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
Hello Arix at #207,
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply at such length, appreciated.
I understand where you are coming from and respect your space and your right to believe in your religion.
At the same time, I have to say we must agree to disagree on the crucial point regarding the source of morality. To say it is religion would be to ascribe to it too much authority, far more than, in my opinion, would be good for harmony in modern society.
What you are saying on this point is really this: if we were to conduct a social experiment by putting a group of new-born babies on a desert island and allow them to grow up on their own (rather as Christian Fletcher’s descendants lived on Pitcairn island, isolated from the world) and assuming, of course, that their material needs were taken care of by some neutral, non-judgmental agent, then they would grow up to be amoral (not immoral but amoral). This is not borne out in studies on remote tribes in the Amazon rain forest, Papua New Guinea or Borneo amongst other places. Each of these isolated tribes has evolved its own codes of morality and social structure. They also evolved animistic forms of religious worship but I hope you don’t argue that this primitive form of worship was the source of their morality.
The Vedas are the sources of Hindu thought, the earliest of which go as far back as the thirteenth century BC. These pre-date by far the epics Mahabharatha and Ramayana which are the equivalent in Indian mythology of the Greek Illiad and Odyssey. The pantheon of gods was created in a much later period known as the Puranic period because abstract thought was difficult for ordinary people to understand for reasons you have explained in your message. Have a look at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vedaread.htm for more information or Wiki on Vedanta. In particular, look up the ‘advaitya’ or non-dualistic form of Vedanta to understand what I mean by a pure form of spirituality uncluttered by externalities.
[The reference to conversion should have been at 149(9), not 148(9), sorry. You said “But no monotheism - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam - accepts the existence of any other gods except its own. Hence the zeal to convert”]
la nausee (#218),
Now I am getting nauseous.;)
3) The only reason why I am calling myself a “theist” in this debate is to clarify that I hold an opposite stance to Atheism.
I agree with a view from The Atheist Manifesto that Theist-Atheist debates are consistently confused because various definitions of key terms like “Religion”, “God” and “eternity” are being shoved around without proper clarification. That is exactly what seems to be occurring here, from my perspective, specifically since Smallvice has come to this debate trying to force his own assumptions on everyone else.
I agree, however, that there is a certain simplicity about Christian theological formulations that Christians ought to address. Both the Prophet and Saladdin tried to correct Christendom on this point, but their unjust reply was the Crusades. The doctrine of the Trinity to a certain extent over-personifies God. (This is a form of idolatry.)
Islam tried to restore the proper character of God, but unfortunately got stuck in a regression back into the Jewish Tyrannical Postulation due to the greed of the Sultans.
When I talk about Divine, I talk about experience and reality, not persona. I am talking about “God is”, not “God is a”.
I hope that I can finally get this through.
4) I define “Religious Spirituality” as “The tendency towards the experience of Physiological, Psychological, Emotional and Transcendental Balance”. God is the Force that creates and maintains this Balance.
5) Strange. It is “Spirituality includes X” and not “X includes Spirituality”. Do you have a problem with English?
The joss-stick burning etc improves moral qualities if you do these rituals for the correct purposes i.e. what they were originally designed to be done for. However, for ancient religions such as Chinese Folk Religion and Taoism, some of these purposes have become corrupted into Superstition. Even in Christian and Islamic practice, there are possibly some superstitions here and there, just much less because they are (relatively) younger doctrinal sets.
Comparison draws a false dichotomy. All the actions you mentioned are crucial to improving one’s morality, but only if pursued properly. Social Activism can be misguided if done for personal reasons; that is a good reason for doubting “Corporate Social Responsibility”. You can also read literature and philosophy selectively, which is what I would say Atheists like to do. People like Dawkins love to accuse Theists of cherry-picking, while they themselves cherry-pick without reserve.
Totally ignoring Mother Teresa’s lifelong work in Calcutta – for which she received the Nobel Peace Prize – Dawkins condemns her as a Religious Conspiracist, simply because she made one single visit to Princess Diana in the 80-plus years of her life. Now who is cherry-picking here?
Oriental Religions (#245),
You obviously missed the long posts arguing on Confucianism and Hinduism.
PS (#246),
1) Thanks for your rapid response too. I must credit you for being my coolest opponent so far. It seems like rkwc are falling to Smallvice’s habit of character-assassination.
2-3) I don’t like agreeing to permanently “Agree to disagree”, because it is a way of hiding tension.
Also, please read paras 3 and 4 of my reply to Smallvice #242 where I clarify my definition of religion. Then you are free to choose if you want to agree or want to disagree.
4) Not really. My proper view – which I didn’t get the chance to express because some people like to digress into details – is that Atheism is illogical because religion is in-born.
Their animistic mode of worship is an equal manifestation of religion as their moral codes and moral beliefs. How accurate they are is a matter of these peoples’ intellectual quality, which results in their worldview.
5) “dualism” is another unclear word that we should avoid using, lest smallvice tries to infuse his assumptions into the debate again. The pure definition of dualism is “the belief in a pair of direct opposites”. The typical dualism in Theology is good-evil, not heaven-hell. And Hinduism does have good-evil too, even in the Vedas.
But when one reads texts like the Vedas, we must be clear that they are literary, not necessarily meant to be taken as literal when they were composed. My central idea is that while the Vedas themselves are extremely old, maybe even older than 1300 BC in terms of content, the various sacrifices to different gods only develop later.
I like the Theory of Everything proposed by Ken Wilber. So my contention will be that Confucianism, Shinto and Vedic Hinduism were abstract coral-meme philosophies that were delivered to purple-meme human societies. Therefore, they were corrupted into purple-meme animism or naturism. Judaism and Taoism occurred at red-meme level, and so got frozen in “middle-kingdom complex”. Buddhism, Christianity and Islam arose at a blue-meme level. Buddhist Philosophy is actually at Turquoise-Meme because Buddha meditated under the tree for so long, but Buddhist Teachings were simplified into the blue-meme. The differences in writing style between OT and NT is due to the different memetic levels of the writers.
The Enlightenment and Secular Humanism and Atheism occur at the Orange-Meme level. So they deride all the other lower and higher memes, mistaking spirituality for superstition.
6) Well, how do you think Hinduism was brought into India? The Aryans invaded and forced their religion onto the Dravidians.
#242 Arix
1.First, please stop being confused. Your citation of “rkwc (#210)” is an inaccuracy because #210 emanated from smallvice585. Yes/No? But then what follows thereafter in your post clearly relates to my #211 to #214.
2. [Arix] “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. I asked you what happened to the 32 virgins allocated to God and you said they were killed. But they were NOT, repeat, NOT killed. The reason I excerpted Numbers 31.1 to 31.41 was to show you that these 32 virgins were not killed as you claimed. Please read line 31.36 to 31.40 from the excerpt I extracted. And in 2 above you yourself said “By 31.40, the only Midianites that are left are the 32000 Virgins, since the non-virgin women were killed in 31.17.” But in your #86 you said “The 32 virgins were killed, but that is hardly the scale of a massacre, considering that the remaining 31968 Virgins kept their lives.” Arix, pl try not to get so convoluted. You were contradicting yourself.
4. Just to make things clear to you I am re-extracting line 31.40 of Numbers from the New Jerusalem Bible: “and sixteen thousand persons, of which Yahweh’s portion was thirty-two.”
5. Yes, good question: “What do you think “fell” means?” So “fell” here means “killed” to you? Arix, pl read the lines again if necessary. In 31.41 it says that whatever were allocated to God – including the 32 human beings [the virgins] – were given over to priest Eleazar. I am truly surprised that a simple, straightforward passage like this can cause you so much confusion.
6. [Arix] “Wikipedia is a good source of information, but not always neutral or accurate.” Not far from saying that the killing of innocent Midianite women and children was an act of retributive justice of your God? How fanatical can you be? Evil or harm perpetrated in the name of God or on his alleged instructions is still evil or harm.
7. [Arix] “Remember that the POV in the Bible is that God is God of all mankind, not just God of the Jews.” But this god of yours was a racist and there is a mountain of evidence in the Bible evidencing his racism – whether this was only for a certain duration in biblical history.
8. I shall discuss other biblical passages about the evil nature of your god.
Arix [250]
“It seems like rkwc are falling to Smallvice’s habit of character-assassination.”
Arix, you have on more than one occasion stated inaccuracies or inconsistencies and I was merely pointing out the defects in your arguments. Pl state verbatim [including post ref no] the things I said that in your opinion amount to character-assassination
In my #251I made these comments: [a] “First, please stop being confused” [b]
Arix, pl try not to get so convoluted [c] I am truly surprised that a simple, straightforward passage like this can cause you so much confusion. I was merely pointing out your default. Pl tell me, are [a], [b] and [c] the equiv of
“character-assassination”?
Arix,
To return to the story of Onan.
I am now using the New International Version:
Genesis
• 38.6. Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
• 38.7. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
• 38.8. Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.”
• 38.9. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
• 38.10. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.
Is the use of NIV acceptable to you? Or do you prefer that I use New Jerusalem Bible, which states as follows:
• 38.6. Judah took a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.
• 38.7. But Er, Judah’s first-born, offended Yahweh, and Yahweh killed him.
• 38.8. Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Take your brother’s wife, and do your duty as her brother-in-law, to maintain your brother’s line.’
• 38.9. But Onan, knowing that the line would not count as his, spilt his seed on the ground every time he slept with his brother’s wife, to avoid providing offspring for his brother.
• 38.10. What he did was offensive to Yahweh, who killed him too.
Let’s not jump the gun. I just wish to know, which version you prefer?
# 203) Arix on June 20th, 2009 12.07 am
1. //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//
It does not seem to me that such systems exist in our world. Can you give actual examples of some ‘secular’ systems (as defined by you)?
2. //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//
By ‘Alexandrine’, I presume you refer to the era of Alexander the Great. To my knowledge, the only Zeus is the one of Greek Mythology, which pre-dates Alexander the Great by about 400 years, so I’m a little mystified by your allusion to ‘Alexandrine’ and ‘pre-Alexandrine’ concept of Greek Myth. Which ‘Zeus’ are you referring to, and what are your sources?
3. //Buddhism doesn’t officially worship any deity, at least not Pure Buddhism//
Buddhism does not worship any deity, period. Those that do are corruptions of it into Taoism, Shintoism, etc.
4. //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//
Can you cite any instances in Buddhism which refers to the Hindu concept of Brahman? If not, then this is a mere assumption, and an unsound one – to say that because Buddha was originally a Hindu and hence ‘likely’ to make abstract references to the Hindu concept of the Brahman is equivalent to saying that since Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Nazism likely also made abstract references to Roman Catholic teachings.
5. //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”//
Neither am I. The Confucianism I refer to is an ethical and political doctrine (not a religious one) for the proper management of society. It is primarily a system of ETHICAL (not religious) precepts; it does NOT worship a god (‘Tian’ incidentally does not mean ‘God’), although the emphasis on filial piety (both present and past) in Confucius’s teachings might have led some to confuse it with ancestor worship, but that is not equivalent to worship of a Supreme Deity. The Analects of Confucius was about basic Confucian values including propriety (禮/礼), righteousness, loyalty, and filial piety, all centered about the central thought of Confucius – humanity, not God. You are assuming that because Confucius refers to an abstract concept of ‘Tian’ (Heaven) it means a Supreme Deity.
My conclusion from the above is that if you include Buddhism and Confucianism as ‘religion’, it lacks the ‘universality’ concept as espoused by you, and hence your argument that all morals originate from religion (morality is universal because religon is universal) is flawed.
6. //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//
If there are no ‘moral standards’, then there cannot be ‘moral positions’ because there is no common reference point for comparison.
7. // I think I would first like to clarify what you mean by “Secular”, so that we don’t shoot definitions at each other//
I already did in my earlier postings, but to reiterate: by ‘secular’ I mean the separation of state from religion, that is, political and public morality (e.g. public policies and laws) independent of religion.
#254
LM, superbly put. Clear, concise and logical.
If only Arix could state precisely so that we can all be clear as to excatly what he is referring to, we wouldn’t have to ding-dong over and over again.
Arix, pl refrain from arguing by saying: “By this, I am not referring to A but B”. If there areas for equivocation, then you should made clear what exactly it is you are referring to.
Corrigendum
My #255: the last sentence should read: “If there are areas for equivocation, then you should made clear what exactly it is you are referring to.”
#245
Arix, although this post was addressed to sllim, I would like to know what you think of this passage:
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.”
“””
Do you believe in the accuracy of what is stated here?
Arix #243,
Those weren’t small print. Relative to the fonts of the tables you keep pointing to, they were large print :)
You keep pointing to individual data and disclaiming the consistency of Paul’s theory. But these are empty charges.
Fingers-crossed, this might help in clearing up your persistent—one might think insistent—misreading of Paul’s theory:
“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”. [Capitalisation for your benefit]
Arix #244,
“Study this quote…”
The question is have you studied it?
“‘Paul’s analysis generates the ‘desired results’ by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion’.”
Setting aside the peculiar objection to Paul’s selectivity of the set of social problems, Jensen doesn’t, for a moment, refute or undermine Paul’s findings. He simply points out that the set of social problems selected could and should have been broader (I wonder how un-selective Paul has to be to satisfy Jensen).
Is this best you/Jensen can muster? That Paul didn’t study everything?
Even if Paul had included the whole gamut of social problems in his research and found that religion is oh-so-wonderful in dealing with an array of social problems, his findings of “higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion” still hold.
With his own subsequent research, Jensen neither attempted to refute Paul’s findings directly by studying the same set of social problems nor, despite his criticism, research in a set of social problems that would un-highlight “the negative consequences of religion”.
The one and only conclusion he drew from the one and only social problem he studied, well, is at least amusing. So thanks for that.
@smallvice585 (#235 and #237): I’m not sure whether the term “pragmatic atheist” is appropriate. You use it to describe persons for whom “[t”he existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary – gods neither provide purpose to life nor influence everyday life. (emphasis added)
I interpret your reference to “unnecessary” to refer to people who reject theism because it isn’t ‘useful’, or because they simply haven’t applied their minds to the question of God’s existence. Hence, the rejection is based on either a non-truth-related reason, or no reason at all.
The atheism-theism debate, however, is concerned with the validity of a single truth-claim (‘X’). One is an atheist or a theist based on whether one takes X to be true or false, not whether one finds a conclusion on X to be useful in daily life. The class of so-called ‘pragmatic atheists’ is simply not relevant to the debate, just as the class of people who are ignorant of the special theory of relativity and find it useless in their daily lives is irrelevant within a debate about whether relativity is an appropriate explanatory model for the physical universe.
I think the definition of atheism as a ‘lack of belief in X’ must be accompanied by a qualifier that this lack of belief come after having applied one’s mind to the question of X. Otherwise, you get selection bias. One is a ‘pragmatic atheist’ if one fails to accept X because she doesn’t think that the truth-value of X is all that important. But if so, one is at the same time a ‘pragmatic theist’, because one fails to deny X. (The question of who has the burden of proof does not come in until one actually goes into the inquiry of proving or disproving X.)
Peter Sellers #246,
You might find Daniel Dennett’s take on religion to be tangentially relevant. (His talks are available online)
Religion, he contends, is an extremely virulent concept (meme). Once underway, the ones with better self-perpetuating and reinforcement mechanisms spread exponentially.
Some religions are abysmal memes. One particular religion’s, I forgot which, devotees had to practice celibacy so they couldn’t “breed” new members. As it turned out, the rate of expiration was higher than that of recruitment.
The religion simply died out.
Hi Arix #242,
When will you stop your religious propaganda? Despite your religious propaganda and religious provocation, I have remained civil. I don’t take kindly to your accusation of me engaging in character assassination. I am merely calling a spade a spade. If you are not happy, leave.
Since you claimed credit in a debate that has yet to reach a conclusion, I now know the rhino-hide is not the thickest skin in the world. The only Theory of Everything (TOE) is the Grand Unified Theory, otherwise known as the Holy Grail of Modern Physics.
Mystics like Ken Wilbur (the author of Arix’s Favourite Book TOE) trying to invent Theory of Everything is like how tricksters invent new frauds – both equally illegitimate. FYI Ken Wilber is neither a Christian nor a Theologian.
We all recognise that you deliberately chose the words “Religious Spirituality”. The ingredient of your wonderful invention is nothingness. It is just you reorganising theology to suit your interpretation. You are your own God, just admit it.
As mentioned previously, I agree that religious laity deserves a voice in a politics. That’s why they can participate in politics just like everyone else. However, members of the religious laity can only engage politics on a secular platform, just like everyone else. Dr Chee Soon Juan is an example of a Christian in politics.
Richard Dawkins’ bus ads read “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. It neither rejects nor affirms the belief in God or Gods. In fact, he highlights the Question of God should not be a cause of worry – you should stop worrying about your religion – it will take more than words to wipe clean Christianity all of its legitimacy..
With regards to Dawkins vs Mother Teresa, physicist Steven Weinberg once said “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.” You might remember how I also condemn Mother Teresa for criticising the Indian Government – she is part of the clergy, so she has no business in criticising any government.
rkwc (#250),
1) Oh no, it happened again! Someone seems to be removing posts from this thread. Somehow, this not the first time that the post numbering has changed…
2-5) I am not convoluted. My stand has so far still been that the 32 Virgins were killed. I am using an annotated version of the New American Bible. You can go and check it out: http://usccb.org/bible. In my view, they are killed in 31.40. Some English translations attempt to sanitize the violence in the OT, because some Protestants like to sound more humane. NIV is one of these “sanitized versions”.
Okay, but you win this time. After doing some further research, I have concluded that my position was ill-conceived. So you win then.
“Moses is distributing the plunder from victory in war to the Israelites. A portion was to be given to the priests as a heave offering. All that was given to the priests was not killed”
–http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040125.htm
A Heave Offering is an offering that is made an offering by lifting it up above the altar. (I guess the Jewish priests must have been quite strong.)
After which, the most likely result would be that these virgins become debt slaves to the Levites, the priestly caste. In any case, they are not the High Priest’s personal property. As God’s tithe, there would have been a hands-off rule on the virgins, so they were not married off to the priests.
But this is more or less a pyrrhic victory to you. Since you have just gotten one more proof that God is not as malevlent or psychotic or vengeful as you say He is.
6) Not fanatical. Logical. Think of it as God’s Death Penalty on the Midianites for crimes against humanity. The Midianites did practice human sacrifice.
Do you think that the Death Penalty is fanatical?
And the Midianite women are not innocent. Please look at Num 31.16.
In the case of the children, the Virgins were all left alive, as you have stated. The only children who died were the boys. In those days, boys would have grown up to be exactly like their parents before them, which for the Midianites includes: cult prostitution, human sacrifice (particularly to Baal) and cannibalism. God’s purpose in destroying Midian was to destroy all these ills as well.
7&8) Sorry, where is the racism shown? Perhaps the Israelites were racist, but not God.
Hi Peter Sellers #246,
It becomes problematic when evangelicals refuse to permanently agree to disagree. The tension which Arix mentioned in #249 only exists in the person who cannot leave and let live. If evangelicals don’t propagate their faith, would the situation for tension even arise in the first place?
We have established firmly that Atheism is logical. Faith-based religion is inherently illogical when one has to make a leap of faith in the first place. On the other hand, spirituality is simply faith-based inspiration. If you have solid faith in the Christian God, you will see the Christian God is everything you observe.
Once the faith parts gets dismantled, Arix’s house of cards will just tumble. In trying to put up logical reasoning to defend faith, he has already strayed so far from his own religion – Christianity. Arix defines God as the balancing force in achieving Physiological, Psychological, Emotional and Transcendental equilibrium. Satanists also share this definition of God. Haha Haha Haha.
rwkc (#251),
Apologies. Mis-type. I meant sliim.
rwkc (#252),
Let’s just get on with it. What’s your issue with Onan?
LM (#253),
1) Liberal Democracy certainly is one of these systems. (Not that I am Theocratic, of course.)
2) Look here:-
http://custance.org/old/evol/2ch1/2ch1.html
http://www.worldspirituality.org/primitive-monotheism.html
3-4) Alright, that is an extrapolation. But then there is Nirvana…
5) I read the Classics. The Classic of Rites very clearly has references to religion, including religious offerings.
6) Exactly. So people just pick what they want to do, which would be different for everybody. Thus, chaos would ensue.
7) which aspect of religion are you referring to?
rkwc (#254),
I have made clear definitions in my post to Smallvice at #242. Is that equivocal enough for you?
@smallvice585 (#260), I apologize for prodding you on a post addressed to Arix, but I want to clarify a point you made:
“Richard Dawkins’ bus ads read “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. It neither rejects nor affirms the belief in God or Gods.
The question we should ask is what Dawkins means by there “probably” being no God. Does he just mean that there exists, say, a 51% probability that God does not exist, and conversely, a 49% probability that God exists? I don’t think so. What he means that the probability that “God does not exist” is large enough so that God should not provide us with a basis for action (i.e. it’s large enough that we ought not to believe in God). This is corroborated by Dawkins’ second sentence (“stop worrying and enjoy your life”).
Clearly then, the degree of probability that ‘X is true’ is a meaningless number in itself. The only thing relevant is whether the probability is high enough as to produce a claim for our belief. A prediction that “It will probably rain tomorrow” (‘RAIN’) cannot be said to “neither affirm nor deny” the belief that tomorrow will be a wet day…. because such a statement implicitly asks us to believe in the truth of ‘RAIN’.
Sorry for making such ‘heavy weather’ out of this point, but I’m especially allergic to apparent fence-sitting as regards atheism and belief in God. To me: ‘God probably does not exist’ = ‘There is insufficient reason to believe in God’s existence’ = ‘There is sufficient reason to believe that God does not exist’.
rkwc (#256),
Any reason to believe its inaccuracy?
sliim (#257),
If you accuse a researcher of selectively picking data, it is a serious accusation. Sure, Jensen only focuses on homicide rates (or does he?), but pointing out one flaw is enough to suggest that other flaws might be present.
Anyhow, Jensen is not the only critic.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-061-r
Both these articles provide an excellent array of statistics, and the second one deals with the unscholarliness of the Paul article.
For a taste,
“”"
He never defines these terms and seems to assume we’ll all know exactly which countries he’s referring to. Among those omitted without clear explanation are: Italy, Greece, Finland, Luxembourg, and Belgium. Why are these left out? He mentions in passing that “the especially low rates [of homicide] in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample,” but offers no statistical evidence corroborating this assertion.
India would seem to be a “developing democracy.” Why was it excluded? Not prosperous enough? Don’t know; Paul doesn’t say. Why were Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the rest of the new eastern European democracies excluded? Don’t know; same reason.
“”"
Gallup, George S., “Dogma bites Man” [FYI, George Gallup is the founder of the internationally-renown Gallup Foundation which does polls on several subjects a year, and is regarded favourably even by the PAP.]