Thio LI-ann Nominated MP is atheist-turned-christian

last SG · 2007-11-04T16:19:12+00:00

There can be only one way to ascertain. Ask everyone in those country. What is interesting is the fact that we are recognised by at least one group of people...

Phaze SG

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.

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.

SturmDerSchatten SG

Originally posted by january:

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]

I'll say "Another typically atheist answer" then, if you can't get past shooting down my answers without pidgeon-holing them.

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?

SturmDerSchatten SG

Very apocalyptic opinions there. That's the problem when people abuse religion and mix it with politics.

SturmDerSchatten SG

Originally posted by january:

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]

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."

Phaze SG

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.

Phaze SG

Strum, you're on a roll here. Each time I refresh, there's a new post from you. Very Happy

Phaze SG

I would argue that scientific inquiry has disproved every claim about god that is falsifiable.

Chin Eng SG

would it have made any difference if the person is atheist-turned-buddhist? Wink

SturmDerSchatten SG

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:
Strum, you're on a roll here. Each time I refresh, there's a new post from you.

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.

Originally posted by Phaze:
I would argue that scientific inquiry has disproved every claim about god that is falsifiable.

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.

Phaze SG

Right. Those terms are not scientific statements because God has been defined in a way that makes the concept unfalsifiable.

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.

Phaze SG

Oh... happy holidays. Enjoy your, I'm sure, well deserved break. Mr. Green

Herzog_Zwei SG

missqi can report to Pascal and read about his wager. Laughing
Seriously, you sound like Pascal in the idea of his wager with his God.

january SG

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.

january SG

its has been quite some time since a thread in atheism forum hits past 50 replies....

Wink Mr. Green Laughing (opens champange)

Phaze SG

We have to thank our friend Fatum for that. And of course all the other contributers. Mr. Green

Or perhaps credit should go to Prof Thio.

richong 3216 SG

"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.

Phaze SG

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.

richong 3216 SG

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.

Phaze SG

Sure. But that third choice is still called Weak Atheism.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html

Herzog_Zwei SG

Then missqi, you are agnostic... Very Happy

« Previous Page Next Page »