Thio LI-ann Nominated MP is atheist-turned-christian
-
Oh... happy holidays. Enjoy your, I'm sure, well deserved break.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Hehe. No school already ah, so got time to read and discuss.
-
missqi can report to Pascal and read about his wager.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?
Seriously, you sound like Pascal in the idea of his wager with his God. -
all atheists will believe in god once it is properly defined and once there is no doubts and no more derivations of god and evidence and reasoning is ample.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? -
its has been quite some time since a thread in atheism forum hits past 50 replies....
(opens champange) -
We have to thank our friend Fatum for that. And of course all the other contributers.Originally posted by january:its has been quite some time since a thread in atheism forum hits past 50 replies.... (opens champange)
Or perhaps credit should go to Prof Thio. -
"I dont believe that God exists" than you are an atheistOriginally posted by missqi:nonono, i don't believe that God exists, but i don't rule it out completely only.
"but I dont rule it out" that means you are an agnostic
So the question is what are you? From what I can see, I will interprete in this way: 1st choice you are an atheist, 2nd choice you are an agnostic. -
I actually agree with her viewpoint. It's pretty much my view as well.Originally posted by richong 3216:"I dont believe that God exists" than you are an atheist
"but I dont rule it out" that means you are an agnostic
So the question is what are you? From what I can see, I will interprete in this way: 1st choice you are an atheist, 2nd choice you are an agnostic.
I am an atheist. I do not believe that god exists. However, I accept that if one day someone presents me evidence for the existence of God, I may believe that God exists. In that sense, I also do not rule out that God may exist.
But make no mistake, I am an atheist.
I do not believe that Pokemon are real. But should one day someone show me evidence that Pokemon really do exists, I might have to go get a PokeBall coz I gotta catch 'em all!.
An agnostic believes that the existence of God is essentially unknowable. I do not accept that view. A loving God who interacts with the world can be detected. Only a deistic god is unknowable. However, a deistic god is also irrelevant. -
My interpretation still holds for the 1st & 2nd choices but for you I will add another choice - the 3rd choice - ie awaiting for future evidence & developement of the existence of God.Originally posted by Phaze:I actually agree with her viewpoint. It's pretty much my view as well.
I am an atheist. I do not believe that god exists. However, I accept that if one day someone presents me evidence for the existence of God, I may believe that God exists. In that sense, I also do not rule out that God may exist.
But make no mistake, I am an atheist.
I do not believe that Pokemon are real. But should one day someone show me evidence that Pokemon really do exists, I might have to go get a PokeBall coz I gotta catch 'em all!.
An agnostic believes that the existence of God is essentially unknowable. I do not accept that view. A loving God who interacts with the world can be detected. Only a deistic god is unknowable. However, a deistic god is also irrelevant. -
Sure. But that third choice is still called Weak Atheism.Originally posted by richong 3216:My interpretation still holds for the 1st & 2nd choices but for you I will add another choice - the 3rd choice - ie awaiting for future evidence & developement of the existence of God.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html -
Then missqi, you are agnostic...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?
-
Vegas, already the land of sin, has probably decided there's no harm going another step further and going after the pink dollar.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119395703996679731.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace -
Let's assume Thio got wind that her neighbour is gay, and that she had gay sex with her partner that night.
1) Is she going to report them?
2)How will she substantiate her claim that they had gay sex, with video evidence?
3)What punishment does she expect the court to mete out to them?
4) Is she going to help her gay neighbour get rid of her gayness?
Questions. So many questions. -
Huge difference. Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods.Originally posted by Chin Eng:would it have made any difference if the person is atheist-turned-buddhist? -
I think Thio's position is that she is aware that this law is almost impossible to enforce. The purpose of the law is like an acknowledgment and acceptance that gay sex is wrong.Originally posted by crosshairs:Let's assume Thio got wind that her neighbour is gay, and that she had gay sex with her partner that night.
1) Is she going to report them?
2)How will she substantiate her claim that they had gay sex, with video evidence?
3)What punishment does she expect the court to mete out to them?
4) Is she going to help her gay neighbour get rid of her gayness?
Questions. So many questions.
Thio feels that homosexual activity is a choice. Even if you accept the premise that homosexuality is genetic, she feels that it's still a choice for a person to engage in homosexual activity. In other words, she feels a person should lead a sexually unfulfilling life instead of engaging in this 'wrong' conduct.
Lee Hsien Loong, however, seems more liberal. His speech appeared to reflect a view that there really isn't anything wrong with homosexuality but society just needs more time to catch up. -
Assuming your deduction of her position as accurate, this begs the question of the relevance of having the legislation in existence. If the legislation is to be in place but not enforced, then it is tantamount to pure discrimination. This opens the door to future abuses of the legal system in which laws are written to tell certain people that "look, we know it is wrong to arrest you, but we are telling you, we don't like what you are doing".Originally posted by Phaze:I think Thio's position is that she is aware that this law is almost impossible to enforce. The purpose of the law is like an acknowledgment and acceptance that gay sex is wrong.
Thio feels that homosexual activity is a choice. Even if you accept the premise that homosexuality is genetic, she feels that it's still a choice for a person to engage in homosexual activity. In other words, she feels a person should lead a sexually unfulfilling life instead of engaging in this 'wrong' conduct.
Lee Hsien Loong, however, seems more liberal. His speech appeared to reflect a view that there really isn't anything wrong with homosexuality but society just needs more time to catch up.
She has compared consensual homosexual intercourse to drug pushing. I do not wish to elaborate on the differences, but being an intelligent person, Prof Thio has seemingly put aside good logical deduction in favour making biased statements that supports her faith. Today it is about restricting the freedom of homosexuals. Look at what's happening in the U.S. and start making your predictions people. This is not going to stop here. I dread to see the day when our secular lives are disrupted because some people used the law to make us submit to their will.
Who in the world nominated her anyway? Doesn't she realise some people drink tea, while others drink coffee? -
Actually, I am more optimistic than you are.
I do think it will stop here. I do think LHL feels the law should be repealed some day. He just can't be bothered to fight the issue.
I see this as delaying the inevitable more than anything else. Don't forget, the issue is about repealing the law, not putting it in place.
Hopefully, people like Prof Thio will become more enlightened one day and she will see the contradictions in her position. -
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121?per_page=50
How very interesting statistics. -
You might be interested in this article.Originally posted by crosshairs:http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/8244121?per_page=50
How very interesting statistics.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece -
LHL may want many things, but I don't think he has the will to push for them.Originally posted by Phaze:Actually, I am more optimistic than you are.
I do think it will stop here. I do think LHL feels the law should be repealed some day. He just can't be bothered to fight the issue.
I see this as delaying the inevitable more than anything else. Don't forget, the issue is about repealing the law, not putting it in place.
Hopefully, people like Prof Thio will become more enlightened one day and she will see the contradictions in her position. -
He has the will to push for GST hikes, and to make "tough economic decisions" when he has to.Originally posted by LazerLordz:LHL may want many things, but I don't think he has the will to push for them.
But for social issues, the don't really want to rock the boat. -
Homosexuals do not have an organisation unlike religion. These people are individuals and they form no immediate threat even if their rights are removed. But think about this: if we are to attract foreign investment and talent, then in the long run we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. At least I know what it means to bring in big names in entertainment, as opposed to bringing in some dubious religious relic demanding to sit in a stupa made of gold dug from the pockets of the poor.
-
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the economic argument.Originally posted by crosshairs:Homosexuals do not have an organisation unlike religion. These people are individuals and they form no immediate threat even if their rights are removed. But think about this: if we are to attract foreign investment and talent, then in the long run we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. At least I know what it means to bring in big names in entertainment, as opposed to bringing in some dubious religious relic demanding to sit in a stupa made of gold dug from the pockets of the poor.
It's pragmatic to be sure. But let's take a scenario where say we are offered 1 billion dollars for every child we sacrifice on an altar. Do we then kill children to ensure our economic success?
I prefer to argue on principles and I feel discriminating against homosexuals is not a principled course of action.
But I wouldn't mind seeing Elton John perform here. -
Precisely my point!Originally posted by Phaze:I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the economic argument.
............................................
But I wouldn't mind seeing Elton John perform here. -
I believe he is just the figurehead for those decisions.Originally posted by Phaze:He has the will to push for GST hikes, and to make "tough economic decisions" when he has to.
But for social issues, the don't really want to rock the boat. -
+1. lets share this to the singapore government...Originally posted by Phaze: