Thio LI-ann Nominated MP is atheist-turned-christian
-
This is a typical, standard question that has been said and asked many many times already.Originally posted by Fatum: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 ? ...
you said , I'm convinced to my satisfaction that God exist
That is not good reasoning. You can only convince yourself with this statment. -
I am a atheist who prefer that a god exist. but the god must help me and give me good things, that would be good.Originally posted by missqi: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? -
nonono, i don't believe that God exists, but i don't rule it out completely only.Originally posted by Fatum:then you're not an atheist, but an agnostic ...
-
its sucks to live in a natural world where human effort is always fighting against time and our super huge universe to solve problems.
but no point deluding myself that god is there. no point... -
Off topic:
I can't stand this sgforums software. I wrote a long post and when I tried to submit it, it brought me back to the login page and I lost the post.
Grrrrr....
Must be God censoring me.
-
That would mean that the god in question is subject to your will and liking, which would mean that god probably isn't really divine in the first place.Originally posted by january:I am a atheist who prefer that a god exist. but the god must help me and give me good things, that would be good. -
Well, to be honest, I dislike the methods of conversion as well. I came to believe in God not because some guy convinced me to go to church, or because I want to meet more people or girls. Christians have to re-examine their position in this world, and not take history for granted. That, I believe, is the effort we all must make.Originally posted by Phaze: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.
You make interesting points. However, I believe this is the point which we diverge, because I find that religion, or God for that matter, is impossible to erase. Short of a meteor strike which wipes out all human archives, no man-made methods or movements will ever be able to eradicate the presence of God. Ever. Why? Well, you could say humans need something to believe in. Humans also have this annoying habit of doing exactly what the opposition doesn't want. So be it.
People can ridicule faith; it's their opinion, but that doesn't mean it has to be right. It's like video games (I just finished that topic for PW). Those who don't play them will never understand what video games are like.
[This part is off-topic]
I spent my primary school years in a Presbyterian school. Even then, I did not become Christian per se; I just acknowledged that what those people said could be right. Maybe there is a God. Maybe this guy named Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. I would never know, because I chose not to know. I shut myself off during Chapel service, pretended to sing along during those horribly off-tune singing sessions. I was... quite an agnostic.
Then came secondary school. I studied in River Valley High. A totally secular environment with strict Chinese policies. No place for religion there. Moreover, I was terribly busy with all my work. And, I met some of the most "devout" atheists there, most of them Christian-bashers. Yet, whenever I had time, I spent it in the library, reading books on religion and non-religion (books no one who strived to be ueber-cool would ever touch).
It was then I had this... drawing towards God. Honestly speaking, I could have chosen any other religion, given the variety in Singapore. Yet for some reason, I didn't. Now, this is the cruncher, some of you would probably start saying how those books must have influenced me and all, how I'm so stupid. Whatever. And it was really from then which I started to experience... things. Not say supernatural, but a very real presence. A very reassuring presence that gives me a nudge and says "Everything's all right, I've got your back." It's not my own voice which tells me that, it's not even a voice. I just know.
[End off-topic]
So, that leads me to my faith.
Still, it doesn't mean I can't use my brain to think through in the sciences or mathematics. Using your brain to comprehend God, I think no human brain can ever do that, because He is on a much higher level. Sure, you could say it's avoiding the question, and thus not answering it. But did any sensible, thinking Christian ever said he/she could answer it? -
I'd say go read Psalms 14, but I've a strong feeling you're going to diss it.Originally posted by january:its sucks to live in a natural world where human effort is always fighting against time and our super huge universe to solve problems.
but no point deluding myself that god is there. no point... -
maybe we should believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-
MP Thio proposes that HER RELIGION have a say in how consenting adults lead their lives.
There are certain religions that do not share HER RELIGION's views.
If religion is to be used to intervene in our policies, and when there exists a conflict between religious views, WHICH RELIGION's view do we adopt?
In my opinion, anyone who declares publicly that he/she heard a voice from nowhere, should seek treatment. The term "schizophrenia" comes to mind. -
Soon, some religion will try to muscle in on the issue of abortion. The next thing you realise there will be compulsory prayers in certain schools. Before long our boys will be sent abroad to fight other people's wars because some delusional politician believes it is a war of GOOD AGAINST EVIL.
I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins. -
Originally posted by january:
ah ah ..... be careful here ..... surely you realized that our respective standards of evidence are different, and that there are no common standards here ? ...
This is a typical, standard question that has been said and asked many many times already.
you said , [b]I'm convinced to my satisfaction that God exist
That is not good reasoning. You can only convince yourself with this statment.[/b]
you may be satisfied that the existence of a higher sentience doesn't exist, but how you go about supporting that claim is not to my satisfaction either ... -
i understand your feelings..Originally posted by Phaze:Off topic:
I can't stand this sgforums software. I wrote a long post and when I tried to submit it, it brought me back to the login page and I lost the post.
Grrrrr....
Must be God censoring me. 
-
this is another common reply of christians... which is sensless replyOriginally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Still, it doesn't mean I can't use my brain to think through in the sciences or mathematics. Using your brain to comprehend God, I think no human brain can ever do that, because He is on a much higher level. Sure, you could say it's avoiding the question, and thus not answering it. But did any sensible, thinking Christian ever said he/she could answer it?
look at what you said But did any sensible, thinking Christian ever said he/she could answer it?
If you don't have the answer, how do you know god is true? Ya, the book say so and you can feel it right? Ya, its the feeling personal experience thingy again. -
the evidences that have been presented are so not strong and many are personal evidence. why must it be a higher intelligence in the first place.Originally posted by Fatum:ah ah ..... be careful here ..... surely you realized that our respective standards of evidence are different, and that there are no common standards here ? ...
you may be satisfied that the existence of a higher sentience doesn't exist, but how you go about supporting that claim is not to my satisfaction either ...
it could be any or this things.
A low IQ bullfrog and created big bang when it croaked too loudly and the bullfrog is just a animal who does not talk or think accept croaking all day.
There are thousands of god in the world. In reality, we humans observe natural phenomenon and all claims of supernatural has no good evidence so far. just does not mean that we dunno what is the universe means that we should just casually say its ghost or god.
to study moon, we have to engineer a rocket and space ship to help us reach that. we can study religious book all the time but its not going to tell us what is the moon.
.God is simply a psychological phenomenon for people who cannot moved passed the threshold thinking -
I don't make a distinction between faith and blind faith, at least the way I understand you are using the term. Faith is essentially belief without evidence. Is not all religious faith blind? I see little distinction between the belief that your soul will go up to a spaceship and a belief that your soul will go to heaven/hell.Originally posted by Fatum: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 ...
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 ...
With regards to morality, I do not know where our sense of morality comes from, but it's certainly not from religion. The reason why there appears to be parallels between our morality and religious morality is because man creates god in his own image. The moral rules, the 'yardstick' as you call it, were created thousands of years by an ancient civilization based on their understanding and culture at the time. Our civilization and culture have advance far since those days.
I made the point before that the morality of most Christians does not come from their religion. Sure, religion does influence it but the Christians by and large use what's in the bible to support their own sense of morals and ignore the rest.
We no longer feel it is right to keep slaves. We now accept that one 'race' of people is not inherently better than another. We are now even beginning to question the concept of race. We by and large do not feel it's acceptable to slaughter people just because their beliefs are different from ours. We no longer feel it's right to offer our daughters to rapists in order to appease them. We value women much more highly now and believe they are the equal of men. We no longer believe it is right to offer our children as a burnt offering to appease god.
And we are the better for it.
I think you have a very misguided view of the atheist/skeptic world view. I don't come here for affirmation of my belief system. I get my affirmation through evidence.
I also don't see how 'logic, grounded in science' is wanting'? The scientific method is essentially about observing the world around us. True, science cannot explain everything... yet. But that doesn't mean religion has the answer. Making up an answer doesn't solve anything. Human intuition is a powerful thing, but it is often wrong. Human intuition often allows us to make great hypothesis but it is the scientific method that allows us to determine if that hypothesis is correct.
So what do I believe in? I believe in rational thought and I believe in evidence. It's about being open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out.
There is one 'accusation' I never quite understood that we just refuse to acknowledge the evidence around us. It goes something like "you just refuse to acknowledge god's existence because you don't want to face up to him" or "this works, you just don't want to admit it."
Why would I, or anyone else, refuse to acknowledge such evidence. If intercessionary prayer really worked, would we be overjoyed that we can cure more people? Wouldn't pray be automatically part of any medical procedure? If magic was real, wouldn't we be thrilled to have another means to get stuff done? We could use magic to perhaps reduce fuel consumption and improve the efficiency of cars. But there's just no evidence.
Finally I'm not limiting my self to any experience. I experience what I experience. But I accept them for what they are. I don't make up some story to explain it. -
Originally posted by january:
I'll say "Another typically atheist answer" then, if you can't get past shooting down my answers without pidgeon-holing them.
this is another common reply of christians... which is sensless reply
look at what you said [b]But did any sensible, thinking Christian ever said he/she could answer it?
If you don't have the answer, how do you know god is true? Ya, the book say so and you can feel it right? Ya, its the feeling personal experience thingy again.[/b]
You took my question out of context. I never mentioned anything to do with the existence of God, I was talking about the actions of God and us trying to comprehend it. You seem pretty much indisposed to disregarding the human element of feeling and sensing things, don't you? -
Very apocalyptic opinions there. That's the problem when people abuse religion and mix it with politics.Originally posted by crosshairs:Soon, some religion will try to muscle in on the issue of abortion. The next thing you realise there will be compulsory prayers in certain schools. Before long our boys will be sent abroad to fight other people's wars because some delusional politician believes it is a war of GOOD AGAINST EVIL.
I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins. -
Originally posted by january:
Gee, because people might choose to believe? Not all believers choose to believe because they want to "fill in" the missing explanations to do with science. I, for one, find that science does a pretty fine job with explaining things today. That doesn't stop my belief in God.
the evidences that have been presented are so not strong and many are personal evidence. why must it be a higher intelligence in the first place.
it could be any or this things.
A low IQ bullfrog and created big bang when it croaked too loudly and the bullfrog is just a animal who does not talk or think accept croaking all day.
There are thousands of god in the world. In reality, we humans observe natural phenomenon and all claims of supernatural has no good evidence so far. just does not mean that we dunno what is the universe means that we should just casually say its ghost or god.
to study moon, we have to engineer a rocket and space ship to help us reach that. we can study religious book all the time but its not going to tell us what is the moon.
.[b]God is simply a psychological phenomenon for people who cannot moved passed the threshold thinking[/b]
I quote Dan Hickerson (whom I agree with):
" The only explanation for the existence of the universe that makes sense, in my opinion, is the existence of a creator who made the universe and everything in it. This does not mean that I reject science, that I believe that the earth is only six-thousand years old, or that I deny the evolution of species. The more I learn about the vast size and age of the universe, and the complexity of life on earth, the more I am in awe of the creator of it all.
Of course, decisions concerning religious faith can never be entirely based on objective evidence. Scientific inquiry will never prove or disprove the existence of God. There has to be a subjective, personal experience of a connection with God, the feeling that God is with you and speaks to you. Anybody can experience the presence of God; one only has to have an open heart and an open mind, and be willing to hear His voice. This does not mean that you can simply will God into speaking to you in an audible voice, or giving you a "sign" to prove His existence. But what I have found is that if I pray, and ask Jesus Christ to be with me, then I will feel His presence in my life." -
Which, at the end of the day, is what I think we are really opposed to.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Very apocalyptic opinions there. That's the problem when people abuse religion and mix it with politics.
Prof Thio advocates legislating her religious morality. Again, she has a right to believe whatever she wants and we can get into healthy debate about the nature of morality, etc. But we should not regulate the private activities of two consenting adults. -
Strum, you're on a roll here. Each time I refresh, there's a new post from you.
-
I would argue that scientific inquiry has disproved every claim about god that is falsifiable.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Gee, because people might choose to believe? Not all believers choose to believe because they want to "fill in" the missing explanations to do with science. I, for one, find that science does a pretty fine job with explaining things today. That doesn't stop my belief in God.
I quote Dan Hickerson (whom I agree with):
" The only explanation for the existence of the universe that makes sense, in my opinion, is the existence of a creator who made the universe and everything in it. This does not mean that I reject science, that I believe that the earth is only six-thousand years old, or that I deny the evolution of species. The more I learn about the vast size and age of the universe, and the complexity of life on earth, the more I am in awe of the creator of it all.
Of course, decisions concerning religious faith can never be entirely based on objective evidence. Scientific inquiry will never prove or disprove the existence of God. There has to be a subjective, personal experience of a connection with God, the feeling that God is with you and speaks to you. Anybody can experience the presence of God; one only has to have an open heart and an open mind, and be willing to hear His voice. This does not mean that you can simply will God into speaking to you in an audible voice, or giving you a "sign" to prove His existence. But what I have found is that if I pray, and ask Jesus Christ to be with me, then I will feel His presence in my life." -
would it have made any difference if the person is atheist-turned-buddhist?
-
Indeed. Ultimately, it's a question of faith, but whether the respect is there remains to be seen even till this day.Originally posted by Phaze:Which, at the end of the day, is what I think we are really opposed to.
Prof Thio advocates legislating her religious morality. Again, she has a right to believe whatever she wants and we can get into healthy debate about the nature of morality, etc. But we should not regulate the private activities of two consenting adults.Originally posted by Phaze:
Hehe. No school already ah, so got time to read and discuss. And a bit lazy to place all my answers in one post, later end up like your posts which keep screwing up.
Strum, you're on a roll here. Each time I refresh, there's a new post from you. Originally posted by Phaze:
Hard to say. The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both unfalsifiable, since they're not scientific statements which can be subject to scientific methods of dealing with natural phenomena. Since those two statements are the prime factors in differentiating between monotheism and atheism, science ultimately cannot say anything viable as to the existence of God.
I would argue that scientific inquiry has disproved every claim about god that is falsifiable.
There are too many different way of looking at new scientific discoveries. We could argue this all day, but I think we'll get nowhere and nothing except ourselves extremely annoyed. -
Right. Those terms are not scientific statements because God has been defined in a way that makes the concept unfalsifiable.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Hard to say. The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both unfalsifiable, since they're not scientific statements which can be subject to scientific methods of dealing with natural phenomena. Since those two statements are the prime factors in differentiating between monotheism and atheism, science ultimately cannot say anything viable as to the existence of God.
There are too many different way of looking at new scientific discoveries. We could argue this all day, but I think we'll get nowhere and nothing except ourselves extremely annoyed.
You are absolutely correct that science cannot make any claims about God itself. However, where God is claimed to interact with the physical world, that is falsifiable. And time and time again, studies have shown there is no supernatural being who interacts with the world.
Of course, you could bring up the argument that God intends to be hidden. But then you run into all kinds of logical contradictions.