I am now reposting my message.

[#84 Arix]

1] I shall leave this to smallvice585.

2] What if MDA thinks LDS is right and we all think that MDA is wrong in giving in to LDS’ views? As you have presumably read the vociferous criticism made by many of us here regarding the huge financial losses incurred by Temasek, notwithstanding the defense, abject from our viewpoint, being offered by several govt ministers on behalf of Temasek, would you say we have no grounds to criticize as we did? Would you accept that If the govt insists that Temasek did no wrong, then the govt and Temasek must be right and we are wrong?

3] I disagree; the discussions we were having were conducted with civility. There was no question of the discussion turning into a “flame war”. It appears to be a matter of personal perception – yours.

4] It was LDS’ prerogative to think along those lines, but LDS by now and assuming that he has since read the responses to his complaint, would have realized that many people have expressed disagreement with his views. So what if he still insists that he is right? Thinking oneself is right does not by itself make it right, right?

5] The bigotry of the Christian religion in the past is well known; I suggest that you surf the Internet to ascertain pointers about “Christian bigotry.” Who is telling who to abandon his/her religion? If people want to discuss religion or religious issues/beliefs, they have to be receptive that their ideas may not have any influence on others. Immature people should not of course engage in intellectual discussions, let alone discuss sensitive issues like religious beliefs/practices. Who is “stupid enough” to do exactly what he/she is being “told”? I am sure that you are not that stupid or immature to carry out such an action. Maybe, you are right if you insist there are stupid people around us.

6] Yes, you seem to be a person with potential. But the point to remember is: what others think of you carries more weight than what you think you of yourself.

7] You were probably unborn or a toddler when The Straits Times carried an article that projected religion as a curse on humanity.

1) That is so rich of him. well, obviously he doesn’t have any hidden agenda after his agenda has been revealed.

2) As Smallvice would say, it doesn’t matter whether he is right; what matters is whether MDA thinks LDS is right.

3) Actually, Smallvice was the first to raise the issue. And yes, I remember PS’s request. The point though is not so much who started the debate/discussion, but who first turned a “civilized” discussion into a flame war. As far as I note, Smallvice and Sliim came within a hairlength of flaming me for being a theist.

And I am far more progressive compared to LDS (who laments frequently about how much the Church has changed from the Middle Ages). So I logically extrapolate.

4) So what, you ask. Well, so it leads to LDS perception that Christianity and Religion are being insulted on the thread.

5) It would be inflammatory if you didn’t specify how they are bigots. What else would be inflammatory in a debate on religion is if you flat-out told a Religious person to abandon his or her religion. Arguing that the religion is false or inaccurate or whatever is fine, but telling people to leave a religion crosses the line.

6) Yes, I know that. I am not as ignorant as many of you seem to think I am.

7) The Straits Times mostly publishes statistical articles, not discussive ones. The closest to a discussive article it published with regards to the AWARE Saga was Prof Thio’s (Sr) Op-Ed, and even that was generic, and nothing like our discussion on the Bible.

First, we need to understand that smallvice585 has made clear, on more than one occasion, that he has no hidden agenda [#81 being his latest on this issue].

LDS has expressed his views but that does not mean he must be right. You seem to be having the notion, in your own words, “the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act might be enforced if we become too religious here. After all, this is the thread which discusses LDS’s complaint to MDA. Somehow, I doubt that LDS would find arguments by either Smallvice or Sliim to be very much non-inflammatory, and him complaining to MDA isn’t good for TOC, because it at least puts TOC on MDA’s watch-list.”

I think it was you who first raised the God/religious issue and then as a natural consequence further discussions developed. Remember, Peter Sellers specifically asked TOC to allow the discussions to continue?

I cannot recall anything inflammatory being said by anybody, and I cannot accept your viewpoint that “LDS would find arguments by either Smallvice or Sliim to be very much non-inflammatory.” That is every bit as subjective as saying: “I don’t agree with your view or palate that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream.” “So what?” – would be the rational and natural response.

If I say suicide bombers are evil people or some Christians were at one time fanatical bigots [bigotry still exists, by the way], would that be construed as inflammatory? Let’s not mince words – we should call a spade a spade. Religious bigotry of course is not expected to entertain alternative or opposing viewpoints. Inciting violence is the style of demagogues; discussing a subject matter in a civil manner will lead to clarification or enlightenment.

If you have read widely, you would know that religious debates have been conducted in prestigious institutions, such as universities, in the last several decades. And transcriptions have been made available for some of these debates, for the benefit of the public. Debates of this nature have also been conducted in Internet websites and many websites can be found to be ongoing forums for such discussions.

Articles about religious beliefs have been published in The Straits Times, notwithstanding the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. I don’t see how our discussions can be the subject of infringement of this enactment.

1) yep.

2) As Smallvice would be only too willing to point out, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act might be enforced if we become too religious here. After all, this is the thread which discusses LDS’s complaint to MDA. Somehow, I doubt that LDS would find arguments by either Smallvice or Sliim to be very much non-inflammatory, and him complaining to MDA isn’t good for TOC, because it at least puts TOC on MDA’s watch-list.

I don’t wish to be part of a discussion that ends up putting TOC in jail. I wonder if MDA still has that “political website” classification.

Perhaps a better forum would be Terence’s blog at http://irreligious.blogspot.com. At least his blog is fully declared to be on religious matters.

3) As I said before, I didn’t coin the term. The term was coined by other Agnostics and Atheists who believed that Dawkins and Hitchens are too “religious” (yep, exact word). Coming from the Atheist camp, “religious” isn’t a very flattering word; I think that much we can both agree.

4) And there have been many responses to Dawkins and Hitchens from all sides of the debate; a few examples:

The Dawkins Delusion (Alister McGrath, Theist)
(I can’t remember the title)(Francis T. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, Theist & bioscientist)
Why I don’t Believe in Atheists (Chris Hedges, Agnostic)
God Without God (Michael Hampson, Agnostic)
The Atheist Manifesto (Michel Onfrey, Atheist)

There is no hidden agenda. I have openly said I will oppose anyone who wants to install the voice of religion in the political sphere, not just electoral politics. If religion wants to have a voice in politics, then it would be asking for a witch hunt. I don’t like witch hunts, so I implore people not to pursue this line of thought.

Re the Big Bang, yes, it was a Belgian priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre who in 1927 proposed the BBT.

Discussions on such a metaphysical subject as God/god should be open for review/input by others, and thus I think TOC is an ideal forum. If you have it on a one to one basis, via email, either party can go on endlessly without knowing that what was said makes no sense.

In the scenario here you happen to be the only person arguing on the theistic position. There are, if I am not incorrect, at least six of us here facing you. And that’s why I suggested that only one or two issues should be raised at a time, by any one of us. Furthermore, a single issue may result in spin-offs to other areas.

I am not sure whether it is correct to use the term “New Atheists” to label Dawkins and Hitchens. They happen to be among a crop of atheists who can argue cogently for their position.

It is for others, theists and non-theists alike, to judge whether it is reasonable to argue for or against a proposition, and the arguments being offered in this respect. If a person cannot reason or understand simple logic, then it would be pointless to discuss with that person.

1) For a discussion to remain sane, it must be free of populism and other hidden agendas. On the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, I hardly had a chance to fully elaborate my views, because Smallvice was over-intent on painting me as a Fundamentalist. That is why I asked to have it closed.

2) Perhaps, we can raise the issue on the next thread of similar theme. Or you can always come to gmail to discuss the topic with me. [arixion@gmail.com]

3) I agree with you. Being constrained by dogma on either side is a hindrance to proper debate.

I am uncomfortable with apologetics who only want to participate in rigged debates where they can always win; hypocrites who accuse their opponents of rigging debates but think that they are perfectly entitled to do so because God is on their side. It is true; the proper purpose of debates/dialectics is to reach the Truth; but clearly that cannot be done if either side already believes that it has obtained the precise and complete truth.

Concurrently, I am also uncomfortable with the New Atheists (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens) who are only willing to see everything through the narrow prism of science. They are debaters who refused to contemplate new approaches and broaden their mental horizons. I was watching a documentary on History Channel (StarHub Ch 09) yesterday, where I was surprised to learn that the first person to propose the foundational idea for the Big Bang, the Super-Atom Theory, was not just a physicist, but an Anglican Priest as well! So, who says religion and science can’t go together?

70) gee on June 26th, 2009 4.43 pm
Best comment is 12) by Ganga..

Thank you…

now, seeing so many questions posed to him by readers, i am totally utterly completely disappointed in this LDS.

i agree that anyone’s article published in the msm papers must be able to defend what they say. non-reply is a not in favor of the authors. they must understand this as it involved their credibility. next time, anyone here think i would read his article? or save some time?

LDS would have managed in a less controversial manner if he had posted, using his real name or a pseudo name, and constructively challenged each viewpoint he disagreed with, with coherent arguments, instead of writing directly to TOC and flatly claiming that so many of the posts were not worth his efforts in reading them and that 8 posts were infringements [of the law?] and had the potential of raising friction between the various religious groups in Singapore. That, in my opinion, was high-handed and narrow-minded.

The ball now is on his side of the court so to speak. It’s for LDS to hit it back.

LDS, do a post here, with your real name?

people who write on the MSM must learn to be responsive to their critics especially the logical ones. Don’t run away after your article is published. We should engage debates with ALL MSM writers as well. I am sure they are up to the challenge.

It is common knowledge that whoever expound anything online will naturally and automatically be subjected to scrutiny by other online participants, which itself is a form of moderation as well as education(enlightening).

LDS has not appear on TOC lately and I hope that he does not feel unwelcome after the Incident. The Cyberspace is for all of us to use and of course we do hope that participants will not be too emotional, personal, political and vindictive.

The Net will not be interesting if there are only a handful of participants, it is only worth reading and participating when there are diversities in responses, views and ideas.

patriot

1-way communication is not the way to go ‘in the digital age’.

News can be more credible if it can tahan the scrutinization by the public.