Breaking News: Ng Teck Siong, chairman of the Reform Party, has resigned from the party. Speaking to TOC, Mr Ng said he has “resigned completely” from the party. He confirmed he is not even an ordinary member of the Reform Party
But church denies instigating Aware takeover
By Terence Lee and Deborah Choo
26 APRIL, 2009 –A CHURCH of our Saviour (COOS) staff sent out an email calling church members to vote at AWARE’s upcoming EOGM, the church spokesman confirmed yesterday.
For a while, it had been unclear whether the leaked email messages, readable in various forums, were authentic.
Speaking on the sidelines after Sunday’s 10.30am service, the church spokesman verified that only Shawn Tay and Linda Seah’s email messages are genuine. Both are staff of the church.
Mr Tay sent out an email on 17th April calling for church members to join AWARE and support the new Executive Committee members. He is from Choices Ministry, a department specialising in homosexual counseling.
In the email, Mr Tay called for “all responsible females to sign up for membership with AWARE immediately, and also to attend this all-important EGM so as to vote against changing the Constitution.”
As for Ms Seah, who is a zone pastor, she sent Senior Pastor Derek Hong an email on 16th April stating that “the number of members registered on Tuesday night is 13 out of 40 who turned up.” As of the time of this piece’s publication, the church has not been able to clarify what this means.
Both email messages were sent only after news of Aware’s takeover broke on The Straits Times.
It is also unclear if the rest of the leaked email are authentic.While admitting that their pastors were involved in garnering support for the new Executive Committee, the church spokesman denied allegations that they instigated the takeover of AWARE.
This is in line with an earlier claim made by the new Executive Committee at a press conference held at Raffles Town Club. They asserted that the church was not involved in the takeover.
“There is no church connection. The church is not at all involved in secular affairs,” they said.
The spokesman maintained that it was the church members’ prerogative to join AWARE, rather than a decision by the church staff’s.
Pastor Hong, who preached during the service, could not be approached directly by TOC for comment.
Pastor voices support for new Aware Exco
While COOS has denied involvement in the AWARE takeover, they are actively supportive of their church members getting involved in the EOGM to support the new Executive Committee.
Pastor Hong devoted most of his sermon on the issue of homosexuality, voicing support for the endeavours of the new Aware team. The service was attended by about 800 people.
Calling for solidarity, he implored the women in the church to “unite with the sisters and support them.” He also said that the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.
He also spoke against the “neutral” portrayal of homosexuality taught by AWARE to schoolgirls. The Christian’s belief system, he argued, prevents them from accepting homosexuality as “neutral.” The Bible clearly teaches that it is wrong, and that is the position the church have to take.
“Christians have the responsibility to protect the young, the vulnerable, and the innocent, even though its not popular or politically correct, even though people may not understand or they may get angry with us,” he said.
The pastor, however, sees a silver lining in the controversies. Contrasting Singapore against countries that are heading towards liberalisation, he is glad the Aware team stood up for what the Bible deemed was right. He said: “We need to thank God that because section 377A still stands, we will not move in that direction.”
During the service, new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin were called on stage. While Mr Chin did speak to the congregation, it was not on the Aware controversy, but rather his claim that God has healed his sister of brain stem damage.
After his sharing, Pastor Hong then prayed for the couple, and beckoned the church to join him.
COOS against gay-bashing
Within his sermon, the pastor reiterated the church’s position on homosexuality, which can be found on the COOS website. Basing his position purely based on the Holy Bible, he said that it is not a matter of personal opinion as homosexuality is clearly a sin against God.
“It’s black-and-white,” he said, “It’s not because I don’t like somebody, but because the Bible says so.”
He then stated that there are other religions that are against homosexuality as well, including Islam and even Judaism. However, he finds it strange that “the homosexual community never attacks the Islamic people for having that stand.”
Wearing a bright green shirt with a patterned tie, the pastor gave no indication of being worn down by the controversy. In fact, he spoke passionately at certain points in the sermon, his voice booming through the speakers.
“God does not grade sins,” he said with conviction.
While homosexuality is clearly wrong, it is not the worst sin either, he said. People who are involved in homosexuality are no worse than people who lie. However, there is a tendency for the church to condemn homosexuality more than other wrongdoings.
Pastor Hong also vehemently denounced gay-bashing, noting that homosexuals are as deserving of equal rights to jobs, housing, education, health, and welfare as straight people are. Objecting to the use of homophobic expressions, he noted that many languages and dialects have derogatory terms for more effeminate men. He called such verbal abuse “evil.”
The preacher emphasised that Christians should not feel too smug about themselves either, because God loves homosexuals as well. Christians are not better than homosexuals in any way, he said, but are saved only by the grace of God.
COOS, he added, frequently gives financial aid to HIV patients, some of whom are homosexuals. So far, the church has given food supplements to 100 patients.
Gays can become straight
“Change is possible,” said the pastor, once again underlining a Biblical perspective. However, he also cited real-life examples and scientific research as further proof that homosexuals can turn straight. Some are found in his church, he claimed.
Nevertheless, he stopped short of proclaiming total transformation in these individuals. In fact, these people still struggle with homosexual thoughts, just that they no longer have sex with other men.
“…they have become more straight, if you like, just like all of us, we’re still a work in progress, we may not commit adultery but it doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with those thoughts,” he said.
Pastor Hong also refuted the idea that homosexuals are born the way they are, and he denied the existence of a “homosexual gene.” He draws on studies from NARTH, which he says is a secular, non-religious organisation that does scientific research on homosexuality.
Calling the nature argument “propaganda”, he maintained that developmental factors feature more in the development of homosexuality.
Caution towards militant gay activist groups
The pastor spent significant time speaking against what he calls “discrimination against people with pro-family values.”
Christians have often also been misunderstood in the media. They are labeled as anti-homosexuals when in fact they are simply against the practice. He called this labeling a “trap” by the “propaganda of the gay activist people.”
An example he cited of such discrimination was the recent Miss USA pageant. Pastor Hong showed a news clip on Fox News where front-runner Miss California spoke out against gay marriage when asked a question by judge Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger who is openly gay.
Many believed her answer cost her the crown.
The clip concluded with Mr Hilton in another footage making insulting remarks about Miss California and shouting vulgarities. Pastor Hong called this “just the tip of the iceberg.”
Calling for a resistance against the agenda of certain gay activists, he cautioned that traditional values and lifestyles can be undermined.
He said: “They want to change the values and principles to what we deem to be normal to their own pattern of life. If you even dare to speak against it, you get disqualified, you get penalised, you get discriminated against.”
Church members voice support
COOS members which TOC spoke to after the service are supportive of the new AWARE team.
Mr Wong, a church member in his forties who does not attends cell group, said that the new Executive Committee should be given a chance to prove themselves. After all, they took over Aware legally.
Some church members have even joined Aware this year. Speaking anonymously, they insisted it was their own personal decision, and that no coercion was involved.
While their decision to join Aware was based on their convictions as a Christian, they pointed out that Christians are not the only ones resisting homosexuality.
“I mean if you’re a parent, and you learn about what they teach in school, won’t you be concerned?” said a lady.
Latest figures for Aware membership stands at more than 880. It is unclear how many church members have joined the organisation.
—
Join TOC’s Facebook fan group for a behind-the-scenes account of TOC’s visit to the Church of Our Saviour.
It’s Tuesday and Straits Times has not reported on the leaked emails and videos from COOS. Shame shame shame on the Straits Times!
#187, Atheist,
How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?
//let us sincerely keep our faith in our heart and respect others’ belief and freedom to their piety.//
This is a confession or a slip from an atheist. Atheisism is a religion which believes there is no god. Buddhism also does not believe in god either but it is a religion.
There are many atheists who are trying to impose on us and they are atheistic fundamentalists
Why is DBS continue in making Josie to drag the mud much longer ?? How can she be useful now with all the negative attributes such as police reports, threats, arguments, bad press, tv and cyberspace reports bearing on her ?
Read the writing on the wall, DBS.
Btw, Shawn Tay, who is cited as sending out the email from COOS, is an ex-gay. His testimony is at http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_finding_learning_the_truth.html
Gayness is genetic and immutable? Or merely a matter of choice?
And in the context of AWARE, a testimony of a lesbian.
http://www.coos.org.sg/testimony/index.php?coospg=2007/2007_a_second_chance.html
Lesbianism is genetic and immutable? Or merely a matter of choice? Difficult journey whichever way forward.
Ditto,
I believe the testimonies would be more convincing if the people involved step out and say that they are now ONLY sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.
There is a difference between sexual absteinance and changing one’s sexual preference.
I’m an ex-smoker, but everytime I see people smoke, I feel tempted. Yet I never feel the urge to eat sweets all the time like some of my friends.
D’accord?
The faith is in me the atheist and it is not meant to be shown or imposed on anybody else.
I conclude my comment at this thread.
Peace be with all.
“192) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,
How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?”
They simply have faith in doing the right things ? must faith be always be associated with some personal higher being ? can faith be some personal philosophy carved out from the summation of past experiences extracting the very best out of it.
whose heart are you referring to. the heart of some powerful being that you need to identify with and with whom all ‘good things’ are necessarily be associated and identified with ?????
“There are many atheists who are trying to impose on us and they are atheistic fundamentalists”
really ? perhaps you may want to elaborate. surely you can tell which group is doing the marketing more (preaching, evagelising, etc).
Has the old AWARE actually done in-depth studies of the pros and cons of homosexual lifestyles on society and individuals before asserting that it is a neutral concept?
A rational research I mean.
183) Orchid on April 28th, 2009 4.59 pm
Spider orchid doing sluething work on assumption and deduction, eh?
We are coming to the end of the episode. No more rumourmongering . Be patient and truth will emerge.
Be at the Expo.Like to meet U. Wear a spider orchid on your hair and be spotted.
@Peace (#192), if I may answer a little on behalf of atheist (the commenter), I believe he or she means ‘faith’ in the sense of a person’s considered views on ‘Life, the Universe, and everything’. In that sense, an atheist has a ‘faith’ too. And even if the atheist’s answer to the question of god’s existence is in the negative, atheism isn’t just a null-philosophy; atheists often have their own definite views about the origins of the Universe and life, and on ethics and morality.
la nausea #129,
How else are we speaking if not logically?
Apply that “inclusive” argument to not believing in divination. Does, not believing in divination occupy the same “logical space” (Poof! It’s logical) as astrology, i-ching, tarot cards. etc. Does it not entail and address fundamental questions (metaphysical and existential)? ….
I understand, as you might, that this brand of pomobabble is an extremely appealing component of the holy roller’s salesmanship:
“Evolution is a religion” (chew on this gambit)
“Science is a religion”
“It takes faith to disavow the existence of a creator”
“Darwin is a god” etc….
Beyond illogical, it becomes farcical when not being affiliated to a religion is being related to a religion. The meaning of the word “religion” is broadened until it has no operational meaning. If I were religious, I will find this extremely demeaning.
Can you clarify “same trap” and “calling for traditional religion to be expelled in similar fashion” ?
The MOE comments really put 1 more nail into the coffin. Whoever talk rubbish about MOE education session in the earlier comments(Still can read them), probably feel very silly now. Sit down, calm down and use your head logically, why things are like that. Your eyes don’t just see things on the surface, search under the water also, many affairs are not so outright. I think that sometimes, mistakes are made so badly that it just got to continue on, as any reversal requires alot of courage and can be damaging to ego. For those who call others “beast”, it reflect upon you and your organisation.
192) Peace
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ” – R. Dawkins
So, the pastor Derek Hong is behind this whole thing? I chance upon this in wiki:
[Quote:]
At the same time, an alleged email also surfaced during the course of discussion, in which Senior Pastor Derek Hong of Church of Our Saviour, Singapore, supposedly encouraged acquaintances to lobby the government to decide against repealing the code.[28] The email contains a suggested format of writing, which could be found repeated heavily in actual letters to The Straits Times and reach.gov.sg, the Singaporean government online feedback website. The content of the alleged email is strongly similar to an earlier one sent in 2003 by Cornerstone Community Church. Neither Hong nor his church has issued any statement on this matter. [Unquote.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thio_Li-ann
Among the many Gods spoken of in this thread, may I also add that a certain Mentor is also a God.
R. Dawkins is close relative of the chicken. He cackles with his 3 other relatives too much that he has forgotten that atheism is a religion and believing that there is no god he is actually going one god further. This is a play of one upmanship. In here there are plenty of them , from mirax, spider orchid,sllim 10, la noisee to zeefly.
\i suggest that you guys , gays and lesbians go hug a tree with zefly and get a release. Invite R Dawkins to this upcoming EOgm, straight one stop from the airport
@sllim (9.22 pm), as I said, atheism and secular humanism are and should be regarded as ‘religions’ “for purposes of politics and constitutional law”. I am not commenting on any other context. I emphasize also that I’m dealing with the normative rather than factual claims which religion makes, i.e. what we ought and ought not do, rather than what is or is not the case.
One perennial question we face is how a society ought to be governed according to a set of common principles, given that apparently reasonable people disagree over many issues (“reasonable pluralism”). One way out is to observe that the fiercest controversies occur in relation to people’s foundational beliefs, and to conclude that these should be excluded from our society’s formal political arrangements.
Usually, it’s possible to debate with another person over the truth of a proposition, “X is right”, because that will depend on other propositions, “Y is wrong”, “Z is false”etc.. We can point out internal inconsistencies and so on. But in every coherent moral system, there will be some foundational question beyond which argument cannot take us; there is no Archimedean point at which a person can stand to judge the entirety of his or her world-view.
A traditional religion clearly addresses a foundational question, since its answer on existence of God, or some other quasi-divine ‘essence’, constitutes the ultimate organizing principle for the adherent’s world-view, percolating into his stance on homosexuality, for instance. Secular humanism, insofar as it places the good of Man above all else, is also a religion.
Science is not a religion, because it makes entirely factual claims. Astrology is not a religion, but usually depends on some more foundational belief (some ineffable Spiritus Mundi, perhaps).
Atheism, I admit, is not a religion insofar as it operates on a single factual premise (“There is no god”), and makes no normative claims. But there is nonetheless a strong case for classifying it as a religion, for the purposes of politics and constitutional law. First, it challenges the foundational principles of all traditional religions, and is thus equally likely to stir up intractable controversy (the whole purpose of identifying ‘religions’ here is to identify the deepest sources of disagreement, and to exclude them from our society’s political arrangements, such that some consensus is possible). Second, atheism is inevitably closely allied to some other normative world-view (usually secular humanism) which would be regarded as a ‘religion’.
P.S. Apologies for the long response.
//200) are you that peaceful on April 28th, 2009 8.13 pm “192) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,
How does atheist have faith? in whose heart?”
They simply have faith in doing the right things ? must faith be always be associated with some personal higher being ? can faith be some personal philosophy carved out from the summation of past experiences extracting the very best out of it.
whose heart are you referring to. the heart of some powerful being that you need to identify with and with whom all ‘good things’ are necessarily be associated and identified with ?????//
I already have something to say about this for a long time and now comes the opportunity. It is not necessary that there be a higher being looking at your behaviour before one will be a good person. Why is it necessary? A doctor can simply derive satisfaction from seeing a happy patient who has been cured of disease. A mother simply feel the joy looking at her child. A baker see satisfaction in his customers. A good chef feel satisfaction seeing people enjoying his food. Some one do charitable works because he/she simply feel good, satisfaction and peace with it…..Really, you don’t need to have a higher being staring at you before you will be a good person. Isn’t that psychology of little children?
//194) Peace on April 28th, 2009 6.35 pm #187, Atheist,
This is a confession or a slip from an atheist. Atheisism is a religion which believes there is no god. Buddhism also does not believe in god either but it is a religion.//
Oh! In fact Buddhism believes that there are many gods but they are no different from us, filled with emotion such as desire, hatred and ignorance since they are not enlightened.
Zefly,
totally agreed #196.
by the way, i have been following your replies for the past 2 days. very logical and great sense of humour.
especially like the ones you hug peace. hilarious.
but he not so appreciative leh, stlll harping on the gay/lesbian, parents beware, your daughters will be lose subject.
i also hug him.
213) WeiHan on April 28th, 2009 11.29 pm ,.
you might be right that Buddhism believes in many gods. Meng yi can testify to that.
Of the many gods the greatest gods are the god of desire partnering with the god of greed. How can you say they are no diiferent.from you. They are gods and you worship them and they cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth.
la nausée #208,
“We can point out internal inconsistencies and so on. But in every coherent moral system, there will be some foundational question beyond which argument cannot take us; there is no Archimedean point at which a person can stand to judge the entirety of his or her world-view.”
There are good reasons why argument and evidence cannot take us beyond some foundational questions. One might be that such a question is not worth asking, and less worth listening to. “What is the meaning of life?” is one such nonsensical foundational question so many adherents of organized religion are aroused by. The REAL answer: What can’t “meaning” mean?
“A traditional religion clearly addresses a foundational question, since its answer on existence of God, or some other quasi-divine ‘essence’, constitutes the ultimate organizing principle for the adherent’s world-view, percolating into his stance on homosexuality, for instance. Secular humanism, insofar as it places the good of Man above all else, is also a religion.”
As far as I know, secular humanism does not subscribe to any “some other quasi-divine ‘essence’”. More importantly, having a world-view is a necessary BUT not sufficient cause for religiosity. You don’t have to subscribe to a religion to have a world-view.
It goes without saying (almost) that every religion challenges every other religion’s foundational principles. But the buck doesn’t stop there. Other religions offer a competing brand of God. Atheism as you plainly and accurately described, simply doesn’t have that depth, that wellspring of “intractable controversy”.
You don’t have to apologise for a long response. The foregoing is gratuitous chatter; we’re quits :) As for classifying Atheism as a religion for the purposes of politics and constitutional law, Your argument(s), I believe, can be drastically simplified:
The majority of the population is religious. They are threatened by atheism. To keep the order, politics should pander to the majority. Thus secular politics should include atheism as a “religion”. Just so it can keep it out of decision-making and keep the truly religious’ gormless smiles on.
Besides being untrue, considering atheism as a religion (after your argument) is downright cynical. Although my stomach is turning, I take your larger point: There’s political utility in pandering to the lowest common denominator, such as the bottom-of-the-barrel “Peace”.
P.S. I could have made a counter-arguement: Atheism should not be considered a religion for the purposes of politics and constitutional law. (Consider the fundie’s, even moderate’s, penchant for misrepresenting Atheism as a religion.) But to make my case, I have to drag my brain through the sewage that is sophistry and I am not willing to.
la nausea #141,
I take issue with your first first point, but my complaint is identical to TJ’s, so I will not repeat it.
“Also, while atheism purports to rely on empirical evidence (e.g., in explaining the diversity of life on Earth), that is sorely missing (given the present state of science) with respect to 2 foundational questions: What existed before the Big Bang? How did life on Earth originate?”
It is completely irrational to say that just because science cannot answer all the questions right here right now, scripture can. The course of history and science has taught us otherwise.
“Lastly, empirical proof cannot be used as regards morality and ethics, the subjective experience of emotions, and artistic sensibility. And yet, these are aspects of the human condition which we cannot ignore.”
Empirical proof CAN be used in regards to morality and ethics. It might not bridge “is” and “ought”. But it certainly has more mileage than scripture. Neuroscientists, for example, have made some headway.
They discovered mirror neurons, which might make up the basis of empathy, The Golden Rule. They also found that when people make ethical decisions, the same area of their brains fire up as if they are calculating sums. Many religious people weigh their deeds against their future entry to Heaven, for example.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/425541/1/.html
SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has contacted Dr Thio Su Mien, who is the “feminist mentor” to the new exco in the Association of Women for Action & Research (AWARE), to clarify the claims she was reported to have made on the organisation’s sexuality programmes.
In a statement, MOE said it had not received any complaints from parents or from Dr Thio about the programmes.
The AWARE saga has stretched out over the past weeks and Dr Thio’s views have been reported widely. She has been quoted as saying that on AWARE’s sexuality programme, homosexuality is now regarded as a neutral word, not a negative word.
Giving details, MOE said 11 secondary schools engaged AWARE to run workshops on sexuality last year. The organisation also conducted assembly talks on topics such as self esteem at a few schools.
Schools that engaged AWARE found its programme content appropriate for their students, adhering to MOE guidelines.
Speaking to reporters at a visit to Yishun Town Secondary School, Senior Minister of State for Education S Iswaran said sexuality education is taught primarily by teachers, but schools have the flexibility to bring in other organisations.
“The guiding principle for this is very simple. It uses the family as the basic building block, as the basic foundation, and helps the students make values-based decision on the whole issue of sexuality and in a manner that’s sensitive to the multi-racial, multi-religious environment.
“Clearly, there are different perspectives in our society, so MOE takes a very deliberate and cautious approach,” he said.
The Education Ministry added that if parents know of an instance where these guidelines have not been adhered to, they should go directly to the ministry.
Full MOE Reply: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2009/04/reply-to-recent-comments-and-c.php
To all those who want to hug my rainbow colored tree and have tea with Winne the Pooh, Christopher Robbins, Piglet and Eyore and the Smurfs, can you write to me in advance because it’s getting a bit crowded here with mirmax, tj and silim joining me.
(ps – please bring your own unicorns)
Thank you JL,
Mock the devil and he will flee from thee.
To #183) Orchid on April 28th, 2009 4.59 pm
I have to say I agree with you right down to the last letter – again.
I am hopeful that everyone is able clear away the garbage been thrown about and see the real reason behind all this. There can be no justification for the manner of takeover by the new exco, neither can there be any justification for the “too trustful nature” of the old guards, an excuse given by Kalwanjit Soin.
It is frightening to think the possibility of these women being manupilated by one man working behind the scene. I am now beginning to see the doctrine of COOS at play especially the part about their women sujecting themselves to their husbands. Is the team of women helming the new exco working on their own discretions or are they working along the doctrine of someone behind the scene -a man?
Lest anyone think I am throwing my weight behind the old guards, I must make it clear that I have drawn away from the new exco for the simple fact that they have shown themselves to be untruthful, and anything that comes out after this revelation, is meaningless and useless, to say the least.
No one worth his/her grain of salt and in his/her right frame of mind should throw their weight behind untruthful characters, never mind what they are fighting for, because you can never ever know whether they are truthfully fighting for that cause or not.
However, neither am I standing on the old guards side for the other fact that their complacency (even though they have explained it away as ‘trust’) has resulted in this saga and thus have let its supporters down by their negligence.
A sociologist, Terence Chong, at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, wrote a cool headed and nicely articulated commentary on his survey of the type of responses form local media and public about the AWARE saga.
His main argument is that the 3rd type of response, “warning against ‘playing the religious card’ is but a disingenuous attempt to pretend that such Christian activism does not exist in multi-religious Singapore.” is not helpful and should be rebunked.
Go read at: http://www.opinionasia.org/SingaporeAWARESaga
#212 Peace,
I am a Christian. I worship the Lord, the one and only God, but that doesnt mean i dont have greed, hatred, desire and urges. dont we all have that? dont you?
whichever faith we embrace, we all have those flaws. so i really dont understand when you wrote “They are gods and you worship them and they cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth.”
come up peace the topic is about AWARE being hijack by the new exco, please be focus and not going to religion bashing. dont you have enough from gay/lesbian bashing. so much for peace.
think one hug is not enough, lots and lots of hugs.
now back to the saga. well i am a Christian and i am not pro gay/lesbian movement. i was initially pro new exco until i read further and learnt the following;
(1) they all joined AWARE for less than 5 months
(2) was silent about their ‘disagreement’ with the old exco’s neutral stand on homosexualty subject
(3) but seized power at the recent AGM, kicked the old guards out
(4) initially lied that they did not know each other, till their ‘feminist mentor’ surfaced
(5) dragged the church into it. or should i say the pastors in that church gladly supported their movement
that to me is ‘sneaky’ and giving the faith a bad name.
i have never joined a civil group all my life, but this time i intend to join AWARE before the EGM this Sat.
Josie and her team cried out that why they are so much hatred towards them. matter of fact is, i dont hate them, i just despise them.
Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #216,
I don’t think there is a church of scientology in Singapore after all, so I am free to bring Xenu, their evil intergalactic warlord. I hope his death glares don’t make conversation awkward.
@sllim (#214), y’know, my raising those 3 counter-arguments was mainly an attempt (not quite on-topic) to turn an inward eye of skepticism towards atheism, for the sake of argument… after all, it’s precisely that spirit of rational doubt which most religious doctrines do not accommodate.
I admit that the ‘empirical evidence’ cited by many religious devotees for the existence of god is (1) unreliable hearsay; and (2) does not prove quite nearly enough (e.g. the fact that certain persons referred to in the religious text did exist in history does not in itself show that a certain god exists).
“It is completely irrational to say that just because science cannot answer all the questions right here right now, scripture can. The course of history and science has taught us otherwise.”
We’re really using inductive reasoning here: out of Y number of questions, science has settled X of them; so the probability of science settling the remainder is high ((X / Y) x 100%) (I’m simplifying here.) But inductive reasoning has been criticized as not completely logical — in particular, in the formulation above, we cannot know the value of Y, so we don’t know how successful the scientific method is.
But as TJ pointed out, this is a ‘god of the gaps’ line of argument.
An even more powerful response is that the scientific method (verifying the truth of a hypothesis through observation) is the only way we have to learn about the physical universe. Even if it were flawed, it’s the only mode of inquiry we have, something we use constantly, e.g., when we look at the sky to predict the weather. Tellingly, even the religions try to establish their truth by recourse to the scientific method (as mentioned above).
As for the last point, whilst I acknowledge that science can explain the biochemistry behind our moral judgments, I do not think it can account for our moral universe (taking the moral realist’s view that propositions like “X is right” or “Y is evil” can be true or false). This point was addressed to WeiHan’s assumption that empirical proof is the only way to think about our world. That is true for the physical universe, but not the moral one (assuming, of course, that moral reasoning is not purely nonsensical).
Even so, I do not think that we have to rely on a religious text in order to determine what is right or wrong, good or evil. The opposite is often true: we frequently interpret a religious text in light of our deeply-felt moral convictions. Hence, what is good is good regardless of whether it is loved by the gods, and vice versa.
P.S. I think our parallel discussion on whether or not atheism is a ‘religion’ has sort of stalemated. But I’d just like to emphasize again that my argument that atheism should be regarded as a ‘religion’ was from practical consequences, rather than from strict logic.
I refer to #193. Only cowards try to call on other to fight for them and in this case try to drag her employer to take action against her. Some even threatened to cancel their credit cards, etc. with DBS. Common, don’t behave like little kids.
Though I do not subscribe to Josie’s action, I do admire her courage for putting her job on the firing line. She is definitely not a “yes man” that is why she climbed that high. I think she can easily find another job if DBS do not want her. The problem is someone in DBS was kiasu and make statement to the media for what is an internal issue which unfortunately have drag DBS into the fray.
la nausea #223,
No disagreements. Very nicely done.
Like I said, I takeyour larger point that atheism should be construed as “religion” for political utility. I just wanted to go on about it being illogical for the benefit of religious onlookers for whom every event is an occasion for affirmation i.e. evidence. For “practical consequences”, if you like. It wouldn’t have escaped you that some of them earnestly think Atheism is a competing brand of God.
Cheers
@ 212) Peace
Wow, how mature of you to resort to insulting other religions. Buddhism “cause you to have greed, hatred, desire, urges, same sex desires and so forth”?? What utter bullsh*t. You bring up Ming Yi, the monk accused of embezzling temple funds, but I could point out the numerous cases of Catholic priests molesting children. A quick Google search will show you how bad it is. Does this mean the Catholic Church promotes child molest? Of course not. But it shows that people, no matter what beliefs or religion they hold, can and will f*ck up from time to time. It is the ‘holier than thou’ attitude of idiots like you that created this AWARE mess in the first place. So “Peace”, please go back to whichever hole you came from and stay there.
peace and weihan, pls dun bring religion in. go hug a tree instead.
zefly, can i join u guys under ur rainbow color tree with hello kitty?
THIOLOGY and THEOLOGY – what a potent and portentous mix.
#190, Modernist,
// you can teach your own kids that birds and bees do not engage in anal sex, and if they do it is non negotiable hell brimstone and fire!//
strange, eh? birds and bees don’t engage in anal sex but why this big hooha about humans having anal sex and oral sex? I am confused. There is something wrong with the human race, right? Your son may ask.
Evolution may be the cause. Men and women are ‘changing role’.
About brimstone and fire, that is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah .Does the word ‘sodom’ ring your bell? It has surfaced again, across the causeway.. No, not the crooked bridge. Something more crooked.
/// 228) Peace on April 29th, 2009 6.34 pm
strange, eh? birds and bees don’t engage in anal sex but why this big hooha about humans having anal sex and oral sex? I am confused. There is something wrong with the human race, right? Your son may ask. ///
Peace – that is where you are wrong. Very wrong.
Birds, bees, and animals do engage in homosexual activities – and these are all God’s creatures.
” Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.”
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
“This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish etc.) for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
So, there is nothing wrong with the human race. And if there is something wrong with the human race, who made them that way?
yeah there is seriously something wrong with humans… , maybe some hold the conservative view women cannot work, must stay at home. humans by nature cannot fly wan, so why take to the sky? cannot leh, some wrong woh… ^.^
Peace,
Birds and bees also don’t impose their absolutist religious views on other people… isn’t that the natural state of things? Can I then conclude that you are an abomination of nature?
Think about your logic here.
Hmm, I recalled reading Mother Teresa’s biography and later watched the movie adaptation of it. She never imposed her Roman Catholic Christian beliefs on her Hindu patients but what what happened in the end was her selfless actions as compared to self-centred Christians (majority of whom are evangelical Protestants, won converted to the Roman Catholic faith. Even the skeptical, atheist British reporter Malcolm Muggeridge who interviewed her became a Christian much later when he returned to England, I think it’s Anglican. He was inspired by her works which clearly shows pure Christian faith actively working in unconditional love. I’m not Christian but I have a soft spot for Roman Catholics cos I have not come across any of their members delivering pampthlets at public places or knocking on doors to proselytise. They dun seem to bother ppl of other religious beliefs and that’s a key ingredient to living harmoniously in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore. Maybe they’re inspired by Mother Teresa who like Jesus, humbled herself and chose the path of love and humility to become and live among the poorest of the poor. Isn’t that just like what Jesus did in his lifetime. We Muslims believe Jesus lived a very humble life, no home and a bunch of disciples who are considered outcasts by the society of his time. Compare this with the megachurches, the amount of donations and tithings poured in, the popularity of the pastor, pastor got cut CD, album & living the high life etc. The opposite of what Mother Teresa would have done would be like the evangelical Singaporean couple who was arrested by Singapore Police for distributing religious tracts offensive to us Muslims. See URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_348643.html
Azlina #251,
“I’m not Christian but I have a soft spot for Roman Catholics cos I have not come across any of their members delivering pampthlets at public places or knocking on doors to proselytise.”
That’s a pretty low bar to set.
I wouldn’t play up Teresa’s character if I were you. Read “The Missionary Position” (Christopher Hitchens, a writer of note).
For starters, she was against condom use in a country rife with Aids. Also she spent more donations on religious institutions than hospices for the sickly. She reveled in suffering because she thought it brought her closer to Christ…