.
Hmm I don't know. I asked the question just because I was curious. I'm Chinese, but in Hong Kong, so I don't really know how the mainlanders view their officials and politicians. You could probe me, but I can't tell one way or the other... here in Hong Kong I don't really recall any politicians or high officials caught blatantly lying, but I can say that they'd have a lot of explaining to do if that happened. Politicians lying isn't the norm here.
About the extract, interesting. I guess it's somewhat true. There's a traditional saying that "you can't predict what the emperor is thinking". But then what your extract really reminded me of was some scenes in Godfather (the film). I'm thinking maybe I wouldn't understand what the extract was talking about if I hadn't watched it;-p... So maybe it's not just a Chinese thing.
I mean, there are those who actually care about the human rights situation in China, and there are those who just raise the issue to smite you. Among the former group, there are a number of misinformed people whose good intentions turn awry, and needless to say the latter group of people are jerks.
If I didn't believe strongly in free speech I'd too agree that some of these people should be muted for sake of my peace of mind.
There are plenty willing to argue that the government is doing 'x, y or z' in our best interests despite the fact that history has demonstrated that even the best intentions are almost always corrupted Don't know enough western/world history but in China there are governments doing things in people's best interests which actually worked out. Of course bad governments were more common than good ones, but still. Historically due to the extreme power of the government (China is huge, and having absolute rule there means unfathomable power), the only thing you could hope for is that the government is good and cares about your well-being.
In Europe since there are so many countries you could be a dissident, be critical of your government and flee your country to another if things go sour. So one could afford to fight for their rights and demand their government to do things (risk is of course there, but lower). If you're a good enough advocate you might be able to get support from other countries too and coerce your government to comply. Historically in China you basically have nowhere to flee, and nobody could convince the government to do otherwise unless you have an audience with the emperor or something like that. In situations like these you basically have no choice but to hope that the government isn't out to get you.
That's one aspect of the historical divide, or cultural if you will.
I must add that I don't really support the censorship personally, if only because not being able to get onto Wikipedia sucks. But if you wanted to understand the reasoning (or part of the reasoning) behind it, here it is.
While I do agree that the censorship thing is a bit overdone and to be fair I don't understand how "too much information could be confusing", a main concern of the government is that there is a lot of irrational anti-Chinese/anti-communist materials out there, either intentionally or unintentionally inciting hatred towards the Chinese government.
Of course some are valid criticisms, but they are far and few between. Some are good intentioned criticisms, but are nonetheless flawed by the lack of deep understanding of the situation in China. And some are just... bashing China for the sake of it.
I can tell you personally that I was quite confused about the facts, and it was notoriously hard to differentiate facts from propaganda (by either China or the anti-Chinese groups). For example it took me some time to dig through lots of crap for quality information until I was satisfied that I had a basic understanding of the issues in Tibet. I'm still not exactly sure about the Tienanmen Square event (not just what happened, but the causes and effects etc.). I'm not in mainland China, but in Hong Kong, which there is no internet censorship at all (AFAIK), and I'm Chinese so I could read Chinese sources. Basically the "best of both worlds" for understanding these issues if you will, since I'm not hampered by internet censorship nor the language barrier. Yet the amount of irrational stigma on these issues and the extent at which both sides (the Chinese govt and the critics) are willing to exaggerate facts and zoom in on things that incite emotions makes it quite hard for me to conclusively believe in anything. I don't think not everybody spends the time to check things up, and probably just tends to believe in those who rants most loudly. (i.e. those "TANKS!! OMFG!!! TANKSS!!" [the objection here is that focusing on the tanks simply doesn't give an understanding of the full picture... which is much more complicated...])
So yeah, that's one of the reasons for censorship if you get what I mean. I personally don't think it solves the problem (it only hides the problem), but then at least I could understand it as a temporary measure to alleviate the cultural shock when the Chinese people find out about the outside world. But if internet censorship in China goes on for longer, say a decade or so, that would worry me.
For the Chinese in Chinese culture, it is assumed that a politician has a hidden agenda and a cover story. People are not offended by the idea that a politician is lying to them. In general, that is how average, mature Chinese citizens deal with each other. I agree with the rest of your post (very insightful and well put at that), but have to question this. Anything to back it up?
The "control and power, and how ruthless and brutal the Chinese government" was part fact (note tense) and part anti-communist propaganda you've been fed (um, brainwashed?).
If you look into the facts (with an open mind) you'll see the truth of the GP. Of course, if you just want somebody to bash, go ahead. It's just that the less factually/logically grounded your rants are, the less they matter.
Well, uh, can't speak authoritatively since I'm in Hong Kong, but I'll corroborate the GP's comments about "lean words".
The time you when were in Taiwan is also probably significant. They went from a single party military dictatorship to a more or less fully democratic country in the past 30 years. If the GP was in Taiwan a few decades ago that Taiwan might be quite different from the Taiwan you know.
The majority of people in China are not interested in politics, both traditionally, and because it's been a bad idea to be involved in politics for the last 50 years Can't say much whether your comment about the last 50 years is true, but traditionally intellectuals were held in highest regards in Chinese society (incidentally businessmen were supposedly looked down upon). Intellectuals were expected to take government exams and join the ranks of the government, which means they'll be embarking on a career in politics.
But of course, politics to subvert the government (and more importantly the authority of the emperor) has always been a bad idea. Policies as to what constitutes subversion varies according to political climate though.
Re:It's ridiculous, are we talking about same Chin
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 1
Now we're talking.
If you want to make accusations about the Chinese government at least be accurate and not make up ridiculous things. If you ever wondered why people are so hostile when you're bashing China, this is probably why.
If you committed manslaughter and I charge you for rape, you plea not guilty. Don't act outraged when people deny the exaggerated things and untrue you accuse them of.
But then if you consider that those in power today are those who went through the craze called the Cultural Revolution, you might sort of understand the paranoia...
If by being a Chinese means "growing up reading mao's cookbook" then in half a century or so there won't be any Chinese left in the world.
It's like saying you're not an American if you're not dumb, or you're not French if you're not a sissy.
Yes I know HK is privileged. I'm basically utilizing the privilege in full right now. But you asked me whether I've been in a "repressive regime", and I answered. Unless you've grown up in mainland China I don't see how you could claim with such certainty that you know better than I do.
I agree that it's harder to get the facts there. Was there two months ago, couldn't get on wiki and some google searches censored. But it's just harder, not impossible, and they still haven't got the technology to control the precise happenings inside your cranium.
Slashdot Mirror
Being against extra-marital sex doesn't solve the problem of STD's.
Allowing the use of condoms solves it (at least to some extent).
Nobody's trying to disprove the existence of God, or your God. The most people are doing is trying to show that your claims about your God are *inconsistent*, under a commonsensical reasoning process. In fact, the simple questions you raise have been explored in great depth, in thousands of theological treatises. They're good questions, in exactly the same sense that a scientific question can be good, in that it triggers deep exploration that provides many answers and even more questions.
But your questions are absolutely not unanswerable, and are thousands of years too late to be at all novel. Typical student thinking. Hopefully you are still a student, because if not you missed the most important lesson of any university education. Philosophically, any inconsistent system could be obscured away by making the system incomprehensibly complex, and thus one could not even see the contradiction. You could raise objections after objections, introduce rules after rules, interpretations after interpretations, and thus obscure the argument until you don't know what you're arguing in the end. To some people this answers the question, but to others it's just some highly complex ways to obscure the root problems.
To me, the problem of religion is basically not what people believe, but the unquestioning attitude of people towards their church and religious leaders. The lack of critical thinking and skepticism. Blind faith.
And are you suggesting that the most important lesson of any university education is
If I'm not mistaken the tolerance decreased sharply after the event. On a more macro scale I feel more sorry about this than for the individuals who were arrested or maybe killed in the incident.
Have they invaded Taiwan yet?
If you had to debunk every piece of crap thrown at you you'd never get anything done. And the Chinese government is a popular target (for whatever reasons).
Not defending them though, just saying that your proposed solution might not be that feasible if the original problem is a concern.
Hmm I don't know. I asked the question just because I was curious. I'm Chinese, but in Hong Kong, so I don't really know how the mainlanders view their officials and politicians. You could probe me, but I can't tell one way or the other... here in Hong Kong I don't really recall any politicians or high officials caught blatantly lying, but I can say that they'd have a lot of explaining to do if that happened. Politicians lying isn't the norm here.
;-p... So maybe it's not just a Chinese thing.
About the extract, interesting. I guess it's somewhat true. There's a traditional saying that "you can't predict what the emperor is thinking". But then what your extract really reminded me of was some scenes in Godfather (the film). I'm thinking maybe I wouldn't understand what the extract was talking about if I hadn't watched it
Well said... I wish I had mod points.
I mean, there are those who actually care about the human rights situation in China, and there are those who just raise the issue to smite you. Among the former group, there are a number of misinformed people whose good intentions turn awry, and needless to say the latter group of people are jerks.
If I didn't believe strongly in free speech I'd too agree that some of these people should be muted for sake of my peace of mind.
In Europe since there are so many countries you could be a dissident, be critical of your government and flee your country to another if things go sour. So one could afford to fight for their rights and demand their government to do things (risk is of course there, but lower). If you're a good enough advocate you might be able to get support from other countries too and coerce your government to comply. Historically in China you basically have nowhere to flee, and nobody could convince the government to do otherwise unless you have an audience with the emperor or something like that. In situations like these you basically have no choice but to hope that the government isn't out to get you.
That's one aspect of the historical divide, or cultural if you will.
I must add that I don't really support the censorship personally, if only because not being able to get onto Wikipedia sucks. But if you wanted to understand the reasoning (or part of the reasoning) behind it, here it is.
While I do agree that the censorship thing is a bit overdone and to be fair I don't understand how "too much information could be confusing", a main concern of the government is that there is a lot of irrational anti-Chinese/anti-communist materials out there, either intentionally or unintentionally inciting hatred towards the Chinese government.
Of course some are valid criticisms, but they are far and few between. Some are good intentioned criticisms, but are nonetheless flawed by the lack of deep understanding of the situation in China. And some are just... bashing China for the sake of it.
I can tell you personally that I was quite confused about the facts, and it was notoriously hard to differentiate facts from propaganda (by either China or the anti-Chinese groups). For example it took me some time to dig through lots of crap for quality information until I was satisfied that I had a basic understanding of the issues in Tibet. I'm still not exactly sure about the Tienanmen Square event (not just what happened, but the causes and effects etc.). I'm not in mainland China, but in Hong Kong, which there is no internet censorship at all (AFAIK), and I'm Chinese so I could read Chinese sources. Basically the "best of both worlds" for understanding these issues if you will, since I'm not hampered by internet censorship nor the language barrier. Yet the amount of irrational stigma on these issues and the extent at which both sides (the Chinese govt and the critics) are willing to exaggerate facts and zoom in on things that incite emotions makes it quite hard for me to conclusively believe in anything. I don't think not everybody spends the time to check things up, and probably just tends to believe in those who rants most loudly. (i.e. those "TANKS!! OMFG!!! TANKSS!!" [the objection here is that focusing on the tanks simply doesn't give an understanding of the full picture... which is much more complicated...])
So yeah, that's one of the reasons for censorship if you get what I mean. I personally don't think it solves the problem (it only hides the problem), but then at least I could understand it as a temporary measure to alleviate the cultural shock when the Chinese people find out about the outside world. But if internet censorship in China goes on for longer, say a decade or so, that would worry me.
By assuming that any Chinese who doesn't agree with their conceptions of "freedom" and "democracy" must be an idiot.
By assuming that the Chinese government is evil and that any Chinese who doesn't oppose their government is a disgrace.
By the "I'm holier than thou" mentality.
I'm not kidding, I've seen too many of these people.
The "control and power, and how ruthless and brutal the Chinese government" was part fact (note tense) and part anti-communist propaganda you've been fed (um, brainwashed?).
If you look into the facts (with an open mind) you'll see the truth of the GP. Of course, if you just want somebody to bash, go ahead. It's just that the less factually/logically grounded your rants are, the less they matter.
Well, uh, can't speak authoritatively since I'm in Hong Kong, but I'll corroborate the GP's comments about "lean words".
The time you when were in Taiwan is also probably significant. They went from a single party military dictatorship to a more or less fully democratic country in the past 30 years. If the GP was in Taiwan a few decades ago that Taiwan might be quite different from the Taiwan you know.
And I'd also ask "why *should* they change?"
Specifically, I, for one, have a hard time understanding the "Big Brother" paranoia on slashdot.
I understand how free speech, democracy, etc. works, but that one I really can't wrap my mind around it.
But of course, politics to subvert the government (and more importantly the authority of the emperor) has always been a bad idea. Policies as to what constitutes subversion varies according to political climate though.
Now we're talking.
If you want to make accusations about the Chinese government at least be accurate and not make up ridiculous things. If you ever wondered why people are so hostile when you're bashing China, this is probably why.
If you committed manslaughter and I charge you for rape, you plea not guilty. Don't act outraged when people deny the exaggerated things and untrue you accuse them of.
You're speculating again. What "measures" are you talking about?
Sure, but you still haven't answered me how you are so sure about the situation unless you've been in one yourself.
Sometimes I wonder too. :-(
:-/
But then if you consider that those in power today are those who went through the craze called the Cultural Revolution, you might sort of understand the paranoia...
I dunno
And if it pleases you I don't really have a quarrel on the points you've mentioned which I didn't expressly object to.
It's just that you're either factually misinformed, or deliberately exaggerated things, and too emotional on the matter to speak objectively.
If by being a Chinese means "growing up reading mao's cookbook" then in half a century or so there won't be any Chinese left in the world.
It's like saying you're not an American if you're not dumb, or you're not French if you're not a sissy.
Yes I know HK is privileged. I'm basically utilizing the privilege in full right now. But you asked me whether I've been in a "repressive regime", and I answered. Unless you've grown up in mainland China I don't see how you could claim with such certainty that you know better than I do.
I agree that it's harder to get the facts there. Was there two months ago, couldn't get on wiki and some google searches censored. But it's just harder, not impossible, and they still haven't got the technology to control the precise happenings inside your cranium.
Except that there is no reason to create riots in Tibet during the sensitive period of the Olympic Torch relay.
Besides, the Chinese government never really had to provide good reason to arrest people, particularly people advocating separatist movements.