KJ
In a letter that appeared in the Straits Times forum online (“Whatever the issue, let’s learn to argue well”, 27 May 09), Ms Lisa Li, a GP teacher, made the case for arguing well.
She says: “… given that Singapore will always have a diversity of views which cannot ever be fully censored, I suspect we will not stop arguing. Our best course of action is to learn to argue well.”
Her letter was a riposte to the individual(s) who had lodged a complaint with the MOE – her employer – about an earlier article she had written and posted on her Facebook page.
In that article, she had refuted the notion that discussing homosexuality during GP lessons equated with promoting it. More importantly, she had also dispelled the fallacies surrounding notions of homosexuality, ‘social norms’, and ‘mainstream society’ – (fallacies that the ministry implicitly supported) – and made the plea for critical thought.
Her argument later became relevant to those who chose to lodge a complaint instead of reasoning with her. She said, “To my knowledge, what I wrote was based on reason and anyone who disagreed with my logic, facts or opinions could easily have rebutted me openly.”
What is of note here is that because of a complaint to the ministry, she ‘had to’ remove that Facebook note. This is an act of censorship that is directly linked to the government’s gag on civil servants.
Civil servants are legally-bound from publicly expressing their personal opinions on government policies. And Ms Li’s opinions had run counter to the government’s positions.
To be censored and then plead for free debate in a heavily censored newspaper is a comical case of cruel irony.
***
But yet, this is only one of many forms of censorship and control that can be found throughout the Singapore state: the array of legislation and licensing (be they procedural or arbitrary), the invisible and retroactive OB markers, the propagandized education system, and the strict and hierarchical society, just to name a few, that culminate, purposefully, in the docile (but productive) Singaporean and the all-powerful (and wealthy) government.
To put forth this question: why this degree of control? And to this extent! Perhaps this would reveal the fact that for all the sugar-coated rhetoric about more openness, the ruling regime’s continued control takes precedence over the societal benefits that a freer-thinking and critical nation can bring about (that might of course bring about the downfall of the exalted PAP).
Ms Halimah Yacob, MP and deputy secretary-general of NTUC, was quoted a few days ago about how workers can cope in today’s volatile world: “We need to look hard at our education system and see how best to produce workers who don’t just work hard but know how to think out of the box and ask questions.”
Our students leave school not knowing how to ask questions?
The inability to ask questions accompanies the failure to think critically. Though in Singapore, to ask questions and to think critically might be to risk teeing off reason from treason. Just ask the late JBJ, the exiled Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong, the incarcerated Chia Thye Poh, even our beloved larrikin Chee Soon Juan.
Is it any wonder then that we have adults telling each other to ‘shut up and sit down’, themselves behaving like infants, though quite resembling how the government treats its citizens?
Perhaps our education system has failed us, becoming also a front for indoctrination, serving more the government of the day than the betterment of society – and creating not a little dependence, condoning the assorted discrimination, and helping to perpetuate a sometimes injustice.
The MOE’s stance regarding the discussion of homosexuality during GP lessons is instructive in this respect. It states: “GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues. [However, they should also] adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.”
This is a glaringly incommensurable position to take. For the essence of critical thinking is to thoroughly evaluate, even denounce, what might happen to be majoritarian dogma. To be asked to be critical but yet having to toe the status quo is not only to navel-gaze, it is disabling intellectually and politically, and it makes a sham out of the purposes of education.
This instance of navel-gazing is best exemplified in the government’s decision to retain Section 377A of the penal code that criminalizes homosexual activities. Ostensibly, this law remains because of the rumblings of the ‘conservative majority’, who in turn makes up ‘our conservative society’.
But the government seldom pays heed to this ‘conservative majority’, (if it even exists), and will not hesitate to resort to force if necessary, to get its way, to get things done.
In any case, this ‘conservative majority’ is the segment of Singaporean population that is most amenable to political control and manipulation. After all, they are the perfect product of the Great Singapore System.
In reality, 377A demonstrates how the government exploits and perpetuates social prejudices and bigotry for its own purposes. Actually, these are misconceptions that the government can effectively eradicate, and morally-speaking, but does not.
This is because 377A is a critical foundation for the ruling regime’s ideological control over the state, the various phallic paragons of masculinity: the ‘traditional patriarchal family’ as a microcosm of patriarchal Singaporean society made traditional.
These become structures of control that feminize, and therefore deracinate, what is not a mirror-image of pater-PAP – that is male, Chinese, heterosexual, socio-economically and educationally privileged.
It is through the false notion of the ‘traditional family’ that enables the State to home in to our own true families so that the Singaporean nation can be micro-managed and panoptically-controlled, in fact intimately so.
When it comes to tradition, rare in Singapore is what that can claim to be tradition-al. This is because ‘traditional’, or, ‘Confucian’/‘Asian’ if you prefer – all social inventions in themselves – is merely a euphemism for the efficacious modus operandi that ultimately enables the ruling regime to harvest the financial riches bequeathed through the neoliberal global economic system that is wholly controlled by the West.
That is, the un-traditional, liberal, individualistic, ‘decadent’ West that our supposed Asian traditions and conservative families and ‘Confucian’ government are so disdainful of.
Abolishing 377A would unravel the entire fabric with which the ruling regime clothes itself – garbed for power and for wealth. Hence the fabrication of fallacies such as the ‘conservative majority’, ‘traditional values’, and ‘critical thought (but, please,) within the status quo’.
***
To return to Ms Li’s contention and to take it further, the crux of the issue is not about the importance of critical thinking, of learning to argue well. To argue well, one must first be able to argue without recriminations and repercussions, especially from the State. To have a place to practice, to speak truth to power, so to speak.
For when critical thinking meets the climate of fear, it is unsurprising which one gains the upper hand. For those who argue for critical thinking and for arguing well, they shall have to first argue against wanton censorship, unjust laws, and illiberal state power (and perhaps a ‘shut up and sit down’ education system too) –- trappings that Ms Li’s admirable arguments have ironically but inevitably fallen victim to. That is to say, they shall have to argue against an empire of control that consolidate the power of the PAP.
The crux of the issue, then, is a singular argument for fulfilling the ideals of democracy. Distilled to its essence, it is really about the human spirit freed. Real democracy is missing in this country, and we are not talking about the farcical model dressed in the pretty but superficial label of ‘liberalisation’, soon to be brocaded with more NCMPs, permanent NMPs, and fewer and smaller GRCs.
These are merely the predictable alterations made possible by a Parliament that can tailor the Constitution according to its desired fashions, and a Party that retains domination and tyranny as its core linings, all so as to better fit its finery of power, its permanence of kings.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Have been looking a little more carefully at the preceding discussion. I still haven’t the foggiest idea what ‘spirituality’ is. Perhaps it’s a cluster of related ideas, like:
(1) Divine grace
(2) Mercy
(3) Retribution and moral desert
(4) Sense of wonderment and mystery at life, the starry heavens and the moral law within.
(5) Destiny and telos: the idea of one’s life progressing in a certain direction, towards certain goals.
Apart from (1), I think all these elements are explicable without reference to the divine. For instance, you can accept that your ‘ends’ may not be entirely chosen, without thinking that a God or gods has a plan for you. You may believe that every one has a unique, yet-unrealized potential self, without thinking that this self is ‘God-given’. And you may accept the notion of retributive justice, without thinking that all the mass murderers and child molesters will be roasting on a Dantean barbecue pit. The evil don’t always get punished.
Divine grace, I think, has a non-theistic equivalent. We may be grateful for life’s small ‘miracles’, the felicities of someone else’s companionship and love, the ‘blessings’ of material comfort and good health, without thinking that there’s some puppetmaster behind the curtain of the world pulling the strings. We may acknowledge our own foibles, without imputing any serendipitous event to an omnibenevolent being. In fact, if what underlies the concept of divine grace is a recognition of our limitations, it is contradictory to create, in our own image, a god or gods to perform those acts of grace.
Peter Sellers #190,
There is a difference between conceding something has validity when it is argued about, and assuming something is true for the sake of argument .
The former, if I haven’t misconstrued your point, is irrelevant, if not false.
The latter is often used to highlight contradictions and inconsistencies. We can talk about, for example, about the improbable existence of the Loch Ness Monster without, for a moment, conceding validity (that it exists).
“I am not arguing canonical points”
Sure. Of course you are free to discuss any points you find interesting. I just found it strange that you proceeded with your argument, as is, after pointing out Arix had an unsound premise. No biggie.
“We can push and push but at some point you must recognize where a man stands. We shall never have unanimity in ideas in the world.”
That’s an arbitrary line you’ve drawn. If you are not comfortable in pushing Arix to justify his/her claims, that’s fine. But I am.
Why can’t religion and religious views can be talked about openly without a softly-softly approach? I don’t know you, but Arix doesn’t strike me as a shrinking violet (good for him/her!). If Arix makes massive claims, and I think he/she will concede that he/she does, why can’t we push for justification?
And if Arix can’t stand the heat, he/she can simply refuse to respond to a post as he/she did here: post #103 h @ http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/vocalness-%e2%80%93-an-effective-tool-in-the-battle-of-belief-systems/
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies”.
Source: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Okay, I shall resume from #161 (please scroll up):-
rkwc (#161),
1) Yes.
2) Yes. It is the Jerusalem Bible. Check the official website: http://catholic.org.sg/faq.php. However, there are a few approved Ecumenical Translations too.
For you, the quote:
“”"
Q: What version of the bible is endorsed by the Catholic church? I seem to remember that the King James version was the protestant version. Please advise> Thanks
A: According to http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/English_Translations.htm
* “Catholic” translations: Douay-Rheims, JB/NJB, NAB
* “Ecumenical” translations (approved and used by both Catholics and Protestants): NEB/REB, RSV/NRSV
Singapore uses JB (Jerusalem Bible) for its readings.
“”"
3) NIV is a Protestant Bible. Incidentally, I refer to the New American available on the USCCB’s website.
4) The Church has a few approved versions of the Bible. The rest it tolerates, but considers “inaccurate”. Particularly, it would consider those with “hip” translations to be inaccurate. (For instance, the New Truth Bible.)
I am not quite sure about the other languages.
sliim (#162),
1) No, I am not referring to extranaeous info, not unless someone else first proposed it in the first place, e.g. Smallvice.
2) No, they did not claim to be referring to those Manuscripts. In fact, they seem to be referring to the NRSV and NAB. That is why their scholarship is inaccurate. To be fully precise, you must examine everything at the primary sources, where primary sources are available. Then, you can weed out inaccuracies in interpretation of the authentic texts. If you base your analysis on flawed interpretations, than your analysis is somewhat useless.
smallvice (#165),
1-6) There is a very interesting story: There was once a man who thought that he was dead. His wife was exasperated, so she sent him to a psychiatrist to cure him of his neurosis. The psychiatrist tried many methods, but they all failed. As a last ditch effort, the psychiatrist took a sterile needle and pierced his own arm, such that there was blood flowing out of the arm. He then did the same to the man’s arm, and the man’s arm bled. He turned to the man and asked: “So what have you learned?” The man answered: “Wow, I never knew that dead people bleed!”
The moral of the story is: If you come to the table with certain assumptions, then you will tailor what you hear to those assumptions, and refuse to listen to the other side.
So if you have already assumed that spirituality is utter rubbish, then you should exempt yourself from this debate, since you are closed to whatever the other side has to say.
7) Your words say one thing, your language says another.
149) Arix on June 16th, 2009 11.39 pm
//the original debate in this thread was not over whether belief should be forcefully imposed but on whether the religious should have a right to express their religiously-influenced moral views in the public domain//
Good luck on your exams. I hope you are not neglecting your studies to answer all these posts.
Reading through the posts on this thread, it seems to me that the original debate (which I thought was over the merits of a secular versus a non-secular system) has sprouted several branches, too numerous to pursue. Let me try to recap just one aspect of it first, namely your assertions that:
A. a secular system is devoid of morals (see your post #15):
//I have to say that a purely secular system is a system devoid of moral standards. Devoid means simply lacking in any values, and does not mean immoral//
B. morals (or Values) originates from religion (see your post # 18)
//But if you were really to trace the origin of Values, all of them derive from one religion or another … All moral codes have their origins in religion. It is religions, after all, who came up with the idea of universality. Religions set moral standards. Without religion, there is no moral standards to speak of. Instead, the world becomes a cacophony of moral positions that consistently conflict with each other//
C. Religion is universal because all religions (animistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, etc) share a concept of “Heaven’ which is ‘a State where the Immanent Reality of the Soul is in full conjunction with the Cosmos’ (note: ‘religion’ does not refer to Organized Religion, but ‘religious spirituality’)
In brief, to use your own words (#148): // Morality is universal because religion is Universal, at least the Spirituality part//
Just a few of the problems I have with the above reasoning are:
1. if a secular system is devoid of morals (i.e amoral, not immoral), that would mean that there is no right or wrong in such a system. How do such systems function, deal out justice, decide on laws, etc?
2. In the expansion of your argument in B) (that religions set moral codes), in response to my query as to how the Greek and Egyptian gods can set moral standards when they had human flaws and vices, you claimed (in #148) that //… while these human-type gods have the vices and flaws and fear and superstitions and everything else you mention, this Supreme Deity doesn’t//. However, in # 65 you state that //Some also worshipped an additional Supreme Being, whose name varied between Uranus and Zeus//
Firstly, I would like to point out that if Zeus was the Supreme Deity worshipped by the Greeks, he was far from perfect, if one believes even half of the myths about him. Secondly, your concept of the universality of religion, which claims that all religions believe in a Supreme Deity, means that all religions are ultimately monotheistic – that contradicts all the current literature on religion. Thirdly, neither Buddhism nor Confucianism worship a Supreme Deity. Fourthly, your sentence is contradictory – if there is no moral standards to speak of, how can “the world become a cacophony of moral positions”?
3. C appears to contradict your assertion (in B) about all religions worshipping a Supreme Deity. Or do you mean to say that the universality of religion is based on a) a shared concept of ‘Heaven’ and b) worship of a Supreme Deity?
With regards to the point as to “whether belief should be forcefully imposed”, please note this stems from my argument against a non-secular system, which I believe (apart from creating conflict between different religious groups) would result in the values of a majority (or even a vocal minority) religion being imposed on others.
sliim (#198),
I think you should look at these guy’s graphs first. His graphs are not very consistent with his theory. For instance, Figure 3, Suicides per thousand, Australia has a much higher suicide rate than the USA although the USA is more “religious” than Australia by the standards he uses: Attending religious services at least several times a month (not a very exact number to boot) and “Absolutely believing in God”.
I don’t find it very reliable at all.
LM (#201),
1) I think it has affected them somewhat. It has also affected something else I am doing.
4) The answer is: these systems don’t decide how to deal with justice or whatever. Instead, the people who claim to use these systems super-impose their own standards onto the “emptiness” of these systems.
5) Hmm, the reply is slightly complex. No, the Zeus of Greek Myth is not perfect, but I am not referring to the Zeus of Greek Myth, but to an earlier conception that predates those myths. Here, the point is to wonder whether Greek Myth is Alexandrine or pre-Alexandrine.
How current is your literature anyway? I use current literature too – literature from the post-war period. Well, I am certain on my stance on the History of Egypt – I got that from a history textbook. The history of Greece too.
Buddhism doesn’t officially worship any deity, at least not Pure Buddhism. But Buddha would have started off life as a Hindu, so there are likely abstract references to the Hindu concept of the Brahman in Buddhism.
And first we must clarify a point on Confucianism. By Confucianism, I am not referring to the cults in Southern China and Eastern Java that worship Confucius as a god, but to the Ancient Religion Confucius refers to in the Classics, especially the Classic of Rites. That religion worships a Supreme Deity called Tian (Chinese ideograph:sky). That Supreme Deity is the Origin of the famous terms “Son of Heaven” and “Mandate of Heaven”.
When there are no moral standards as a common reference, each person picks his or her own standards by which to relate to self and others, thus the “cacophony”. Because you can’t live unless you can make decisions.
6) Sorry for the apparent confusion. Yes, I meant just what you say. I stated “all religions (animistic, polytheistic, monotheistic)” to forestall opportunists in this thread trying to claim that I was making exceptional claims for Christianity alone.
7) I think I would first like to clarify what you mean by “Secular”, so that we don’t shoot definitions at each other.
Fact (#167),
1) Yes.
2) I read somewhere that the Taoist Religion was founded by a Chinese Army General.
3) Read the Classics, and you will find a different picture. Ever wondered where the “Mandate of Heaven” came from?
Smallvice (#168),
I agree with what Miss Noor says. Contrary to what you think, I am a progressive, just that I haven’t had a chance to share my progressive thoughts yet. Anyway, they are irrelevant to this debate.
However, on the same note, Miss Noor’s article has no relevance to our current debate, or to KJ’s article, which it is supposed to be (roughly) related to. The people “outside the ring” that she mentions are still Muslims. She isn’t referring to Atheists, Agnostics or Free-thinkers.
Note the following quote:
“”"
But have we forgotten that men like Maudoodi and Qutb were themselves lay Islamists whose own education sometimes was not rooted in classical Islamic teaching?
“”"
Miss Noor’s article is talking about Lay Muslims versus Muslim Clergy.
Our debate here is Christianity vs Atheism, not Lay Christians vs Christian Clergy.
Hi Arix #200,
You still don’t get the point – I am not here to discuss religion with you. It is my view that even unintelligent people have the right to religious beliefs. I mainly respond when you attempt to re-define secularism.
PS (#169),
2) Yep, alright I shall clarify. I have been trying to, but smallvice – and more recently sliim – keep getting in the way.
I am arguing for a religion shorn of canonical trappings, but I contend that such a religion would be richer because it would be better able to contemplate differences in the human condition. I accept the liberal premise that many Religious Communities today are bound to reductionist Patriarchal Systems. I think therefore, that Religious Communities – including the Vatican – need to start taking up sociology classes so that they can better analyze the weaknesses within their hierarchies. The Patriarchal God cannot be the God of Love.
I apologize if I sounded like I was shifting goalposts. Actually, I have not shifted my goalposts at all; I simply changed terminology to avoid misunderstandings. Although apparently, they seem to have created more misunderstandings. *sigh*
I consider myself a minor schismatic, in that I don’t support full allegiance to the Pope or to Papal Infallibility. However, I contend that the Papacy has a role to play in society, as do all other religious leaders, and shouldn’t be simply swept away into the dust, as Smallvice and others here and Dawkins and Hitchens seem to suggest. Whether the electoral system for the Pope should be changed is a matter that should be put up to debate.
I defend the Biblical Scriptures because I want to clarify their historical contexts and because I believe that they are inerrant in essence. I do not support the Fundamentalist view that the Scriptures are inerrant in form, whatever Smallvice and sliim may think.
I hope that this explanation is clear enough, so that I don’t need to repeat these points again, as that would make replying to this thread rather tedious.
3) I think that you are stating a false dichotomy here. I hold on to my pure spirituality, and believe that the Bible coheres with this spirituality, if one puts the Bible in its proper historical and socio-cultural context. I think that that is a mistake that both the Theists and the Atheists are making.
The Theists fail to see – in their theological analysis – at least that the world has changed dramatically over the past 200 years. So if you try to import legal forms meant for a bygone era, you are are going to slide into Fundamentalism quite easily. The Theists err when they promote permanence of form.
The Atheists use retrospective analysis. As the saying goes, everything is easy on hindsight. Atheists, many of whom happen to be pluralists, ironically adopt the same position as Theists when they say that human nature doesn’t change. Well, human nature doesn’t change, but human sophistication certainly does. Therefore, each Religious Scripture – including the BIble – is formatted according to the level of sophistication of the human culture receiving it.
This actually explains – in my opinion – the often-criticised difference between God as portrayed in the OT and the NT. God in the OT is relating to a less-sophisticated population whereas Jesus in the NT is relating to a more-sophisticated. Likewise, the way religious ideas are presented differ. God communicates to people in a way that they can understand.
4) Which teachings are you referring to, exactly? Please clarify.
I support wholly the social teachings, the anti-abortion and anti-embryonic-stem-cell-research and the general theology. I support partially (in essence, but not in form) the teachings on homosexuality, birth control and marriage. I reject the claim that the Church has the monopoly of Divine Truth, as well as the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
5) Can you give me a quote to substantiate your claim? I didn’t read the Vedanta, but I read parts of the Ramayana, where the Brahman and the Trimurthi are considered separate entities from man.
7) My “religion” is the Pure Spirituality, which by the way doesn’t involve little ghostly beings flying around; that is already corrupted Spirituality. Spirituality entails balance in all realms, therefore all social ills come from a lack of Spirituality.
And btw, can you clarify again where I mentioned that Hinduism seeks to convert? Your reference leads to a blank.
8) saying that you are “doing something in the name of God” is not equivalent to actually doing something Godly. That is why there is a prescription in both Christianity and Islam against using the name of God in vain. So all these attacks by “Faithful” that you mention commit the sin of invoking the name of God in vain.
9) Religious Spirituality is the source of good; Political Combat is the source of Evil. I believe that I mentioned that in a reply to rkwc. I think that overusing the ‘D’ word gives Mr ‘D’ too much credit.
11) Science is a WIP, but there are limits to scientific logic, since Science does base itself off certain axioms, particularly physics which has a very strong maths base.
As for Evolution, there is always the last chapter of Darwin’s book. :D
12) I think we need to clarify what “Secular” means first. So I will hold out comment.
13) The number of Churches/Mosques/Temples are not indicative of the number of Religious Organizations. Religious Organizations are like Political Parties: they have many branches in different areas. The Catholic Church for example, has a few hundred parishes in the USA, not to mention Opus Dei branches, but is still one massive Religious Organization.
Smallvice (#206),
And what is your definition of Secularism? Or do you love to keep it in the grey so that you can impute your own agenda onto it?
Hi Arix #208,
It would do you some good if you stop attempting to re-define secularism. It is not an issue of whether you agree with my definition or not.
The element of my definition that you should be concerned about is that the only political platform for all participants (including religious individuals) is a secular one.
I have no qualms about you discussing religion and spirituality. I am not interested in the debate whether Christians are wrong or Atheists are right.
I am concerned over your claim that morality is derived from religion because it propagates the misconception that religious institutions have a legitimate political voice.
1.Arix, tks for the feedback [yr #200 to my #161].
I am now going back to my #79 wherein I gave, among other things, the reference numbers to some biblical passages, and for the reference to Numbers [31.1-40] I included a couple of questions, viz: “genocide of Midianites; what happened to the 32 virgins allocated to God as part of his share of the ill-gotten gains? Do you know?”
2.And your response was:
“Num 31:1-40: What genocide? This is war, pure and simple. (I already explained why war is necessary.) The Midianites are also not particularly innocent. Please read the rest of Numbers.
8 chapters earlier, the Medianites had hired an agent to deliver a curse from Baal on the Israelites. They did this because “they are stronger than we are”, not a particularly diplomatic message, yo? (ref. Num 22.6) There is no psychosis or cruelty here, simply retributive justice.
The 32 virgins were killed, but that is hardly the scale of a massacre, considering that the remaining 31968 Virgins kept their lives. If God was really as bloodthirsty, why not kill the other 31 thousand virgins as well? The fate of these 31968 Virgins: they were married into Israelite households. I doubt that that constitutes “cruel and degrading punishment”; they were effectively assimilated into Israelite society. (Btw, “killed” strictly means by the sword, and not through disgusting human sacrifice with strange things done to internal organs.)
Anyway, what is 32 people compared to 5 million Jews or hundreds of thousands of Sudanese? Please put things in perspective.
Also, please be reminded that God actually preserved the lives of the 31968 Virgins. They were supposed to have been killed (Num 31.15-16) for retributive justice’s sake. I doubt a psycho would actually spare the lives of victims.”
3. You are the second person [the first also happened to be a Catholic] to have given me an inaccurate answer to my question regarding the 32 virgins allocated to God. But this other person gave me an even more bizarre account of his take of this story concerning the Midianites; he said all those who were killed were ‘probably taken up by God to Heaven.’ So God’s revengefulness in instructing Moses to exact full vengeance on the Midianites was to give the Midianites eternal bliss in Heaven. Hence this Catholic should not feel offended or be sad if someone killed all his family members because this person allegedly acted on the instructions of God, to give his family members a passport to Heaven.
to be contd
continuation of my #211 to Arix
4. Arix, you claim the 32 female virgins allocated to God were killed. I have reviewed Numbers 31 to Numbers 36 and cannot find anything to support your claim. In Numbers 31.41 all we are told is quote Moses gave the priest Eleazar the portion set aside for Yahweh, as Yahweh had ordered Moses unquote.
5. Nothing further is said about these 32 virgins. Presumably, Eleazar married them or took them as his concubines.
6. This story is about God taking revenge; his revengefulness and cruelty are also evident in other biblical passages.
7. Arix, you claim ‘This is war, clear and simple’. This is not about war but a brutal massacre, resulting from fear or bigotry. Read this passage, taken from Wikipedia,
“In Exodus, the land of Midian is introduced as the place to which Moses flees when running away from Pharaoh. There, he encountered Reuel or Jethro, a Midianite priest, who later became Moses’ father-in-law (Exodus 2). Toward the close of the forty years’ wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the Midianites ally with the Moabites against the Israelites, in asking Balaam the son of Beor to curse the Israelites (Numbers 22); however, Balaam was prohibited to do so, and prophesied future greatness for Israel (Numbers 24). Subsequently Israelites coexisted peacefully with Moabites and Midianites (Numbers 25). However, Israel suffered a plague which was blamed on Israelite participation in the local religion and sexual immorality. For this reason, according to the Torah, Moses was ordered by God to punish the Midianites.”
8. Can you see the reason for the killing, given in the last sentence?
9. Now, Arix, I want to see your honesty. Would you admit that you WERE WRONG in stating that the 32 virgins were killed?
10. Would you also admit that this was clearly a case of revenge initiated by none other than your so-called God? I have no hesitation in calling him the insane, racist, desert god of the Jews.
11.In my #160 I mentioned:” Please, however, clarify or answer to the point without resorting to extraneous info that has no relevance to the argument or matter at hand.”
12. You argued: “Anyway, what is 32 people compared to 5 million Jews or hundreds of thousands of Sudanese? Please put things in perspective.” It is clear that you resorted to extraneous factors that have no relevance to the case in point and that you are the one who is not putting things in perspective. Yes/No?
13. Do you know the number of Midianites killed in this story [Numbers 31]? Does the entire chapter contain a figure indicative of the total killed?
I have numbered the paragraphs for easy reference. When you respond to a point/question, pl quote the particular ref number for the para to which you are responding.
Arix, to add further clarity to our discussions re killing of Midianites, and also for the benefit of the others who may be reading our exchanges, I am appending an excerpt of Numbers 31.1-41, taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:
1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and said,
2 ‘Exact the full vengeance for the Israelites on the Midianites. Afterwards you will be gathered to your people.’
3 Moses said to the people, ‘Some of you are to take up arms for Yahweh’s campaign against Midian, to carry out the vengeance of Yahweh on Midian.
4 You will put a thousand men in the field from each of the tribes of Israel.’
5 In this way Israel’s thousands provided twelve thousand men equipped for war, one thousand from each tribe:
6 Moses put them in the field, one thousand from each tribe, with Phinehas, son of the priest Eleazar, to go with them carrying the sacred objects and the trumpets for the battle cry.
7 They made war on Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and put every male to death.
8 What is more, they killed the kings of Midian, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba, the five Midianite kings; they also put Balaam son of Beor to the sword.
9 The Israelites took the Midianite women and their little ones captive and carried off all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods as booty.
10 They set fire to the towns where they lived and to all their encampments.
11 Then, taking all their booty, everything they had captured, human and animal,
12 they brought the captives, spoil and booty to Moses, the priest Eleazar and the whole community of Israelites at the camp on the Plains of Moab, near the Jordan by Jericho.
13 Moses, the priest Eleazar and all the leaders of the community went out of the camp to meet them.
14 Moses was enraged with the officers of the army, the commanders of the thousands and commanders of the hundreds, who had come back from this military expedition.
15 He said, ‘Why have you spared the life of all the women?
16 They were the very ones who, on Balaam’s advice, caused the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the affair at Peor: hence the plague which struck Yahweh’s community.
17 So kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man;
18 but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves.
19 As for you, bivouac outside the camp for seven days, everyone who has killed anyone or touched a corpse. Purify yourselves and your prisoners on the third and seventh days,
Continue in another post
For Arix
Cont of my #213
20 and purify all clothing, everything made of skin, everything woven of goat’s hair and everything made of wood.’
21 The priest Eleazar said to the soldiers who had come back from the campaign, ‘This is an article of the Law which Yahweh prescribed to Moses:
22 although gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin and lead,
23 everything that can withstand fire can be cleaned by being passed through fire, it must still be purified with water for purification. Whatever cannot resist fire you must pass through water.
24 ‘Wash your clothes on the seventh day and you will then be clean. You may then re-enter the camp.’
25 Yahweh spoke to Moses and said:
26 ‘With the priest Eleazar and the heads of families in the community, take a count of the spoils and captives, human and animal.
27 You will then share out the spoil, half and half, between those who fought the campaign and the rest of the community.
28 From the share of the combatants who took part in the campaign, you will set aside one out of every five hundred persons, oxen, donkeys and sheep as Yahweh’s portion.
29 You will take this from the half share coming to them and give it to the priest Eleazar as the portion set aside for Yahweh.
30 From the half coming to the Israelites, you will take one out of every fifty persons, oxen, donkeys, sheep, and all other animals, and give them to the Levites who are responsible for Yahweh’s Dwelling.’
31 Moses and the priest Eleazar did as Yahweh had ordered Moses.
32 The spoils, the remainder of the booty captured by the soldiers, came to six hundred and seventy-five thousand sheep and goats,
33 seventy-two thousand head of cattle,
34 sixty-one thousand donkeys,
35 and in persons, women who had never slept with a man, thirty-two thousand in all.
36 Half was assigned to those who had taken part in the war, namely three hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep and goats,
37 of which Yahweh’s portion was six hundred and seventy-five,
38 thirty-six thousand head of cattle, of which Yahweh’s portion was seventy-two,
39 thirty thousand five hundred donkeys, of which Yahweh’s portion was sixty-one,
40 and sixteen thousand persons, of which Yahweh’s portion was thirty-two.
41 Moses gave the priest Eleazar the portion set aside for Yahweh, as Yahweh had ordered Moses.
Arix, the textual evidence is clear – you are worshipping a malevolent and cruel god. This is also a story of the insanity of a god and his followers. But, obviously, you prefer to look in the other direction. The forest is there but you didn’t notice it. You saw trees around you but not the forest.
Hi la nausée #176,
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods. You made an excellent point that Atheism alone provides no basis of morality. I hope Arix is capable of picking up that point. One major contention that Rwkc, Peter Sellers, sllim and I disagree with Arix is his flawed claim that religion is the origin of morality.
Religious teachings is not static – it evolves with contribution by religious individuals, so common sense has been co-opted. Arix’s attempt to use common sense to interpret religious scriptures is one good example of what he has been trying to deny. From a secular perspective, religious individuals derive their morality from their religion while atheists derive their morality elsewhere.
There is no Anti-theism among the New Atheists. Richard Dawkins’ inquiry requires the examination of evidence on God but the Religious Camp demands him to take a leap of faith, so that he would examine their “evidence” in a more favourable light. Just look at how the religious camp’s entryist attempt to promote intelligent design among the scientific community and in schools. In fact, there is no anti-theism among Atheists but there there is anti-Atheism in the Religious Camp. Anti-theists are not atheists.
@smallvice585 (#214), I may be wrong (it’s been a while since I read him), but I think Dawkins (as well as Hitchens and Harris) also makes the further claims that (1) religion does more harm than good; and (2) even if religion is beneficial, the fact that it’s false outweighs whatever solace and inspiration it may provide (i.e. truth takes priority over all other moral goods). To my mind, that qualifies as anti-theism (albeit founded on a rational basis).
Perhaps there may be irrational anti-theism too, like Satanism, but my calling certain atheists ‘anti-theists’ is not intended to associate them with Satanists and iconoclasts.
#216
la nausee, can you tell us something about yourself, for instance, are you
[a] a person affiliated to a particular religion? and if so which religion? or
[b] a person not affiliated to any religion? or anything else you care to tell us.
Arix #202,
Can you provide the theory that Paul puts out that you find inconsistent to the graphs? I tried but it doesn’t seem to be there so I have to trouble you to back up your claims—again. A direct quote would do very nicely :)
These, I think, might help in clearing up your misconceptions:
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies”. [Absence of “suicide”)
“Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors.”
“The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3).”
@rwkc (#216), I’m not sure my religious affiliations are quite relevant to the discussion… but I would describe myself as a decided atheist who occasionally goes through the rigmarole of Buddhist/Taoist/’shenist‘ rites to appease certain more traditionally-minded family members.
@smallvice585 (#214) again, I think Arix’s claim that “religion is the origin of morality” can be responded in 2 ways. The first is to show, historically or genealogically, that morality arose independently of religion. That’s a complex exercise, but I think the earlier parts of this thread tried to show that (with references to Confucianism, Taoism, etc.).
The second strategy is to show that, at the conceptual level, morality can be understood without reference to the divine. One way we do that is to show that there are non-divine sources of morality, including what Hume called ‘sympathy’ (our ability to feel moral approval or disapproval at the actions of others), or what others like Aristotle and Kant called ‘practical reason’. Again, this is evident in how religious believers may stand at some point outside their religion to assess certain beliefs or tenets. Arix, for instance, said that he supports the Church’s anti-abortion stance, but supports only partially the teachings on homosexuality, and rejects the doctrine of papal infallibility — this is what Dawkins et al have derisively termed ‘cherry-picking’. It shows that religion is a sub-set of morality, not the other way round.
We also should show that non-theistic morality successfully accounts for the whole of our moral life. Arix contended otherwise by referring to the notion of ‘Religious Spirituality’. One interpretation of this rather ambiguous phrase is that it includes moral ideas like Grace and destiny which have no equivalents in non-theistic morality. But I think they do. Divine grace, for instance, really stands for a cluster of ideas such as humility, gratitude, and ‘moral luck’. Destiny has its equivalent in the Aristotlelian notion of ‘telos‘, that each human life has a certain ideal end-point or purpose.
A third response is to show that you need not be a religious person to be a good or virtuous person. But my impression is that no theist would raise any objection to that point. Arix said earlier, in defining “Religious Spirituality”, that “Spirituality includes the display of moral qualities (e.g. altruism) as part of religious practice.” This in fact concedes the point that religion and morality are conceptually distinct, since he is stating that religion is merely one means by which we can manifest moral qualities (i.e. it is only a means to an end). In any case, we may press the further question: “How does praying, lighting candles / joss-sticks, participating in religious rituals and reading the scriptures make one a morally better person, and especially compared to, say, community service or social activism or reading philosophy and literature and history?”
Hi la nausée #176,
[continue from my previous post #214]
Thank you for pointing out that Secularism requires that the State is enjoined to be neutral towards all religious discussions. However, given the context of this thread, we should narrow the scope of secularism to the type that is practised in Singapore – positive secularism.
In positive secularism, the secular government views religion as an asset. All religions are protected and religious groups are granted autonomy. The Government gives religion a role to play in public life.
For example, MUIS is a government body that not only looks after the interests of Muslims in Singapore, but also administers the Muslim Law Act. The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is represented in the Bioethics Advisory Committee. Senior religious leaders are members of the ISA Board of Inspection and the Presidential Council of Minority Rights.
However, in exchange for constitutional & statutory privileges and special privileges for participation in public life, religion is specifically barred from politics outside religious organisation. For example, the Church’s pulpit cannot be used for political campaigning during General Election or AWARE’s EGM.
The only political platform for all participants (including religious individuals) is a secular one (with the exception of organisational politics within religious groups and institutions).
However, I must correct your view of Secular Humanism. It appears that you buy Dr Thio Li-Ann’s crap that Secular Humanism is an anti-religion religion. Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. It does not prescribe any view on the existence of God or Gods.
@smallvice585, secularism Singapore-style is a little tricky, a mish-mash of different philosophies. On the one hand, the State recognizes the ‘special position’ of Malay-Muslims (Article 152 of the Constitution). On the other hand, the State also affirms that it’s neutral as between the various religions.
I think the limits of the principle of secularism are a little fuzzy, and really depend on what you consider to be part of governmental activities (which must be free of religious content). IMO, religious arguments should not be brought into the legislative arena or into electoral politics, because those areas are closely related to the State’s activities. As far as I recall, Thio Li-ann’s speech in Parliament was couched in terms of secular or ‘public-regarding’ arguments… and so did not breach the principle of secularism.
I do not think the principle of secularism applies to civil society: what was so objectionable about the AWARE takeover was really that it amounted to the silencing of an established secular institutional voice by an opposing religious group, and thus a denial of the right to freedom of speech to a part of society — not that it breached the principle of secularism.
I actually agree broadly with Thio Li-ann’s characterization of secular humanism. Its premise is really an atheistic one, i.e. (as you said) it “specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making”. Secular humanism should also be regarded as a religion for the purposes of state secularism, because it consists of fundamental moral beliefs that “occup[y] a place in the life of its possessor parallel to the orthodox belief in God” (U.S. v. Seeger). But the converse does not hold: atheism is too ‘thin’ to be regarded as either a religion or a moral code.
Is it contradictory to say that secular humanism should be excluded from State policy on the basis of secularism? No, because secular humanism falls within the domain of personal morality, whereas secularism is a species of political morality (i.e. how our social institutions should be organized). While secular humanism makes certain fundamental normative claims about human nature, secularism (in its ‘weak’ form) claims only that a stable, cooperative society is only possible if we justify our institutional arrangements without reference to specific religions, but only through arguments that every citizen (regardless of religious persuasion) can reasonably accept.
Apologies, to clarify, in paragraph 2 of my previous post, I was referring to Thio-Li-ann’s speech in Parliament during the 377A debate.
Sounds like circular arguments to me.
Hi la nausée #215,
Richard Dawkins’ words cannot be taken at face value. An important consideration in reading Dawkins’ work is that he specifically targets Abrahamic Religions.
Dawkins also had re-iterated many times that he is willing to accept the existence of God if someone can provide concrete evidence. However, this does not absolve the need to take a position on religion. Both atheists and theists are making decision under uncertainty.
Let me draw your attention to another great scientist to further elaborate on this point: In the period that Albert Einstein was active as a professor, one of his students came to him and said: “The questions of this year’s exam are the same as last years!” “True,” Einstein said, “but this year all answers are different.”
The odds that the theist’s God exists is not 50:50. The odds are constantly changing, depending on the progress of science. At the moment, scientific examination of nature reveals no high degree of coincidence to suggest a Creator / Designer, so the odds favour atheists and anti-theists. Moreover, the existence of God is inconsequential as long as one conducts his life according to established code of conduct.
Does that make him an anti-theist? If you define anti-theists as people who view organised religion as more harm than good, then Richard Dawkins is an anti-theist. If you define anti-theists as people who specifically reject theism, then Richard Dawkins isn’t an anti-theist. The religious camp defines anti-theists as people who promotes atheism. There is really no point in defining what constitutes as an anti-theist.
aiyah, just walk on water lah
@smallvice585, there’s a need to define ‘anti-theism’ in relation to other terms like ‘secularism’ and ‘atheism’ because someone (you, in fact ;0)) quoted George Yeo that Singapore’s secular model is not anti-theistic, and because Arix links secularism to atheism (and implicitly, to anti-theism).
You said: “If you define anti-theists as people who view organised religion as more harm than good, then Richard Dawkins is an anti-theist. If you define anti-theists as people who specifically reject theism, then Richard Dawkins isn’t an anti-theist. The religious camp defines anti-theists as people who promotes atheism.”
Hence, you’re implying that all 3 positions are distinct. I’m not sure they are. A person who believes that (1) God does not exist, and (2) that theism and/or organised religion (Dawkins does not distinguish the two) causes more harm than good, will also (3) specifically reject theism, and (4) promote atheism, and call for others to reject theism.
But an atheist (who accepts only point (1)) need not be an anti-theist. Moreover, an anti-theist need not be an atheist. A Satanist is an anti-theist, but subscribes to a supernatural doctrine which atheists would firmly reject. A communist is an anti-theist, but usually for reasons of political expediency (it’s difficult to bring about a dictatorship of the proletariat, or a classless society, if you must compete with religion for people’s loyalties), rather than on the basis of empirical evidence.
Moreover, a secularist is not an anti-theist, because she only advocates the exclusion of religion from government policy, not for the removal of religion entirely. In fact, if the State adopted an anti-theistic position, it would cease to be secular, because it would be intruding into the domain of individual conscience. Likewise if the State declares that it is atheist — it is making a judgment which it is explicitly forbidden to do. Hence, atheism and anti-theism bear no relation to secularism, and are in fact perversions of that political principle.
Of course, all this does not mean we cannot be anti-theists in public discourse, like what we’re doing in this thread. The freedom to hold a religion (guaranteed in Article 15 of the Constitution) also implies the freedom to reject religion itself. All that secularism demands is that the State not takes sides in such a discussion.
they won’t walk on water but they will trap water.
Hi la nausée #218 & #225,
Excellent points in #218.
You said: A person who believes that (1) God does not exist, and (2) that theism and/or organised religion (Dawkins does not distinguish the two) causes more harm than good, will also (3) specifically reject theism, and (4) promote atheism, and call for others to reject theism. Do you realise that (1) = (3)? Atheists do not support or reject Theism.
shhh..i think the pseudo internal- lecture trying to make a point here. :)
and what is the point? that we will be converted or impressed?
Nooo. enlightened by inter lecturing so society or people can achieve nirvana.
@smallvice585, perhaps (1) = (3), and (2) = (4). By disbelieving in god’s existence, you’re also rejecting the basic premise of theism, and therefore theism itself.
But the point still stands that a certain group of atheists also actively seek to persuade other people to abandon religion (hence, they are ‘promoting’ atheism). This goes beyond atheism simpliciter, just as it’s one thing to say that unicorns and elves and Santa Clause don’t exist, and another thing to say that we shouldn’t teach our children such falsehoods. The latter claim does not necessarily follow from the first, but depends on (1) whether fairy tales cause our children more harm than good; and (2) whether Truth is of absolute priority in bringing up our children, at least when they’re very young.
Hi la nausée #220, #225 & #231,
In discussing applied secularism, we have to differentiate philosophical positions, trend in practices and exceptions. Islam is probably the only religion in the world that still demands state administration of religious law. It is not surprising that the “special position” that Malay Muslims enjoy is translated as such in practise. This is an exception to the prevailing trend.
The limits are not fuzzy. As stated in post #219, the Government prescribes the role of religion in public life. Religious institutions do not have any role in public life outside the roles already prescribed by the Government and the Constitution. Secularism does not confine itself to activities closely related to the State’s activities and in particularly Positive Secularism, the activities of religious groups should not contradict its role as assets of the State.
The AWARE takeover is a clear contradiction of religious groups’ role as assets of the State. The denial of right to belong to Society falls under the jurisdiction of the State and this is where Secularism is breached. This is in addition to the heinous deeds already committed: (1)silencing of an established secular institutional voice by an opposing religious group, (2) denial of the right to freedom of speech.
It is actually a major controversy whether Secular Humanism is a religion. I am not sure if we should go along this line of argument as it will just open more sideline topics. I want to keep this thread to cover religion in general, morality and secularism. But I will state clearly my position that Secular Humanism is not a religion. Prescribing a code of conduct is an insufficient criteria to qualify Secular Humanism as a religion. Secularism also rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Are you going to call secularism a religion too?
A secularist does not reject theism. A secular state does not reject atheism and theism. You are making Arix’s mistake that atheism and the rejection of theism comes together. I hope you are not Arix pretending to be la nausée, because I will not engage a discussion on secularism with Arix for tactical reasons. To win a public debate on treatment of religion under secularism, I will not recognise the legitimacy of Arix or anyone who defends religion and religious institution.
Hi la nausée #231
Anyway, I will continue this discussion, giving you the benefit of the doubt. While (1) = (3), (2) != (4). Atheism neither rejects nor affirms the existence of God. Theism affirms the existence of God.
Atheists view the belief in the existence of God without conclusive evidence as illogical. The problem here is that theists is that they see the failure to affirm the existence of God as rejection of theism. Promoting atheism is merely the extension of the atheist’s good nature to remind others to adhere to good logic and not repeat the logical mistake of theists .
@smallvice585, rest assured that I’m not Arix, and I hope my position has been consistent enough that I don’t get mistaken for someone else!
The principle of secularism, to my mind, is simple: it prescribes the proper limits of the State’s power to endorse or enforce any religion(s). If so, only the State could be guilty of a breach of secularism, by preferring one religion over others. Private actors cannot be similarly guilty: secularism calls for the exclusion of religious arguments from ‘high politics’, but not from ordinary public discourse and social interaction. What matters is whether any State institution or policy endorses a specific religious argument. As I do not think that either AWARE or TSM & Co. could be considered a State institution, I do not think the AWARE saga involves a breach of secularism.
Perhaps the apparent differences in our interpretation of secularism can be traced to your premise that the State treats religion as an ‘asset’. This is an instrumental argument, in that it depends on the prior claim that religion is more socially beneficial than harmful. My stance, however, is that religion is an integral aspect of one’s personhood and self-worth, and it also follows from the right to freedom of conscience (i.e. the freedom to frame and revise one’s conception of the good life). Hence, irrespective of whether religion is beneficial or harmful, it should be regarded as intrinsically valuable, because it’s an exercise of a fundamental right linked to our status as free and equal persons.
This is at once an argument for (1) the State not to support any specific religion through its official policies and institutions; and (2) the State to allow, and even promote, a vibrant religious landscape, e.g., through favourable tax policies (which do not, however, support specific religions).
You said that secularism “rejects the supernatural and the spiritual”. It does not. It merely urges the State to be agnostic or neutral on that question, leaving this to the domain of individual conscience. Hence, because Secular Humanism indirectly takes a position on the supernatural (by valorizing Man, it implicitly rejects the notion of God), it must be a doctrine which the secular State maintains indifference towards, i.e. a ‘religion’ for the purpose of political organization. Atheism may possibly also qualify as a ‘religion’ for these purposes. The secular State may not permissibly take a position on these matters.
(While what I’m saying here may seem to contradict what I said earlier on atheism resting on a purely factual claim etc., it does not really. Earlier, I was applying a ‘factual’ vs. ‘normative’ dichotomy in discussing the relationship between morality and religion. Now, I’m discussing what positions the State may legitimately endorse, given that (1) certain matters are too controversial to be incorporated into our institutional arrangements; and/or (2) everyone has the right to freedom of conscience. )
Lastly, I think atheism inevitably leads to ‘rejection’ of theism (how could it not?). Here, I define “rejection” simply as taking something to be false. One cannot coherently say “I lack a belief in God’s existence” and “I believe that God exists”, because the 2 statements are diametrically opposed. Of course, one may end up ‘accepting’ theism for reasons other than its truth/falsity (e.g., Pascal’s Wager) — hence, it’s useful to have a separate concept known as ‘anti-theism’ which specifically rejects those non-truth-related reasons.
Smallvice #233,
Atheism is a singular position: a lack of belief in God or gods.
Atheism doesn’t entail proselytizing. And not all atheists arrive at Atheism the same way, have similar world views or hold logic, reason and evidence in the same regard.
@smallvice585 (#233), a failure to prove that ‘X exists’ by the person who has the burden of proof invariably leads to a conclusion that ‘X does not exist’, doesn’t it? It’s not logically possible for a single person to conclude both that “I lack a belief that X exists”, and that “X exists”, simply because the making of the second statement requires a belief which the first statement denies. To lack a belief in X’s existence is necessarily to believe that X does not exist. It’s up to each individual to decide, on the basis of all the evidence, whether she believes that “X exists”, or not. If she does, then that claim is true to her — and vice versa. She may of course admit that her belief may be mistaken, but this does not show the non-existence of that belief.
Hi sllim #235,
Excellent pointers there. I profess that I speak of theoretical atheism that explicitly posits arguments in response to theistic arguments. Richard Dawkins and I fall under this category. Logic, reason and evidence are held in very high regard in this brand of atheism.
There is another brand atheism known as pragmatic atheism whereby individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary – gods neither provide purpose to life nor influence everyday life.
Regardless one practises pragmatic atheism or theoretical atheism, one still rejects the notion that religion / theism is the origin of morality.
smallvice (#209),
1) Well, I can’t exactly agree or disagree if you keep changing your definition, right?
4) And why is that a “misconception”? Just because you, with your narrow atheist biases, think that it is a misconception doesn’t mean that it is necessarily a misconception.
As I said before, you are coming to the debate with pre-baked assumptions. That is a very unhealthy thing.
In view of sllim’s points in #235, I revise the last sentence of post #233 to distinguish theoretical atheists from pragmatic atheists.
from:
Promoting atheism is merely the extension of the atheist’s good nature to remind others to adhere to good logic and not repeat the logical mistake of theists .
to:
Promoting atheism is merely the extension of the theoretical atheist’s good nature to remind others to adhere to good logic .
Hi Arix #238,
Let’s put it this way – I will do anything possible against people who spreads the religious propaganda that religious institutions have a legitimate political voice, unless all constitutional, statutory and special privileges accorded to religious institutions are removed.
rkwc (#210),
3) In what way is my answer an “inaccurate one”? I actually provided you the exact verses for you to reference.
I think that the first Catholic was presumptous to talk about the Midianites going to heaven; that we cannot know for sure unless we have had a near-death experience of some sort.;)
However, looking at it from an emotional-psychological point of view, those midianites would have been better off dead. Just remember – they are being treated as spoils of war; how exactly do you think the Israelite generals would treat these girls? And anyway, all their families were dead already.
rkwc (#211),
1,2,7) In Num 31.40, it is said “thirty-two fell as taxes to the Lord.” What do you think “fell” means? By 31.40, the only Midianites that are left are the 32000 Virgins, since the non-virgin women were killed in 31.17.
3&8) Did you read my long commentary about the nature of the states that wre subject to God’s “vengefulness and cruelty”? And did you note the point about God asking the Israelites to pay for stuff they get when passing through foreign territories prior to the war with the Midianites? How does that square with “vengefulness and cruelty”?
And note: Retributive Justice. Interestingly, what do you believe would have been a better response of God to the Peor issue?
4-6&8) Wikipedia is a good source of information, but not always neutral or accurate. The Midianites were being punished for sending Baal of Peor, not for the Israelite illness. The Israelite illness was God’s punishment for Israel.
Note 31.16. Balaam had already consorted with Moab and Midian, even before he was told to curse Israel.
And before you start waxing lyrical about God’s “lack of religious tolerance”, bear in mind that the Midianite religious ceremonies involve drunken orgies and human sacrifice and prostitution. Would you tolerate that?
Remember that the POV in the Bible is that God is God of all mankind, not just God of the Jews. Therefore, He uses the Jews as his instrument to punish the Midianites and Moabites and Egyptians and whoever else for their sins. When He tells Israel to kill the other peoples, He is not endorsing vengeance on the behalf of Israel, He is delivering judgement and punishment on the other peoples of the world.
9-10) Okay. I admit that it is extraneous, but only in light of the fact that the total number killed is not known.
rkwc (#213),
2) That is one chapter of one book in over three hundred books. Hardly a holistic assessment.
smallvice (#214),
1) Here comes the fox! I am the one who was the first to make the claim that Atheism lacks any moral standard, and yet you attribute the point to la nausee. How dare you!
2) I deliberately chose to use the word “Religious Spirituality” so that we could stop talking about specific teachings. So, here is my full and unabashed stand:
Religious Doctrine, Religious Teachings, Theological Stands, Ethical Stances, Formulations of God – these change. They change because they are part of Organized Religion, which is bound to human society. These are also called by TOE Narrow Religion. Common Sense does not come from here.
Religious Spirituality, God, Moral Sense – These do not change. They do not change because they are part of human existence. Whatever is sloppily called “common sense” derives from these. These are also called by TOE Deep Religion.
This is where Dawkins, Hitchens and the other Atheists (including you and sliim) have it wrong. Without bothering to shed an iota to consider the difference between Narrow Religion and Deep Religion, they use a condemnation of Narrow Religion to dismiss Deep Religion as well i.e. “throwing a very precious baby out with loads of unpleasant bathwater” (Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything).
My view is: (before getting inundated with biblical passages) :The Religious Laity deserve a voice in politics, because Deep Religion is superior to any form of scientific materialism and logical positivism.
3) If there is no anti-theism, why the need for a bus campaign?
Sliim (#217),
Oops, I didn’t read the small print.
But seriously, if you look at his graphs, there really isn’t much of a correlation to be observed. No smooth upward trend. In fact, his main point seems to apply only to the USA.
Look at Figure #9 for instance. It talks about Teen Pregnancies. Norway has a lower rate of pregnancies than England, although England is “less religious” than Norway.
This is probably because the factors he chooses do not show a consistent order of religiosity. Look at Figure #8 (abortions). Is England more Religious or less Religious than Denmark?
sliim (#217),
Study this quote from Wikipedia:-
“”"
Gary F. Jensen of Vanderbilt University is one of the scientists who criticizes the methods used by Paul, including that “Paul’s analysis generates the ‘desired results’ by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion”. In a response [6] to the study by Paul, he builds on and refines Paul’s analysis. His conclusion, that focus only in the crime of homicide, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualistic Christian beliefs, something Jensen defines as the strong belief in all of the following : God, heaven, devil and hell. Excerpt: “A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it.”
“”"
All the Religious Discussions in TOC were almost all based on Middle Eastern Origins. Asia probably has two of the World’s Oldest Civilizations namely China and India and the Latter has earlier and older Religious Culture than the Middle East. How is it the Orient Religions are sidelined and neglected ?