Thio LI-ann Nominated MP is atheist-turned-christian
-
just share with u guys how she turned from atheist to christian...
she was a very arrogant atheist, who scored A1 in bible knowledge for her o lveles and ripped apart the beliefs of her christian friends when debating religion with them. then at age of 19, she converted to christainity.
Having just entered oxford to study jurisprudence, she attended a christian union talk at a friend's invitation. wanting to leave halfway, she was "stopped" by a voice. "i basically had a sense that God was talking to me, " she recounts. ................. "And then i just had the sense that I had encountered God, that he knew my name and I was shocked."
i think she is a weak atheist, that is why she turned to god just because of this single occurence. Her atheist foundation could not make her overcome the "someone spoke to her event" Perhaps she did not know that sometimes, in depressed people or normal people, it is normal for them to hear voice speaking to them even when there is no one around. This has been reported in science.
I wonder whether i myself will become god believer if i experienced such things. -
above was quoted from straits time. friday nov 2.
-
I was so mad when I saw the article just now
-
can someone be a weak atheist?
-
Christians love to claim that they were atheists but were convinced either by evidence or personal revelation.
Examples are Lee Strobel and Kirk Cameron.
And it's probably true. After all, we are all born atheists. We need to be indoctrinated in order to become religious.
But she was probably an atheist without any understanding. Kent Hovnid likes to use the word "purposefully ignorant" to describe atheists. I think it's a far better description for the religious.
Prof Thio simply trots out the tired old arguments constantly pushed by religious bigots.
Her argument that "atheism influences morality" as well is more nonsense. The difference is atheists have no dogmatic beliefs. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in itself.
I fail to see why she should be concerned with the private lives of consenting adults.
I propose we start a religion where Prof Thio is the equivalent of the anti-Christ. Then we lobby for a law that exiles Prof Thio from Singapore and makes the name "Thio" illegal so no one can use that name.
Am I serious about this? Of course not. This law makes as much sense to me as a law against homosexuality.
But this is the kind of thing that Prof Thio and Christian nutjobs like her advocate.
But don't worry. The tide is slowly shifting. The god of the gaps is slowly shrinking. Hopefully, one day, we can talk about the Christian god the same way we talk about Zeus, Thor and the Flying Spaggetti Monster. -
if your mind is open enough, I'd share with you how I turned from a staunch atheist to a catholic ....
yes, it was a single epiphanic occurrence that changed my life too ...
I guess it's a kind of fate ... some people are destined to be touched by Buddha, some are destined to be touch by Jesus etc etc ....
I used to take pride in my logic too ... I told everyone I was a scientist and an empiricist ..... -
That's strange. You claim to be a catholic, but you acknowledge the existence of Buddha? Your doctrine appears to be faulty.Originally posted by Fatum:if your mind is open enough, I'd share with you how I turned from a staunch atheist to a catholic ....
yes, it was a single epiphanic occurrence that changed my life too ...
I guess it's a kind of fate ... some people are destined to be touched by Buddha, some are destined to be touch by Jesus etc etc ....
I used to take pride in my logic too ... I told everyone I was a scientist and an empiricist .....
Perhaps you are not a Catholic but you have picked and chosen from the Catholic faith to create your own religion.
But anyway, I take issue with the term "staunch atheist" as I feel it's misleading. However, I interpret it to mean you had a firm conviction is the non-existence of god. On what basis did your staunch atheism come from? -
ah yes, I see it's pointless ... tis alright ... we take comfort in different things ....Originally posted by Phaze:That's strange. You claim to be a catholic, but you acknowledge the existence of Buddha? Your doctrine appears to be faulty.
Perhaps you are not a Catholic but you have picked and chosen from the Catholic faith to create your own religion.
seek, and ye shall find .... and of course, if you seek not to see God, you shall never see him either .... -
I thought I asked a legitimate question. Avoiding the question doesn't mean your doctrine is any less faulty.Originally posted by Fatum:ah yes, I see it's pointless ... tis alright ... we take comfort in different things ....
seek, and ye shall find .... and of course, if you seek not to see God, you shall never see him either ....
Seeking something that does not exist is a futile exercise. But let's say for the sake of argument that one should seek something, should the person seek the Christian god? Or Enlightenment? Or the Jewish god? Or EL? Or any of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been conceived by humans?
"Ahhh..." the answer comes. "Pick my religion because it's TRUE."
And how do you determine if that religion is true?
Evidence.
And that's sorely lacking.
I feel, and of course you may disagree, that I'm very open minded. Evidence is all that's required to convince me.
Religion on the other hand, already claims to have the answers and no amount of evidence change the minds of the religious. -
unless it is recurring, I would not put too much hope in such things, but to each his own... the question is whether you want to live a life of piety (meaning, no fun) for a hazy, uncertain one off experience...Originally posted by Fatum:ah yes, I see it's pointless ... tis alright ... we take comfort in different things ....
seek, and ye shall find .... and of course, if you seek not to see God, you shall never see him either .... -
But anyway, my problem with Prof Thio is that she objects to homosexuality on religious grounds and she wants legislative support to impose her religious views on others.
I wonder what's her view on imposing Sharia law on everyone in Singapore, regardless of religion?
I have no problem with her disliking homosexuality. If she wants to base her moral values and ethics on an ancient, intolerant culture, that's her prerogative.
I don't like oysters. Every time I try eating an oyster, I feel like puking. I've tried drowning it in tabasco sauce and squeezing a whole lemon over it. I still can't stand it. Can I get a law to ban oysters?
No one is forcing Prof Thio to be a lesbian. Why can't she have a live and let live attitude towards homosexuals?
I really hope that one day Christianity, and all religions, will be outlawed. And on that day, our Prime Minister will go address the nation and say, "We appreciate Christians and their contributions to our society. Singapore would not be where we are today without them. There are still churches out there and people still meet in their homes for cell group. We will not actively pursue or prosecute the religious but we want this law to show that we value critical thinking."
I am seriously thinking of starting a campaign to ban shellfish.
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you. -
i am still waiting for god to appear or give me some clear signs.Originally posted by Fatum:if your mind is open enough, I'd share with you how I turned from a staunch atheist to a catholic ....
yes, it was a single epiphanic occurrence that changed my life too ...
I guess it's a kind of fate ... some people are destined to be touched by Buddha, some are destined to be touch by Jesus etc etc ....
I used to take pride in my logic too ... I told everyone I was a scientist and an empiricist .....
is he going to wait till i am 80 years old then he come. Is the queue so long? -
perhaps you could share with us how your scientific beliefs are lost to religion, your reasoning of why the single occurence means that therefore god is true as precisely as possible.Originally posted by Fatum:if your mind is open enough, I'd share with you how I turned from a staunch atheist to a catholic ....
yes, it was a single epiphanic occurrence that changed my life too ...
I guess it's a kind of fate ... some people are destined to be touched by Buddha, some are destined to be touch by Jesus etc etc ....
I used to take pride in my logic too ... I told everyone I was a scientist and an empiricist .....
if your reasoning is good, you could turn us atheist into your side. on the other hand, we could tell you where your reasonings is wrong and bring you back to the atheism. And dun just talk about fate, feelings and magical moment as reasons. -
you're cute ...Originally posted by Phaze:I thought I asked a legitimate question. Avoiding the question doesn't mean your doctrine is any less faulty.
Seeking something that does not exist is a futile exercise. But let's say for the sake of argument that one should seek something, should the person seek the Christian god? Or Enlightenment? Or the Jewish god? Or EL? Or any of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been conceived by humans?
"Ahhh..." the answer comes. "Pick my religion because it's TRUE."
And how do you determine if that religion is true?
Evidence.
And that's sorely lacking.
I feel, and of course you may disagree, that I'm very open minded. Evidence is all that's required to convince me.
Religion on the other hand, already claims to have the answers and no amount of evidence change the minds of the religious.
religion does offer you a lot of answers, however, it is you who decides whether the answer satisfies you or not .... if you claim that no amount of evidence can change the mind of the religious, I guess the same thing apply for the likes of you ... (note: there is a distinction between the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, atheists often take the former as the latter)
The Buddha is a historical as well as religious figure, as is Jesus Christ, they both inspire and touch the lives of a lot of people ... am I influenced by both ? yes, I think so, at the highest level their messages of love and compassion has a lot of parallels ... and there are life messages that are not mutually exclusive to each "doctrine" as you like to call it ...
I used to take sanctimonious pride in being irreligious, until I realized the limitations of logic ... if you're a thinking man, you'd realized that logic only satisfying up to a point ... science as we know it explains the process of natural phenomena very well, but it fares poorly at explaining the mechanism of nature ... take evolution for example, I devoured books from the likes of darwin and leaky when I was younger, but I realized that while science has explained the "process" very well, it doesn't explain the mechanism, the driving force behind evolution, in natural selection for example, what decides which design is propagated in a species, which design evolves and came about (think flight) ... and of course, what people often fail to note is that science as we know it is not some unbending, absolute truth, but a changing set of theories that people come to accept as the "truth" ... until they are superseded by newer, better theories ... thus you can "know" all about the beginnings of the universe, atomic physics, evolutionary biology, but you would never be able to explain the mechanics of these, the "what made them so" ...
the catholic church, I'd be the first to admit, as certain sectors of the church would also, is not perfect, I know that much from my university european history classes, else we wouldn't have first martin luther and the assorted denominations that sprouted out later. The church of these early ages were also a political force, but I think it's missing the point when people point out the failings of men as the failings of the religion, of the message (so don't bother bringing up paedophilic priests ) ... religion is about the relationship between you and God, not about the temporal relationship between you and the clergy ...
My personal journey started off somewhat like Professor Thio's ... I can only describe it as a combination of "out of body" experience and a hallucination ... you can accept it, deride it, or write it off as an anomaly of the brain ... but I can guess that if it happens to you, you wouldn't be much changed afterwards anyways ....
the message is free, the gift is free .... you can choose to accept it, or not ... you can bring a sheep to water, but you can never make it drink ... perhaps one day you'd want to .... and I hope it'd come to you too ... you'd probably look back at this sanctimonious folly and laugh .... -
i have to remind you, fatnum, that it is science, technology, engineering, architecture and other subjects that keeps creating things all the time, and creating new functions and stuff.
science is not a just a stuff to talk about. we apply our knowledge whether science or other disciplines and produce real creations. -
so this is the thing that make you become believer of god. it must have been a enlightening feeling you experience in that moment.Originally posted by Fatum:My personal journey started off somewhat like Professor Thio's ... I can only describe it as a combination of "out of body" experience and a hallucination ... you can accept it, deride it, or write it off as an anomaly of the brain ... but I can guess that if it happens to you, you wouldn't be much changed afterwards anyways ....
but the point is - how does having that experience therefore make you believe that there is a god. you still have not explain your logic. You just boil it all down to a 'feeling' thing. You have chose to believe in god after the event. You could chose again not to believe, if you try. i always switch my beliefs and decisions about many things in life.
This 'feeling' and faith explanation is not going to have any effect on atheists but only serve to make us feel that its the same old reasons again.
remember there are many
atheist --> god believers
god believers ----> atheist
god believers -----> die die still god believers
atheist ----> die die still atheist
in the world along with other groups of religions and degree of beliefs. -
I had out of body experience, hearing of ghostly voices during my JC, sec years when i experienced sleep paralysis.Originally posted by Fatum:I can only describe it as a combination of "out of body" experience and a hallucination ...
That is all it took to make you into a god believer?? -
yes, of course, I'm a science graduate myself .... but if we talk about science in philosophical terms ... you'd find science, and especially logic, wanting, for the kind of "logic" that you speak of is essentially in science .... is essentially in science ... (unless, of course, you're talking about boolean algebra and logic calculus, a whole different ball game here ...Originally posted by january:i have to remind you, fatnum, that it is science, technology, engineering, architecture and other subjects that keeps creating things all the time, and creating new functions and stuff.
science is not a just a stuff to talk about. we apply our knowledge whether science or other disciplines and produce real creations. ) ... the foundations of your "doctrine" is often the lack of evidence to prove the existence of a higher sentience ...
again, I think what I've written above still holds ... science explains the process, but not the mechanics of things ... the driving force behind natural phenomena ... it is worth noting that darwin himself was a self described agnostic (yes, he was disillusioned with the state of organized religions in his day), but he was not an atheist ... even Carl Sagan, often held up as the champion of atheism, was a freethinker, not an atheist ... so if you were to ground your "logical reasoning" within science, you're essentially missing the nature of modern science, and more importantly, you're grounding your reasoning not in some absolute, unchanging truth, but a set of changeable (and changing) theories, no ? ...
in anycase, I'm curious to know ... how would you prove that God does not exist ? ... I'm convinced to my satisfaction that God exist ... so you say that God doesn't exist .... I'm curious ... how are you going to prove (with science, or whatever "logic" you'd prefer) that God doesn't exist ? ... -
I appreciate your response though of course, I disagree with your overall conclusion.Originally posted by Fatum:you're cute ...
religion does offer you a lot of answers, however, it is you who decides whether the answer satisfies you or not .... if you claim that no amount of evidence can change the mind of the religious, I guess the same thing apply for the likes of you ... (note: there is a distinction between the lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary, atheists often take the former as the latter)
The Buddha is a historical as well as religious figure, as is Jesus Christ, they both inspire and touch the lives of a lot of people ... am I influenced by both ? yes, I think so, at the highest level their messages of love and compassion has a lot of parallels ... and there are life messages that are not mutually exclusive to each "doctrine" as you like to call it ...
I do not believe that religion offers any answers. Because religion has no basis in reality, it cannot offer any answers. For those parts of religion that have a basis in reality, why do you need a middleman?
For example, a hurricane comes and wipes out a village. "It's god's wrath!" proclaim the religious leaders. It's an answer sure, but in this modern age, a totally unsatisfactory one.
I do not have enough knowledge of Buddhism to comment about it. However, the issue of Jesus as a historical figure is highly controversial. Most of the new testament stories are highly embellished and modified over the years.
The city of Troy was once considered a myth. Though the city of Troy has been rediscovered, and we know the city really used to exist, it does not follow that the Illiad is a true account and that the greek gods really existed.
I do agree that a person's standard of evidence helps determine whether a person is religious. A skeptic is much more likely to be religious than a non-skeptic. The religious often believe in other "new age" philosophies as well (should they fall away from their religion). -
that was probably what it was for you ....Originally posted by january:I had out of body experience, hearing of ghostly voices during my JC, sec years when i experienced sleep paralysis.
That is all it took to make you into a god believer?? -
would you care to define what reality is for me ? ...Originally posted by Phaze:I appreciate your response though of course, I disagree with your overall conclusion.
I do not believe that religion offers any answers. Because religion has no basis in reality, it cannot offer any answers. For those parts of religion that have a basis in reality, why do you need a middleman?
For example, a hurricane comes and wipes out a village. "It's god's wrath!" proclaim the religious leaders. It's an answer sure, but in this modern age, a totally unsatisfactory one.
I do not have enough knowledge of Buddhism to comment about it. However, the issue of Jesus as a historical figure is highly controversial. Most of the new testament stories are highly embellished and modified over the years.
The city of Troy was once considered a myth. Though the city of Troy has been rediscovered, and we know the city really used to exist, it does not follow that the Illiad is a true account and that the greek gods really existed.
I do agree that a person's standard of evidence helps determine whether a person is religious. A skeptic is much more likely to be religious than a non-skeptic. The religious often believe in other "new age" philosophies as well (should they fall away from their religion).
and, I think you've missed the whole point about religion ... a more important of religion is to function as a source of emotional strength and succor for people ... if you were to be in that hypothetical village that was wiped out in the storm, how would you deal with it ? ... with the loss of your loved ones, etc etc ... of course, in this day and age, not many would be satisfied with the "God's wrath" story ... but they can certainly draw strength from it in different ways, some would ascribe it to karma, some would ascribe it as a trial from God ... but they can deal with the losses of their loved ones and property more effectively because of the emotional succor that they have ... even if it is an artificial construct, religion offers people hope and comfort .... they have something, that much to look forward to, to carry on ....
what, would you, who believes in nothing, do ? ... -
Ahh... now it's getting complicated.Originally posted by Fatum:would you care to define what reality is for me ? ...
and, I think you've missed the whole point about religion ... a more important of religion is to function as a source of emotional strength and succor for people ... if you were to be in that hypothetical village that was wiped out in the storm, how would you deal with it ? ... with the loss of your loved ones, etc etc ... of course, in this day and age, not many would be satisfied with the "God's wrath" story ... but they can certainly draw strength from it in different ways, some would ascribe it to karma, some would ascribe it as a trial from God ... but they can deal with the losses of their loved ones and property more effectively because of the emotional succor that they have ... even if it is an artificial construct, religion offers people hope and comfort .... they have something, that much to look forward to, to carry on ....
what, would you, who believes in nothing, do ? ...
I know it's very simplistic but for the sake of this argument, let's define reality as anything that any other entity in a different frame of reference or point of view can agree on.
I do agree religion can bring comfort. But I also think the truth/reality matters more.
There are people in the Jedi religion who go to automatic doors and wave their hands when the door opens. I don't know if they REALLY believe they have Jedi powers. I do know, however, the human mind is capable of believing all sorts of things.
In March 26, 1997, the Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide believing their souls would rise up to a spaceship and be taken away. You could argue that this was their reality and perhaps it doesn't matter whether it really happened.
I have no problem with them taking their lives. It's their lives. They can do whatever they want with it. I do think it's unfortunate though, if they made their decisions based on faulty information.
I wouldn't say I believe in nothing. I do not believe in the supernatural. What would I do in the case where many of my loved ones and friends passed away in a natural disaster and I lost everything? I would be very upset. But I would not blame any supernatural being for the tragedy nor look to any supernatural being for succor. The tragedy would remind me how fragile life is and how we only get one chance at life. -
I think you're confusing blind faith and religious beliefs, blind faith is essentially an oxymoron in many religions, because blind faith cannot be sustained. Just as you, as an atheists, have this need for constant affirmation of your belief system (I guess that's the reason for this forum), so do "believers" ... some of us need not seek this affirmation, because we were already touched in different ways, some of us seek affirmation in the message, the doctrine, of the belief system if you will ... thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, these are messages that all men can embrace ... more importantly, religion also acts as a moral yardstick with which we use to measure the conduct of our daily lives ... yes, the human mind is truly capable of believing in anything, but to do that without measuring it against the yardstick of your soul, is simply to be foolish .... which religion asks you to kill yourselves ? mine doesn't .... logically, of course, a belief system like that cult you mentioned above would not be sustainable, cos there would be no avenue of propagation ...Originally posted by Phaze:Ahh... now it's getting complicated.
I know it's very simplistic but for the sake of this argument, let's define reality as anything that any other entity in a different frame of reference or point of view can agree on.
I do agree religion can bring comfort. But I also think the truth/reality matters more.
There are people in the Jedi religion who go to automatic doors and wave their hands when the door opens. I don't know if they REALLY believe they have Jedi powers. I do know, however, the human mind is capable of believing all sorts of things.
In March 26, 1997, the Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide believing their souls would rise up to a spaceship and be taken away. You could argue that this was their reality and perhaps it doesn't matter whether it really happened.
I have no problem with them taking their lives. It's their lives. They can do whatever they want with it. I do think it's unfortunate though, if they made their decisions based on faulty information.
I wouldn't say I believe in nothing. I do not believe in the supernatural. What would I do in the case where many of my loved ones and friends passed away in a natural disaster and I lost everything? I would be very upset. But I would not blame any supernatural being for the tragedy nor look to any supernatural being for succor. The tragedy would remind me how fragile life is and how we only get one chance at life.
so you wouldn't say you believe in nothing, what do you believe in ? since I've shown you in my previous reply that logic, grounded in science as we know it today, is essentially wanting ? ... I could not quite decide if you were truly open minded, since you stated that you do not believe in the supernatural, it seems to me that by this statement, aren't you limiting yourself to the experiences your mind are willing to admit ... skeptic, free-thinker, atheist, agnostic ? ... pick a label ... -
i am an atheist, but i am open to the idea that God/gods(?) really exist. it doesn't mean that since i am an atheist, i must be one forever, because what if a higher being really exists?
-
then you're not an atheist, but an agnostic ...Originally posted by missqi:i am an atheist, but i am open to the idea that God/gods(?) really exist.