Look who's back?

vince69 SG

Mr. Green

Ito_^ SG

a person who sleeps around.

laurence82 SG

sleeper cell, a group of something that lies dormant for a while and suddenly become active

vince69 SG

Sleeper, a person (not cell) that was sleeping most of the time, waking up only to perform some specific task (in this case, WORK LAH)

still wraping up some work related issue, getting sleepy Sad

Raptured SG

What do you have against me? Why drag me into the picture?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I wonder if these two people actually dare to take their points out there into the public in a fair, face-to-face debate. It’s too easy to act as if your point of view was invincible on the internet. All one needs to do is to keep answering.

vince69 SG

dangerous leh, later from verbal debate turn into physical fight how?

laurence82 SG

sounds similar to what i said last year

to those chaps whom i lambasted for making anti-religious remarks

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I mean those on TV national debates or at the Indoor Stadium lor...

In America they often fill up stadiums with open debate between apologists of faith and athiests. I would love to see SIS or CK take their case up there.

vince69 SG

Rolling Eyes

stupidissmart SG

I wonder if these two people actually dare to take their points out there into the public in a fair, face-to-face debate. It's too easy to act as if your point of view was invincible on the internet. All one needs to do is to keep answering.

It is obviously easy to say tat as my stand is not the easy route here Rolling Eyes As a defender of the faith, no matter wat u say, whether is it meaningful, correct or even silly, people get to applaud u or at least comment u as a enthsiastic response. U won't face rejection, career difficulty or even get into trouble with the law. However on my stand, no matter wat I say, whether it is meaningful, correct and even right on the point, I may get to face rejection from friends, career difficulty especially if my company require support from christian community or even get to sent to court.

Easy to act as though your point of view is invincible ? Why not let the reader gauge themselves. If there is no point in the passage, the readers will already know and u r just saying the obvious.

sillyme SG

Hi SIS, welcome back Smile

I do not approve of this thread. As long as nothing ugly comes up, it can remain open. I don't agree that we should look forward to "fights" in forums. So please keep your discussions rational and peaceful. (And that goes to everyone, not targeting at SIS)

Reading your comments, I think it is fair to say that believers of every faith faces rejection. They also get snide remarks about their beliefs. We too have a have a fair share of rebuttals. So you are not alone when it comes to standing up for your beliefs.

Honeybunz SG

SIS, where have you been???

stupidissmart SG

I am not really coming back either... I have no time Crying or Very sad

iveco SG

Who is RP? Another clone? Confused

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I'm afraid you are also just stating the obvious.

I realize two grounds for rejection (and mocking) of a certain belief:

1) One is that it is true but unpopular, and hence the speaker is rejected.

2) The other is that the speaker is simply foolish and mistaken, and hence shunned.

Of which you belong to, I suppose that's a matter to debate. Support is nice to have, but truth remains truth regardless of support. If it was the truth I would like to support it, but it so happens that what I believe to be the truth and what you believe to be the truth are entirely different.

And of course running in a self-supportive circle is always the simplest thing to do, and one might raise the very reasons you just raised as well. It so turns out your whip is your spur, but it really isn't your justification.

stupidissmart SG

I realize two grounds for rejection (and mocking) of a certain belief:

1) One is that it is true but unpopular, and hence the speaker is rejected.

2) The other is that the speaker is simply foolish and mistaken, and hence shunned.

I need to clarify your point in tis reply. U r saying tat the

grounds for rejection = rejection/"do not believe" of a certain belief like Islam, buddhist

or

= going for public debate about religion

If it is the first part, then I am sure there is a 3rd ground which is the religion does not make sense to u. Otherwise everyone in the world, whether is he catholic or buddhist is either foolish (since they reject all the other religions) or every religion is true (which cannot be true. Every cult is a form of belief by itself).

If u r mentioning the second point which is about going for public debate, I can surely say tat anyone who talks against your belief is gonna get "arrowed" no matter wat he say. Religion is a powerful force tat make people lose their cool and commit things tat is irrational. When galileo propose the earth rotate around the sun, wat is the reaction of the church ? They r still not happy even though it is the truth and house arrest galileo. U can even see the events nowsaday about religion and the reaction of its believers (davinci, advising of lawyers from chc to a person who claims he is forced to buy cds, people who get sued in court over religious remarks)

Of which you belong to, I suppose that's a matter to debate. Support is nice to have, but truth remains truth regardless of support. If it was the truth I would like to support it, but it so happens that what I believe to be the truth and what you believe to be the truth are entirely different.

And so if your preceive truth is against another, wat will become of your attitude towards them ? Actually the answer is obvious if u look at your/others replies. Unless one want to be Mr unpopular or do not fear to be charged in court or condemn by public, it is prudent to remain as just a voice.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Ah do not mistake what I say, I was not questioning your powers of prudence... I was simply remarking on the apparent paradox of pointing out that an unpopularity of a certain view means should booster it's value as truth.

Attitude towards another person who disagrees with you on the truth appears to me, as an issue of many things to do with the person... not simply his pure professed idealogy. Many people can say one thing about the truth (or even argue it to an extent) and end up doing the direct opposite.

However I am not convinced that there are no people out there who are willing to put their views (religious or not) out to fair debate. Especially in Singapore, where they do not simply cut off your head for drawing certain cartoons.

A strong reaction to an apparent lie however, is in my opinion justified. And I think you'd agree as well, going from your manner of speech in here. In any case, unless one intends to make a total fool and eyesore of himself in Singapore, I doubt there are exactly ISD waiting to lynch you or mobs waiting to burn your house down. I suppose you could even be as vocal as Richard Dawkings without much fear of reprisal. It seems to me that much of what you said it just that... an excuse.

But if you so choose to remain as a voice, it is your choice. And it also appears you are of the opinion that one man should not try change the world even if he believed it was difficult. Of course it might be that one's worldview is never a matter of really motivating oneself that he ought to do something about the world, just that it ought to help him be happy with it.

In which case, by all means.

stupidissmart SG

I was simply remarking on the apparent paradox of pointing out that an unpopularity of a certain view means should booster it's value as truth.

frankly I do not recall making any such comments. Can u please refresh my memories as when did I ever state tat the more unpopular a view is, the more likely it is the truth ?

However I am not convinced that there are no people out there who are willing to put their views (religious or not) out to fair debate. Especially in Singapore, where they do not simply cut off your head for drawing certain cartoons.

My opinion of singapore is different from your interpretation. The gov of singapore want to maintain peace in the land by cutting out any debate, real or in the internet, on comment between religion. As such public discussion of such kind is prohibited. Even if u go to the speech corner here, it has stated tat u r not to say any religious comments. In fact 3 people here had already been charged and punish due to making religious remarks over the internet.

Maybe u can try to prove your point by giving an example of a person in singapore (who had given out his real identity) famous for making religious remarks yet get no backlash of any kind. Remember richard dawkins is in USA. U can even get guns in USA. It is totally different from singapore.

In the end, overall the replies in this thread still give me the impression tat it is easy for people to tell other to charge through the frontline but difficult for one to step out himself

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I wasn't refering to anything you said SIS, simply that it happened to bring up some thoughts about this curious victim-complex-equals-truth that some people hold in debate, which seems to be quite popular among certain strains pseudothinkers nowadays.

A common argument I see often goes: this is popular/ the real truth cannot be popular/ hence this is not real truth/ hence the truth has to be unpopular (or hidden, or suppressed). It is a common paper-thin argument that comes up with a lot more weight then it should be used.

Of course I have no way of reading into your thoughts beyond your words, and hence I never supposed (unless you stated clearly to that effect) that you held that view. I do hope you do not misread my constant useage of 'you' as you, which I admit on my part is a rather ambigious useage of word that arises of habit.

And as on Singapore:

I am not sure to which are the 3 people you say who got charged for making religious comments... but if you are refering to the bloggers who got jailed recently, I hardly think of them as good case studies.

Firstly if the reports are to be believed, the comments they made were hardly of a rational nature. Their posts were not so rational refutals of Islam as they were largely irrational hate-laced insults against race and religion. In which case you would be right to say that in our nation they would get the weight of the law going down on them.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that going on the offensive against religion ala Richard Dawkins is a fatal pratice in Singapore. If you can back up what you say in the realm of fair debate, can any court of law in Singapore really do much about what you have to say? If one was in Indonesia or Malaysia one might have something to say about wanting to keep their mouth shut. But in Singapore? I am not too sure about that.

In any case, if the authorities really wanted to come after us, I have no doubt they would have little trouble on getting on your trail. The truth is they have better things to do, and are happy to keep the status quo as it is.

Should religion become a little bothersome they might clamp down on it as well. I am not sure why some atheists speaking out would seriously destablize nation when this nation was the very nation that opted (against the religious opinion), to introduce the casino and other religiously unpopular schemes. I have yet to see any demostrations or serious moral mobbing here.

Would entertaining some athiestic points of view rock the boat much? I do not think so.

And I am not sure who exactly you are talking about who tells people to charge but do not do so themselves. Could you advise me on this?

Atheistic or not my point of view is this: If one does not live for what he believes that what good is that belief to him? If we want greater freedom the way to get it is to work towards it, or even work with what we have. You did raise up my thoughts about another Singaporean paradox, the curious habit of demanding certain rights and freedoms but being so fearful that we do not even do the little that we can do.

A wise avoidance of unnecessary and foolish trouble like Dr. Chee would not be a wrong thing, but saying that all rational roads working for what we believe to be freedom leads to Dr. Chee's experience, and hence the best form of action is non action or covertness... seems odd. This is Singapore, not even Cambodia, Burma or Iran.

In any case, I know the little that we can do is more then just staying as a voice. And in terms of doing my part for wanting to shape the nation in the way I am convicted it should be shaped, I did vote for the party during this GE that I truly believed in... and it's not the party line.

« Previous Page Next Page »