These are the five principles of Malaysia’s Rukunegara (National Principles):
-
KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN
-
KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA
-
KELUHURAN PERLEMBAGAAN
-
KEDAULATAN UNDANG-UNDANG
-
KESOPANAN DAN KESUSILAAN
With translation into English:
- BELIEF IN GOD
- LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY
- THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
- THE RULE OF LAW
- COURTESY AND MORALITY
It was introduced after the May 13 1969 Incident to promote national unity. Particularly among schoolchildren who are forced to recite it at assemblies.
Unfortunately, it immediately makes anti-patriots out of some Malaysians with its first principle:
-
KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN / BELIEF IN GOD
Thus, tiny minority Malaysian atheists who do not believe that any gods exist are excluded from shows of Malaysian patriotism.
As are the 19.2% of Malaysians who are Buddhists and do not believe in a god .
And I’m not sure where the Constitution stands on agnostics who don’t have enough knowledge to decide either way.
Didn’t anyone notice this in the 38 years since the Rukunegara was instituted?
Or was it intentionally designed to subtly paint non-theists as less than full patriots?
(But anyway, “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.” – George Bernard Shaw)
Tags: religion in Malaysia, Rukunegara
April 2, 08 at 1:40 pm
Oh dear, does this mean KTemoc is in trouble?
April 2, 08 at 1:43 pm
April 2, 08 at 2:11 pm
I surely would like to hear from KTemoc first on this before I give my 2 cents.
The fact is I’ve noticed this potential point of contention from the very beginning.
April 2, 08 at 3:00 pm
Haha Run Buddy Run :Chicken Little”
http://www.tv.com/run-buddy-run/steam-bath-andamp-chicken-little/episode/216135/summary.html
April 2, 08 at 3:34 pm
Interesting find.
April 2, 08 at 5:25 pm
Btw: The “Save Sufiah Programme” is headed by Deputy Minister in the PM’s Department Mashitah Ibrahim who will come up with strategies to assist Sufiah as soon as possible.
http://nursamad.blogspot.com/2008/04/saving-sufiah.html
This is what a high ranking Minister in the Govt. is supposed to do? I mean if the idjut can`t find some work, the idjut can come clean the drains in my area.
The reader`s comment in that link is good – succint.
April 2, 08 at 5:35 pm
Oh, and the Hindus too are verbotten.
April 2, 08 at 10:31 pm
Rukunegara Says Malaysian Atheists & Buddhists Are Unpatriotic
Scott, over at BUUUUURRRRNING HOT, notes the five principles of Malaysia’s Rukunegara (National Principles) hold that Atheists, Agnostics and Buddhists are unpatriaotic:
They include (in english):
BELIEF IN GOD
LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY
THE SUPRE…
April 3, 08 at 8:41 pm
save sufiah??????
why not save me???
April 4, 08 at 12:57 pm
In america also they have “in god we trust” so it’s not just malaysia ok. Not that they treat the atheist any better in the US. Musn’t think that bad abt your country.
April 4, 08 at 1:16 pm
“Musn’t think that bad abt your country”
Sigh, another one of those with poor comprehension.
April 9, 08 at 2:15 pm
Hello, sorry I haven’t stopped over in such a long time. Am busy filming in Indonesia right now. Hot like hell Today, but was horribly raining all day yesterday. And that was when I pulled out my trusty 8inch tiny laptop to pen “Religion Issues”. Hope you guys liked it. I’m really disgusted that many tend to fall into category 4, and are so stubborn when “others” talk to them. I always get this strong sense of “underlying hate” and animosity when a Category 4 person meets any other Cateogry.
Scott, You and Sean Ang (Citizen Think Tank) would make good buddies. We were discussing this Prejudiced Rukunegara circa 3-4 months ago, and how it marginalizes. And here we are all trying hard to unify, while there are many factors which seek to divide. That was one of the main reasons why I wrote “Origins of the Malays” aka “Malays are Not a Race”, if you still remember.
Anyway, cheers and shoot Sean an e-mail. He’d be happy to discuss this with you in more detail.
Ta-Ta
April 10, 08 at 5:57 am
Next up- why being prodemocracy is treasonous.
April 10, 08 at 8:21 am
Actually, pro-democracy as treason already came up a few months ago:
2007 Bersih Rally – [Zainuddin Maidin's] logical justification: the rally is illegal because there are elections, heavy-handed methods used because it’s illegal.
April 10, 08 at 11:22 am
ChristopherSisk.com : “Atheists, Agnostics and Buddhists are unpatriaotic”
Conclusion, you can tell that the charter was mostly formulated by muslims and the “others” aren’t supposed to be sensitive over the wordings. Secondly the “other” don’t have morality at par or perhaps even better. It shows the voicelessness of any nons involved in the formulation of the RN. Also the nonsense implication of the expediency involved(in a hurry, iow). It was quickly endorsed by the asshat lapdog parties.
Even so, it’s so much sloganising just like the “Leadership By Example” thingy and the”Zero Inflation” one. Dead before puberty.
April 10, 08 at 11:30 am
Saudi cleric: ‘Freedom of speech might lead to freedom of belief’
In this television clip from al-Majd (Saudi) television, leading Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid warns that freedom of speech cannot be allowed, because it might lead to freedom of belief.
http://tmq2.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/video-saudi-cleric-freedom-of-speech-might-lead-to-freedom-of-belief/
June 17, 08 at 5:57 pm
We’ll said. But I do give my time towards a cause… “A Better Malaysia”. What is better is of course subjective at times. But certain ideals are at the heart of the matter as well.
Cheers!
Support my Malaysian Bloggers For Cheaper Beer & Cigarettes. More info at my blog.
June 18, 08 at 9:03 pm
Hi,
It is most unfortunate that Atheists are looked down upon in Malaysia. I do not know if Buddhists are persecuted or not. There has been nothing reported in the newspapers.
Freedom to have your own opinions, freedom of speech and freedom to practice the religious faith of your choosing are enshrined in the constitutions of a lot of countries including India. Although as I said earlier there is no news to suggest that Buddhists are being ill treated.
What this amounts to I suppose is a sort of brainwashing of the children and youth of the country of Malaysia. Bertrand Russell would have had a fit. Please read his book – Why I am not a Christian. It is excellent.
regards
Nikhil
October 17, 08 at 4:40 pm
Actually the Rukun Negara is more to that. Please read what the Rukun Negara was really designed for. The 5 points which we are familiar is just a summary, and definitely not the principles.
http://yoonkit.blogspot.com/2008/09/rukun-negara-have-you-read-it-really.html
So if you follow the original principles of Rukun Negara, atheists and buddhists ARE not sidelined, and the call that they are unpatriotic is inaccurate.
yk.
May 15, 09 at 7:53 pm
Hi I am an atheist. Oh I know I sound unpatriotic to you. But it doesn’t matter and I am really proud to be the one. We are just as nice as any nice religious person who walks in the street. You guys are atheists to other gods except to that you particularly hold on to. We atheists just go one god further.
May 17, 09 at 4:28 pm
By the way, to Christians like the blogger who created this blog isn’t really concerned about athiests or buddhists not being patriotic. He’s more interested in all of us (including the muslims, the hindus, the taoist and other pious people with different beliefs) going to hell as to them we have all violated the 1st of the 10 commandments that was believed (with no evidence) to be written on rocks by god in the middle of the desert where god (if he exists or ever existed) commanded Moses to pioneer Isrealites into.
May 23, 09 at 10:48 am
Nice conjecture and insinuation, but my main aim in posting this was to mock the foibles of certain government policies.
But yes, Christians are concerned about people going to hell – we are trying to prevent that from happening. And look what thanks we get.
June 12, 09 at 9:49 am
Ah I see. Thanks for raising the question up. By the way even if we can escape the Christian hell, we are apt to going to the Islamic or the Jewish hells. You don’t have to worry about us. We don’t mind going to anyone if they really exist.
June 12, 09 at 9:52 am
we are apt to go* (sorry for the typo)
July 23, 09 at 9:41 pm
I read somewhere that mankind has worshipped a few thousand gods. Atheists are like Christians, just that we worship one less god. Scott, you want to prevent atheists from going to Jehovah’s hell? Pls consider there are thousands of other gods who have equally condemned you.
July 24, 09 at 10:07 am
When judging between atheism and religion, we use one set of arguments and proofs – for example, first cause (poster #5 here) or the fundamental physical values of the universe.
Whereas when judging between different religions, we use a different set of arguments and proofs, since we already accept the existence of the supernatural. For example, the internal, historical and textual veracity of each religion’s claims and scriptures. When it comes down to that, I believe that JudeoChristianity wins hands down over any other contender.
Frankly, as far as JudeoChristianity is concerned, there are no other gods but YHWH – only pretenders to the title. Therefore the ‘thousands of other gods who have equally condemned’ me is a non-issue.
And btw… This post is not actually an attack on naturalist atheism or Buddhism, but rather a critique of the institutionalized discrimination present within the Malaysian system. (Shirk is, after all, supposed to be one of the gravest sins.)
July 25, 09 at 1:23 pm
“When judging between atheism and religion, we use one set of arguments and proofs – for example, first cause (poster #5 here) or the fundamental physical values of the universe.”
And this argument to us atheists are not credible. If we atheists accept the concept of first cause we will go one step further to asking where did god come from? If god doesn’t need a creator why should the universe. We don’t know how the universe came to being. And I concede that I don’t know. When science doesn’t know the answer to a queistion what makes you think that religion does? It’s not that answers by religion are right by default. You still need to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.
There’s so little evidence that proves that Jesus even existed in the past. The Holy book or the Holy land does not prove the existence of some deity, they just prove that people worshiped this “being” since mediaeval periods.
If there is an original sin (meaning if god exists), it’s originated from god in his image.
July 25, 09 at 1:34 pm
I always like to ask these questions when someone invokes the argument from the first cause.
1) Where was god before he created anything?
2) If there was a “place” where god dwelled before he created and moved to heaven then that “place” must have preceded god in order for god to exist. So is that “place” more diven than god?
3) Who created the darkness before god created light
4) If darkness has always been there, then that must be god.
If you are going to say god didn’t need to have a “place” to sustain his existence, which is going to be illogically incomprehensible, you might as well say “I believe that god doesn’t exist, but in his non-existence he still could create the universe. That shows how divine and potent he is.” Well, why not? It’s equally nonsensical.
July 25, 09 at 1:49 pm
sorry for the typo: diven (divine)
July 27, 09 at 11:27 am
A common misassumption is that everything must have a first cause. However, the correct argument is that everything that was created must have a cause. Therefore God, not being a created being, does not need to have been caused by anything.
If your interpretation of first cause were maintained and God were removed from the discussion, it would still not solve the dilemma: What was the cause of the big bang, and the matter/non-matter before the big bang happened?
Again, a misconception here: God is not a physical being, but a spiritual one. He does not exist as part of space, time, the universe, or any parallel quantum alternate reality dimensions – He exists outside and apart from existence as we know it.
Here you show your lack of understanding of fundamental physics. What is darkness – some sort of wave, or particles or quantum fluctuation?
No, darkness is merely a term used to describe the absence of light. Just as cold is the absence of heat, and non-existence is the absence of existence. (And to complete the standard theological argument, evil is merely the absence of good.)
You are basically asking along the lines of “Who invented the no-microwave-oven, before Percy L. Spencer invented the microwave oven?”
It is only illogical if God is claimed to actually have a physical form. When something does not have any spatial dimensions, why would it need space?
But I agree on the incomprehensibility of it, as our frail and finite human minds cannot comprehend something outside of our limited three dimensions and increasing-entropy (time). Can we imagine a taste we have never tasted, or suitably describe the colour pink to a man blind from birth?
Heck, I’ll admit it, I can’t even reconcile my mind to Einstein’s gravity-as-a-bending-of-spacetime as opposed to the far more ‘sensible’ Newton’s gravity-as-a-force. Can you?
July 27, 09 at 11:46 am
————————————
1) Is this ignorance or just subjectivity? The historical existence of Jesus is not as widely disputed as some may think, partly due to the fact that various contemporary non-Christian historians wrote about Him:
* Greek writer Celsus wrote a polemic against Christianity, in which he quotes a Roman soldier, Pantheras, as Jesus’ actual father.
* The Talmud also carries various records, claiming that Mary was an adulteress and Jesus an illegitimate child.
* Jewish historian Josephus wrote of Jesus that “Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified…”
* Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the founder of the Christian religion: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
* Roman-Syrian satirist Lucian wrote that “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…”
* The Talmud states the following about Jesus’ following, criminal charges, and method and time of execution: “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.“ (Hanged can also refer to being hung from a cross by nails.)
* Jewish historian Josephus wrote of Jesus that “He appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold” (which is of disputed accuracy, but still mentions Jesus by His Jewish moniker).
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/historically-corroborated-jesus-fulfilled-129-messianic-prophecies-made-in-isaiah-335-years-earlier/
If you want to dispute that Jesus actually performed miracles and was raised from the dead, that’s fairly common. But to argue today, with all we’ve dug up about the past, that a crucified Jewish teacher named Jesus did not exist at all is more far fetched.
————————————
2) Either your idea of medieval is waaaaaaay off (generally 5th to 16th century AD, whereas the worship of Jesus stems back to 1st century AD and worship of YHWH to even further), or you are under the misconception that the earliest copies of Biblical manuscripts are from the Middle Ages… Old King James Version perhaps?
In actual fact, New Testament manuscripts exist dated back to the 1st century AD, with a complete set from 300 AD. Old Testament manuscripts are dated back to 700 BC, with a full set from 0 BC.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/was-the-bible-changed-reasons-why-it-could-not-have-been/
————————————
3) Agreed, the evidence proving that the Bible is accurate about history DOES NOT automatically prove that it is true in its entirety. However, I like to think of its historical accuracy as lending it credibility as a witness.
As Jesus said in John 3:12 : “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
Conversely, if what is told to us about things we can prove is true (such as historical events according to the Bible), then what is told to us about things we cannot prove is likelier to be true as well (such as heaven and salvation).
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/easy-3-steps-to-why-we-can-believe-the-bible-about-spirituality-and-metaphysics/
Dude, your polemics are jumping all over the place. You’re just firing with whatever ammunition comes to mind, am I correct?
A key foundation of Christian belief is free will. Humanity was imbued with it by God, and He will never do anything to take away that right – even if we sin (defined as going against God, i.e. rebellion and treachery) or choose hell over God.
Honestly, I don’t mind giving you these 101-class level lessons, but perhaps you ought to read up some on standard attacks on Christianity and the standard responses to those attacks. We haven’t been listening to skeptics’ arguments for 2000 years while doing nothing, y’know.
(Nor have I been blogging for 3+ years without defending my beliefs from constant commentor attacks.)
July 27, 09 at 2:15 pm
“A common misassumption is that everything must have a first cause. However, the correct argument is that everything that was created must have a cause. Therefore God, not being a created being, does not need to have been caused by anything.
If your interpretation of first cause were maintained and God were removed from the discussion, it would still not solve the dilemma: What was the cause of the big bang, and the matter/non-matter before the big bang happened?”
As I’ve said, we are still working on it. It’s not that god is the answer by default. This is just an argument from personal incredulity. Just because we have not known the answer it must be god, god of the gaps.
“Again, a misconception here: God is not a physical being, but a spiritual one. He does not exist as part of space, time, the universe, or any parallel quantum alternate reality dimensions – He exists outside and apart from existence as we know it.”
Isn’t it easy? I could say the same thing about the colour of the sky. There is an invisible painter who makes the skies blue in the day and black at night. And can’t dispute that because he does not exist as part of space, time, the universe…
What a great crop-out.
“Here you show your lack of understanding of fundamental physics. What is darkness – some sort of wave, or particles or quantum fluctuation?
No, darkness is merely a term used to describe the absence of light. Just as cold is the absence of heat, and non-existence is the absence of existence. (And to complete the standard theological argument, evil is merely the absence of good.)
You are basically asking along the lines of “Who invented the no-microwave-oven, before Percy L. Spencer invented the microwave oven?” ”
It doesn’t matter what was absent before god created anything, what matters is what was present. Darkness was present. Coldness was present, therefore god was darkness and coldness if both were not created.
“It is only illogical if God is claimed to actually have a physical form. When something does not have any spatial dimensions, why would it need space?”
The concept of god is just a byproduct of the mind which requires the brain to comtemplate. Without the brain, there is no mind and hence no god. Mind does not require space as it does not have spatial dimension.
July 27, 09 at 2:21 pm
Most if not all of your evidence of Jesus have been refuted. Maybe you would like to get this book called godless, by Dan Barker, a former evangelical christian.
Speaking of free will, I don’t think it exists in reality. And it certainly won’t exist if there really is a god, as what is free will when an omniscient god has assigned me to hell for being an atheist before I was even born?
July 27, 09 at 11:52 pm
Until you get the book, you can go to the link and read the article for the time being:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
Here’s your argument from the transcendence:
July 28, 09 at 12:00 am
By the way, also check out the bible for discrepancies of Jesus’ existence and death. The bible if it’s a historical fact is one that all of us would agree as the worst source ever, let alone other contradictions.
July 29, 09 at 8:42 pm
Ooooooh no, I’m not falling for that one. You must think me the blog-naive amateur to think I’ll get sucked into one of those sort of debates. I’ve seen it all too often before.
You start by commenting with several personal observations and opinions, to which I respond point for point. Then you respond to my responses, to which I respond. But all too soon you start making vague and generalized statements, repeating other people’s painstaking work, and pasting links – or worse, entire passages off the net)… Instead of taking the time to form and type out your own arguments.
Meanwhile, I spend hours painstakingly responding to every point raised by the 10 minute video or 12,000 word essay you ‘helpfully’ provided… Only to have you follow it up with yet more copy paste jobs.
Sorry, no deal.
How would you feel if I responded to your comments by going something like: “Your shallow arguments are all refuted by http://www.carm.org, which you should take a look at if you aren’t afraid of being proven definitively wrong. Also, there’s this book by Josh McDowell, ‘Evidence That Demands A Verdict II’, which you should get copy of. I think you’ll find your narrow understanding sorely challenged in just the first 400 pages.”
Do you really think you will spend more than a minute browsing through the hours and megabytes of information I just threw at you – that cost me all of thirty seconds to find, copy and paste? If not, then why would you expect me to sit through your similarly donated knowledge and nod my head meekly?
You link bomb me, I link bomb you, and our discussion degenerates into a series of outright plagiarism, with neither of us bothering to even read what the other has ‘worked so hard’ to supply.
You can continue posting links and so on if you wish; I’m sure someone will eventually stumble upon this thread and find them useful. (Personal experience – I came to know about Ann Coulter from a commentor’s bashing of her in a blog.)
But if you want to have a serious discussion/debate/argument here, then you’ll have to do your own work. Okay?
July 29, 09 at 10:41 pm
I’m just telling you the rebutal has been made. It’s better to read that book composed of hundreds of pages, instead of me copying every sentences or saying “oh, yeah that is no evidence because…” then copying and citing quotes from page to page.
“But I agree on the incomprehensibility of it, as our frail and finite human minds cannot comprehend something outside of our limited three dimensions and increasing-entropy (time). Can we imagine a taste we have never tasted, or suitably describe the colour pink to a man blind from birth?”
The statement above sounds mischievous by the way. Let me present to you by using a dialogue:
Christian: Well blind man. Just because you can’t see the flowers doesn’t mean they are colourless.
Blind man: Yeah. I guess you are right.
Christian: Now, same is said of their aroma, and the humming of the bees collecting nectar from flowers. They do are all colourful.
Blind man: That makes sense!
July 31, 09 at 8:41 pm
I believe ‘mischievous’ is your little anecdote, as it quite takes the general concept, goes of running with it and flies smiling off a cliff…
September 27, 10 at 6:52 pm
A key foundation of Christian belief is free will. Humanity was imbued with it by God, and He will never do anything to take away that right – even if we sin (defined as going against God, i.e. rebellion and treachery) or choose hell over God.
that’s a lie. the judeochristian god had absolutely no qualms about f*cking around with the free will of humanity. the hardening of pharaoh’s heart is one of the more illustrious examples. the second epistle to the thessalonians says, “and for this cause god shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” what this means is that god will deceive you to get you past the point of redemption, presumably because he finds the whole thing f*cking hilarious. i wrote an entire article discussing how the much-touted christian free will to be a sham here,
http://k0ks3nw4i.blogspot.com/2010/07/pharaohs-heart.html
on another note, i too wrote about the exclusivistic nature of the rukunegara a short while back,
http://k0ks3nw4i.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-my-country-thinks-of-me.html
September 27, 10 at 6:53 pm
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
Romans 9:15-17
free will my a$$.
September 27, 10 at 11:49 pm
Quote one short passage and make a snide remark, well that’s kOk tAlk (Spore U skang for nonsense). There’s free will, and you’re the a$$.
September 28, 10 at 12:37 am
on the contrary, i placed a link to a 2400-word post i wrote on the illusory nature of the christian free will using the biblical pharaoh as a central point of contention in a previous comment which has yet to moderation.
i noticed that you did not address the claim in the short passage. do not mistake brevity and snideness for a lack of substance. your comment ably displayed the latter. all you did was go “there’s free will and you’re the a$$” offering absolutely nothing to the discussion besides name-calling.
September 28, 10 at 7:36 am
What link? Can’t you see that no link appears anywhere? Or is it to appear yet? What are you up to? Trying to drum up readership for your blog by trying to link up with this immensely popular blog by Scott Thong? That would make you a troll, wouldn’t it? One with a snide and insulting remark at the end.
Is there a need to address your claim? The question of free will and predestination is an old issue, a very old issue, and you’re very late to the scene. State it briefly here and it’ll be discussed if anyone is interested. Briefly. No need for a link to a 2400-word post.
Name calling is the perfect response to your derogatory “free will my ass”.
September 28, 10 at 9:54 am
“..By the way, also check out the bible for discrepancies of Jesus’ existence and death. The bible if it’s a historical fact is one that all of us would agree as the worst source ever, let alone other contradictions…”
Aaron Lee says.
But those “contradictions” are NOT contradictions, according to our Christians brothers. Instead, non-Christians are mistaken. It should be understood the Bible’s message as a whole. Then..no contradictions, they said.
September 28, 10 at 10:32 am
Yup, it’s God’s fault, He’s the one making you spout all this stuff thereby condemning yourself. /snark
Your 2nd Thessalonians 2 example is actually preceded and followed by important conditions. In context: They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. Thus those who reject truth and salvation have already indicated that they’d rather live a lie and party down to hell – God just gives them what they want. (Similarly, hell is just God giving them what they want – an existence far apart from that hated JudeoChristian deity!)
Remember, when you see a sentence start with a phrase like ‘therefore’ or ‘for this reason’, you should read back a bit to find out what ‘this reason’ is. Now that you have learnt this lesson, little grasshopper, you have no excuse for not checking and citing the context before hopping to premature conclusions (I make ancient Chinese joke – is why they call it ‘wise man’ say).
Similar to Pharaoh’s heart – how many times did he renege on his word before God finally decided “Hey ‘Raoh, you wanna be stubborn forever, well let Me help you along dawg!”? That’s just a natural consequence.
Wouldn’t it be the exact opposite of free will if God instead said “Hey ‘Raoh, I see you wanna be stubborn forever – but like, I’m melting your heart all Carebear Stare like. Shazam! Now you love Moses and his people, how do you like THEM camels?” Now that is messing with free will! Can you disagree?
Actually, the analogy commonly used for God hardening Pharaoh’s heart is the sun – you go roll in the mud of your own free will, you choose to stand under the blazing afternoon sun of your own free will, but you blame the sun for making the mud harden on your skin. Hey sun, I don’t want dry mud cracking on my skin! The sun is f*cking around with my free will!!!
Now replace ‘wet mud’ with ‘stubborn heart’. It’s a common enough analogy that a Google search for sun harden mud Pharaoh will net you THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH’S HEART: THREE SOURCES OF HIS OBDURACY as the second hit – next time, research before revile, m’kay?
I have another analogy that illustrates how one can still have free will even as we are constrained by God’s plans and design of the universe: The Gamebook Metaphor – God’s Omniscience and Human Free Will
And I also don’t see you complaining much that your free will to fly in the sky Superman-style is constrained by gravity. Gravity is f*cking around with my free will!!!
So keep in mind – you may think you’re really clever with your insights and photoshop and all, but critics have been throwing their best shots at Christianity and the Bible for 2000 years. Meanwhile, apologists have managed to defuse the attacks for about as long.
Not that you aren’t welcome to try – more than one well learned, intelligent, hardcore polemicist has turned to Christ after examining the evidence and finding they have no choice but to accept the truth. (The truth is f*cking with my free will and finds it f*cking hilarious!)
September 28, 10 at 12:18 pm
That comment was in moderation queue for having two links. Hence the comment did not appear until I approved it a while ago.
So yes, k0k did post links. However, no one could see them yet.
September 28, 10 at 12:36 pm
My point still stands. There are instances where Pharaoh have ALREADY decided on his own to let the Israelites go, but God interfered with his decision directly (God hardening his heart as opposed to him hardening his own heart). What that implies is if God had just stood back, Pharaoh would have relented on his own at plague #6. God would go on to do this several times.
Similar to Pharaoh’s heart – how many times did he renege on his word before God finally decided “Hey ‘Raoh, you wanna be stubborn forever, well let Me help you along dawg!”? That’s just a natural consequence.
That is a supernatural consequence. It’s within the limits of his free will to renege. It’s also within the purview of free will to comply. God took away that choice. You STILL have not address this.
And your mud in the sun analogy is broken – I don’t care who came up with it or how common it is. The physical nature of mud is not within governance of free will. My inability to fly is because of the laws of physics. It may sound profound to you, but your assertions are essentially meaningless. If mud stay liquid in heat or if I can suddenly fly – those would be supernatural occurrences. Pharaoh deciding to let the Israelites go after his nation’s been battered by a bunch of plagues? That’s a very possible, very natural change of heart. When God “helped him to be stubborn forever” when he had let up, that’s supernatural. You got it backwards.
The gamebook metaphor is also broken. What happened to the Pharaoh (in the context of the gamebook) is that he chose odd number pages in the first half of it. At some point, he decided to go for even number pages – but God changed his mind back on track to the odd number ones. An omniscient god not only knows the entire book and all its choices. He also knows what choices everyone’s going to make. I noticed that you have not addressed Romans 9:15-17 – which revealed that God created Pharaoh for the specific purpose of defying him. Pharaoh’s purpose of existence is to defy him till the completion of the 10 plagues. When he tried to escape his purpose by relenting at Plague #6, god go “nuh uh” and forced Pharaoh to make decisions that god wanted. Free will, my a$$, I repeat, since writing it without dollar signs offends your sensibility.
Quote the whole 2nd epistle to the Thessalonians in full, it matters not to me – my argument still stands. It didn’t matter if they were disobedient at first. What happens essentially is that god allows them free will only half the time. You’re not allowed to change your mind when god doesn’t want you to – and unless you live on a different planet or reality, changing one’s mind is well within the domain of free will. This is my problem with the Christians’ assertion of god-sanctioned free will. And you are still avoiding to address it.
And so f*cking what if an atheist turned to Christ? Does it automatically make christianity true? No. But just to play your game of argument from authority, Charles Darwin used to believe in the literal truth of the Bible and was ready to become an Anglican clergyman when he was younger. Prominent American atheist activist Dan Barker was a Christian preacher and musician for 19 years before he lost his faith. Mark Twain was Presbyterian before he turned into an antitheist. Two of our most enduring SYMBOLS for intelligence – Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking – rejects the idea of a personal god. You know what? Pretty much EVERY illustrious atheist in the annals of history started off believing in a deity (christian or otherwise) before they realise that it was all hogwash.
In 1914, eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 “greater” scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively. MOST well-learned, intelligent people – hardcore polemicists or otherwise – are either atheistic or agnostic.
Personally i never bring up any argument from authority on my own, but since you apparently think it’s a valid point…
September 28, 10 at 12:43 pm
Citations please. Or shall I hint to you about the errors and missing punctuation marks in Lord of the Rings, and send you off to look for them yourself?
September 28, 10 at 1:31 pm
Wow, “MOST well-learned, intelligent people – hardcore polemicists or otherwise – are either atheistic or agnostic”. That’s a sweeping statement, if anything is. That, I hope, is not based on your need to be considered among those little gods of yours, atheistic or agnostic, a wannabe little atheist or agnostic. How would 1000 people in the natural sciences and the social sciences, classified as scientists (physicists, biologists, historians, sociologists and psychologists) be the majority of either scientists or well-learned, intelliigent people? A study in 1914 and repeated 20 years later? By a psychologist psychology of religion? By someone whose hubris exceeds his intelligence? By some one who dared say, “the higher level of disbelief and doubt among ‘greater scientists’ to their ‘superior knowledge, understanding, and experience’.” Quoted word for word by you?
Try something more recent, like a study released in 2005, in which it was found that two-thirds of scientists believe in God.
See http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
September 28, 10 at 1:38 pm
Say that He does know what choices will be made. We don’t – so how does that make our personal lives any different or more pre-determined?
Larry set up my office PC with a porno wallpaper as a joke and doesn’t tell anyone. He knows I’m in for a shock. Does his knowing that at all change the decisions that anyone else makes? I’m still going to turn on the PC, because I don’t know about his prank.
You write ‘STILL’ as if we’ve been discussing for days and I’ve wormed my way around the subject every time.
See later for more on this.
Well, if you let me comment with vulgarity and ISA-arrestable remarks on your site, do tell.
Why do you even need to use such language?
Very well then. Romans 9:15-17 is actually a citation of Exodus 9:16. The phrase ‘raised up’ can also be rendered ‘spared’, which fits well with the context of God not completely killing off Pharaoh and his followers – verse 15 has God note that He could easily have let the plagues kill Pharaoh. But that would have given the Israelites yet another excuse not to leave Egypt (see their constant complaining during the journey to the Promised Land).
Even if using the rendering ‘raised up’, it says nothing about God determining Pharaoh’s decisions – merely that God allowed this fellow to become ruler of Egypt for a purpose. God could easily have let some rival assassinate him and be the stubborn ruler instead, or if Pharaoh were a nice dude to the Israelites, God could have shown His glory and brought the Israelites out of Egypt some other way (speculation here of course). [Side note: The actual reason stated for taking the Israelites from Egypt is not to go to the Promised Land, but to worship God.]
Return to the sun analogy – if the mud is not exposed to the sun, but instead kept in a dark, high humidity cave, do you think it would become hardened? Again, God is the catalyst, but not the cause. In fact, that is the definition of a catalyst – something that increases the rate of a reaction, but the reaction would still have run by itself without the catalyst. Yet we still say, “I added the amylase and it digested the carbohydrate” when what we really mean is that it sped up the digestive process.
Remember that the Bible is not written as a legal document or scientific treatise, but as a guide that was originally an oral history.
If God really can and does control human emotions and decision, why bother letting Pharaoh make any decisions at all? There is an incongruity there. Does it even once say that if God had not been involved, Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go? Or do you just assume that Pharaoh wouldn’t be stubborn anyway? Catalyst, not cause.
And how did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? It doesn’t say, but I suppose you assume that God did some supernatural direct-reprogramming that instantly changed Pharaoh’s decisions.
But could it not have been through more indirect means? After all, many times in the Bible (and in modern testimonies) God answers prayers not through magical tricks, but through wholly ordinary circumstances. For example, using the Babylonians to punish Israel instead of appearing as a burning giant to step on idolaters, or prompting someone to donate instead of making wads of cash poof into existence.
So it could be with Pharaoh. In the palace, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to ignore Moses – could it be as simple as allowing his yes-men officials and magicians to advise him not to give in to the rebels? In the desert, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to chase after the Israelites – could it be as simple as the whining of the Israelites was reported through Pharaoh’s scouts, convincing him they would surrender easily?
If so, if God didn’t use Professor X style telepathic mind control, would you find it nearly as free will-less? Hey, humans ‘affect free will’ in simple ways all the time!
I think it’s rather a question of timing: By when should God let them reap the full harvest for their sin? By when do their hearts and minds reach the point where there’s no turning back ever?
You said that God knows every choice we will make. So what if by the halfway point, God already knows that the sinners will never repent for the rest of their lives? Yeah, so God sends them a powerful delusion – have you ever considered that they already WANT to believe the lie? They already refused to love the truth, what do you think they’ve been loving instead then?
As I said, a catalyst cannot make happen what cannot happen – it can only encourage something to happen that would anyway happen otherwise.
What argument from authority? I don’t recall adding “…And that’s why you’re wrong and I win!” to my comment.
Honestly, I merely cited examples of die-hard atheists/agnostics converting to Christianity as evidence that it can happen to the most hardcore denier. Just as you have cited examples of zealous Christians who renounced their faith.
See? God knew that these fellows would eventually change their decisions. So he let them spend countless years badmouthing Him (why would He stand for such a thing?), because these logic-based men had personalities that would accept the truth when it hit them – no matter how much inertia had been built up beforehand.
Oh yes – personality. Any posts where you blame God for making so-and-so have smart, dumb, insane, stubborn etc. genes that caused them not to accept God, so it’s God’s fault again?
That’s like saying pretty much EVERY transgender woman started off as a man… Religious believers simply far outnumber atheists (communist regimes aside).
Simon gave a pretty good link. Personally, I would have thought that biologists would be more believing – what with the complexities of biological functions, DNA and evolution and all.
Oo, I have citations too: Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes
—————————
For myself, my personal experiences – in particular one very overly improbable set of ‘coincidences’ leading to a life changing decision – have convinced me of the reality of God. Hence whatever questions still linger over polemics are secondary – my personal experience is convincing enough to override them, at least while I continue to search for good answers and learn (including through having to respond to comments).
I asked another atheist commentor here, what would it take to convince you that God is real? He answered along the lines of all cripples, sick etc being instantly healed. I responded that if that’s what it takes, perhaps God will make it happen just to convince him.
So I ask you: What would it take to convince you that God is real and truly respects free will? (And no, this is not an attempt at getting a logically fallacious argument in under the radar.)
September 28, 10 at 5:44 pm
@Simon
Like I say, I do not argue from authority. I was merely demonstrating the flipside to Scott’s incredibly arrogant remark,
Not that you aren’t welcome to try – more than one well learned, intelligent, hardcore polemicist has turned to Christ after examining the evidence and finding they have no choice but to accept the truth. (The truth is f*cking with my free will and finds it f*cking hilarious!)
He outright label these former-atheists’ position to be The Truth™. That’s argument from authority (take note, Scott). And NO, my disbelief in the supernatural is not dependent on these “heroes” of science. My heroes tend to be of the more literary persuasion.
Now, what I lack in freshness I shall make up in dependability and prestige. In 1996, Nature (read: the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journa) repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. Then they closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and found the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.
Now, I notice that the percentages in the report you cited only accounts for those who do not believe in a god (atheists) but gave no numbers for those doubting the existence of god (agnostics). But if we’re only talking of outright atheists here, I see no great difference in the numbers between the study you cited and Leuba’s 1924 landmark study.
Even if we don’t consider all that (I’m feeling generous), the percentage of disbelievers in scientific academia in both studies far outstrips the percentage of disbelievers in the general population (we are talking like 5 to 10 times more). A conclusion which can be drawn is that a person is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic if he or she is intelligent and well-educated.
Now, if you’ll stop making guesses and unsubstantiated remarks about my personality and character, I’ll greatly appreciate it. What would Jesus do?
September 28, 10 at 7:04 pm
Yes, I do allow comments with vulgarity and ISA-arrestable remarks on my site. In fact, I’m the source of most quote unquote vulgarities and seditious remarks there. I allow any and every comment because I believe in free speech – and in practising what I preach. I do not need to use such language, but I certainly want to. I believe in wearing cuss words out till they go the way of cuss words of yore – becoming more quaint than offensive. And I believe in clarity. Does substituting S’s with dollar signs render it less offensive or defuse its meaning? Does replacing the U with an asterisk make it polite?
Yes, that is purely speculation on your part. It didn’t matter who Pharaoh is so long as he fulfill his purpose of defying God for all the 10 plagues which god foretold (because, he’d look kinda silly if he could only display his glory till plague #6 after what he said). But the point here is not who’s Pharaoh. The point here is that the Pharaoh standing against the Israelite’s departure had a change of mind (documented by the Bible) and god changed his mind back.
Of course it can be as simple as that. Thanks for implying that god had a hand in making these yes-men and lickspittles say what god wants them to say, thus making them god’s puppets. so god messed with these lackeys’ free will instead, huh? it’s said again and again in exodus that god is instrumental for hardening pharaoh’s heart. shift the focus and you know what? god’s still responsible for pharaoh’s decision no matter whose free will he messed with. Now, let’s just step away from wild mass guessing and focus on what the bible says, mmmkay?
Larry set up my office PC with a porno wallpaper as a joke and doesn’t tell anyone. He knows I’m in for a shock. Does his knowing that at all change the decisions that anyone else makes? I’m still going to turn on the PC, because I don’t know about his prank.
Jesus Christ on a stick, you really do have a love for broken analogies, don’t you? What god did to pharaoh is more like Larry putting a porn wallpaper in your PC, and then he stops you from turning the PC on after you have decided to turn it one. The Pharaoh have decided to let the Israelites go, but god made him renege on his words.
Incongruity? I don’t see any incongruity. Pharaoh’s making decision according to Yahweh’s plan in the first half of the 10 Plagues blockbuster so why should he bother controlling Pharaoh’s emotions and decisions? It’s only when Pharaoh started to change his mind before the show’s over that god reached out and hardened his heart. It’s all part of God’s plan, free will be damned. Or must I say “darn” instead of “damn”?
It annoys me immensely that you refer to your religious position as “the truth” repeatedly. It’s not the truth no matter how many times you say it is or how many hardline god-haters take up that position. You must realise that I can readily assert the same thing with my own gallery of ex-theists. But I don’t do that. Do you know why?
And I know what a catalyst is. I’m a man of science, both by vocation and by personal interest. Boy, you Christ-lovers are laying on the condescension fast and thick today, aren’t you?
Anyway, your sun analogy is still broken and now you’ve added a broken catalyst analogy to the heap. A correct analogy would be: god catalysed a decision that wouldn’t otherwise be made. Pharaoh final acts of defiance wouldn’t have happened if God didn’t harden his heart. Free will and the outcomes of free will are still being messed with.
Obviously. I didn’t think I need to say it.
then, why delude people that god already knows won’t change their minds till the day the die then? unless god likes doing pointless things, it’s implied that god is responsible for pushing them past the point of redemption after their initial “misstep”.
now, take off your christian goggles and take a step back. see it from a skeptic’s perspective. people don’t disbelieve because they hate the truth (unless they are insane or retarded). people disbelieve because they don’t think something is the truth just because someone or something said so.
I don’t believe there’s a god, so our entire conversation is merely an exercise of rhetorics to me. I personally believe that humans have no free will at all, but our cognitive functions are too shortsighted to realise that (yes, I believe in causal determinism). but because we can’s understand the train of causality down to the atomic level why we think or decide the way we do, we think we have free will.
Hence my use of the phrase “the illusory nature of the christian free will” – a thought which can be applied to causal determinism as well. If god created us, and already knows what decisions we will make in our life even before our conception, we are indeed just going through the motions. We just can’t see the strings.
Just to play a little more in your little sandbox: if a girl is forced by a guy to suck his penis when he has a gun pointed at her head, did she suck his dick on her own free will?
Bow and adore Yahweh, and accept a blood sacrifice for our sins – or burn in hell for eternity? Free will, my a$$.
September 28, 10 at 7:16 pm
I shall respond when I deem it worthy (ha!), but in the meantime my filter is set pretty sensitive. So if you want to continue commenting without your comments getting caught (as happened previously), keep that SHIFT+Number key busy and the links either to a one a comment or missing parts from the http or www identifiers.
And yes, free speech and all – but this is not America. This is where I get arrested for what YOU comment, with precedents already established.
September 28, 10 at 7:38 pm
It amuses that a lot of the very smart physicists you cited are atheists or agnostics. It amuses me even more when so many people (you included) mistake or deliberately misrepresent their surprise at the rare earth hypothesis and the fine-tuned universe to indicate their belief in a designer – but I’m a believer in Hanlon’s razor. Now, there are many, many valid arguments against both hypotheses – documented even in the wiki links you provided for them. But I shall only quote Stephen Hawking (who you included), who made a splash in world news earlier this month saying, “The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second.” Hawking adds, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.”.
Oh, I’m a little different. Even if your god should appear to me in all his terrible glory, banishing all doubts I can possibly have of his existence, I’d reject him even more vehemently than I am now. I have read the official handbook on him and if everything in it is true, then he is a cruel, bigoted, inconsistent, racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal, genocidal, schizophrenic tyrant who sucker-punched humanity in the crotch yet still demands that we love him or he’ll torture us for eternity. He deserves to be rebelled against because no truly righteous person can be expected submit to such a terrible being. Because, it’s the right thing to do.
But to answer your question, I will believe anything that’s supported by hard, testable evidence presented in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Now let me ask you in return: What will it take for you to give up your faith in god?
Or what will it take for you to denounce irreducible complexity (read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box dincha?). Considering that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was refuted with much finality in peer-reviewed research papers and is pretty much a glorified argument from incredulity, it should be a piece of cake.
Either or both
September 28, 10 at 8:22 pm
kOk: But if we’re only talking of outright atheists here, I see no great difference in the numbers between the study you cited and Leuba’s 1924 landmark study.
How did you arrive at that? It does not come from the article I cited.
kOk:A conclusion which can be drawn is that a person is more likely to be an atheist or agnostic if he or she is intelligent and well-educated.
Still being pompous and presumptuous. Scientists may be intelligent and well-educated in their field but spiritually retarded. Hubris and open-endedness make poor companions.
September 28, 10 at 8:24 pm
All the terms you use to describe God come straight from the atheist’s handbook, rehashed, regurgutated, undigested…
September 28, 10 at 9:50 pm
kOk: I don’t believe there’s a god, so our entire conversation is merely an exercise of rhetorics to me. I personally believe that humans have no free will at all, but our cognitive functions are too shortsighted to realise that (yes, I believe in causal determinism).
Yes, you have no free will; you’re spouting your rhetoric because you were forced to do so.
September 28, 10 at 10:06 pm
@Simon
The numbers I cited from Leuba’s landmark study (affirmed by Nature) are inclusive of agnostics. If we minus agnostics from the numbers, we’ll get figures closer to the figures your article touted. The numbers in your study only covers scientists who “don’t believe in god” (frank atheists), but not scientists who doubt the existence of god (agnostics). If you’ve actually read my comment, you’d see that I have already said as much.
Still being pompous and presumptuous. Scientists may be intelligent and well-educated in their field but spiritually retarded. Hubris and open-endedness make poor companions.
Wow. Now you are making assumptions and pronounce judgments about the spirituality of people you do not know at all. By the way, Jesus thinks you’re a hypocrite,
And so far, you have contributed little to the discussion besides uncalled for ad hominem abuse and baseless slanders. Like this gem, for instance,
I do not have a handbook of atheism and all the terms I use to describe the biblical god are conclusions which I arrived at on my own after reading the much-hyped good book (I have a nice hardcover copy on my bookshelf which a christian friend gave me when i was in secondary school). If I happen to say the same thing as a lot of other atheists, that hardly renders my arguments untrue or invalid. After all, if we all spotted an elephant, we aren’t going to report differently. Anyway, you’ll find none of the usual pop atheist writings in my library by the current atheist superstars (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al). You’ll find a lot of CS Lewis’ work though. I even have GK Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. Chesterton’s the guy who managed to convince CS Lewis to accept Christ, by the way. I did not reject Christianity blindly. I reject it after reading the Bible cover to cover, and after attending church pretty regularly (I was there so often that I picked up a Presbyterian girlfriend).
Even if this mythical handbook of atheism you described exists, it doesn’t make what I said any less valid. And I resent your unsubstantiated accusations that I am “regurgitating undigested” statements.
I think you better let Scott do the talking. You are clearly not helping him.
September 28, 10 at 10:14 pm
kOk: Now, if you’ll stop making guesses and unsubstantiated remarks about my personality and character, I’ll greatly appreciate it. What would Jesus do?
Now, what do you think you have been doing, if not doing exactly that in the first place, as when you said in reference to the Christian belief in free will, “that’s a lie”. You didn’t say, “I disagree” or “that’s wrong”. You call someone, other christians, and by extension, me, a liar. Or in the rude and vulgar way you insult those who are not like you (self-designated “man of science”…there you go, arguing from authority, the authority of so-called intelligent and well-educated people, scientists, as if you were there among them, the elite; how pretentious!)
You are also arguing from the authority of atheists-agnostics.
Look at your own comments, and the way you push them..you only have yourself to thank if you are seen as a petty wanna-be atheist. There is nothing in the atheist-agnostic well except negative criticism + arrogance + nit-picking + name-calling…but in your case, there is a slight difference, but not in the way you think. It is in being a little more crude and vulgar, and a lot more inept in your arguments than the other atheists and agnostics who frequent Scott’s blog.
September 28, 10 at 10:59 pm
@Simon
Gosh, the reason I cited the demography of atheism in the scientific community is a tit for tat for Scott’s argument from authority. Even if no scientists are godless, it doesn’t diminish my arguments one bit. Scott did not miss the point of my bringing it up (i think) but it certainly flew right over your head.
My choice of wording made it quite clear,
I did not argue from authority because I did not say that atheist scientists are “embracing the truth” with their atheistic position. Scott, on the other hand, did,
SEEEEEEE?
The Christian free will is a lie, an untrue statement, a demonstrably false assertion. My evidence? A direct reading of the Bible. No speculations (which Scott did… he admitted). No roundabout analogies that muddy the water while making inaccurate associations (which Scott did, which I tried to correct repeatedly). As a bonus, I also argued using god’s purported omniscience, and from god’s “offer you can’t refuse” using a “crude”, “vulgar”, more direct analogy of a blowjob at gunpoint.
Now, if someone belonging to the medical fraternity is not a man of science, then what is he then? A man of miracles? Besides, I only brought it up to tell Scott that I know what a catalyst. In this case, if you must call it an argument from authority, I think it’s perfectly justified. People who have studied scientific subjects all their lives tend to know sciencey stuff.
And I don’t believe in not judging people at all. I’m not a Christian and I don’t follow Jesus’ teachings (and whatever values I happen to share with the rabbi are accidental, I assure you). You however, is a Christian. I’m just pointing out that you’re acting antithetically to your lord’s words.
And I think he had something to say about retaliating in kind too,
It’s breathtaking how you exemplify all those traits within the span of two comments. You criticised me negatively. You arrogantly considered anyone who is an atheist to be spiritually retarded in comparison to you. You pick nits about my citations, my tone, etc (and so does Scott in the face of a direct Biblical reference). And name-calling? You just called me a petty negative critique, an arrogant nit picker and name caller. There’s also wannabe atheist too. Oh, and troll and a$$ (right at the start).
We call this “projection” in the psychiatric discipline.
Honestly, you are not doing Scott any favour. You should quit and ponder on how well you have represented Christ and his teachings, in “this immensely popular blog by Scott Thong” for everyone to see.
September 28, 10 at 11:44 pm
I’m not here to support Scott; he out-argues you at every level but you are intellectually unable to see that. I’m here to respond to your emotional outburst (your crude “free will, my a$$”), and to return you to your level: not a “man of science”; not yet, maybe never if you keep on the way you are going. What are you? At the moment, slightly impressive. Slightly.
Let’s begin with the scripture you quote, Matt 7.11-5; well, quoting scripture is what many christians do, so you may have picked up the habit from there. It’s a lazy way of trying to use authority against someone. Well, here you are, using scripture as authority when you had twice, at least, disavowed the use of any authority apart from your (slightly impressive) self. Are you going to say, “Just this once lo”? Anyway, I won’t call you a hypocrite as you’re too mild to be one yet. Just a little idiom for you, “People in glass housees should….only undress in the dark.” I can see through you, and it’s not impressive.
Firstly, you’re too thin-skinned. Now, if you want to be a hard-core atheist or agnostic, you’ve got to take control of your emotions and not react. You need more training to toughen up. If you thought having intelligence is enough, you’re wrong. You’ve got to be persistently stubborn in refusing to be provoked. It doesn’t matter what you are, believer or anti-believer, or whatever. Occasionally, you will meet people like me, who take joy in doing exactly that, that is, provoke you. Only when you start the ball rolling.
Secondly, when did you begin to think of yourself as a “man of science”? At your age, with your few accomplishments (if doing well enough to get into medical college can be considered an accomplishment), what qualifies you as a man of science? Quite pretentious, aren’t you? Sure, you know the lingua (“peer-reviewed”) but what have you done exactly? Nothing in terms of research in science. I have 5 degrees and I have not called myself an educated man, just someone who knows something. But you are a….!
Finally, for now anyway, since you seem to enjoy saying, let’s answer the question, “What would Jesus do?”
I wouldn’t know, but I suggest that you don’t do what he didn’t do: he didn’t start out on his preaching-teaching-healing ministry until he was an adult, 30 years old by some scholars’ reckoning. Don’t blow your trumpet until you have learnt more, achieved something substantial, for there is more to learning than intellectual ideas which are common enough and end up grist for the intelletual mill. Consider wisdom. A sibling was professor of child health and world-renowned, not a believer, yet a humble, unpretentious man with whom, many have said, a discussion was a gracious occasion.
September 29, 10 at 12:08 am
Here you are, arguing from authority, once again: we…in the psychiatric discipline. You mean you have learnt a little bit about psychiatry at lectures and want me to believe that you KNOW?
Are you too dense to know what you have been doing?
What’s wrong? Never met a christian before you told you the truth about yourself? Can’t accept the fact that it is happening? And you are one of those who tell christians to turn the other cheek so that you can rubbish their beliefs, and given a chance, slap them, and remind them not to strike back. That’s unscrupulous. Even evil, to take advantage. Well, it doesn’t work with this christian. I’m not just slightly different from other christians; I’m very different. Anyway, you are clever at finding the right scripture to use against me, and presumably, you’ve had a great deal of practice at manipulating christians to fit into your preconceived idea of what they should be. However, both scripture passages don’t mean what you think they mean, which demonstrates your shallowness of understanding, and also the spiritual retard that you are. What’s so bad about admitting to being spiritually retarded if it’s the truth? It’s no lie. Can you feel God’s presence? No? Can you know God’s presence in the Holy Spirit? No? That’s why you can’t believe and won’t believe in God who is Spirit. Spiritually dead..or almost; definitely spiritually dead if you keep going along the road to atheism.
September 29, 10 at 1:32 am
@Simon
Wait! I can do the same thing you just did! I’ll say that I out-argue Scott on every level but you are intellectually unable to see that because it automatically makes it true!
Nah, I didn’t expect to convince either Scott or you to reconsider your positions. The point is to have this discussion in black and white here in “this immensely popular blog by Scott Thong”, so other people reading it can decide for themselves.
Jesus Christ on a stick, make up your mind already D:
crude, yes. but i’d hardly consider snark to be an “emotional outburst”.
Um, I’m not arguing from authority here (seriously, dude, you need to look up what it means). I’m making an assertion that you’re a poor representation of the teachings of a man you claim to cherish – and showed which teaching you ignored. But supposing that I am arguing from authority, I’d consider the Bible to be the most authoritative representation of Jesus’ teachings. The last word on the subject, so to speak. Don’t you?
I’ll let anyone reading our little conversation decide who has been the thin-skinned, emotionally-charged, name-calling a$$hat here, okay? xD
At your age, with your few accomplishments (if doing well enough to get into medical college can be considered an accomplishment), what qualifies you as a man of science?
To know the scientific meaning of the word “catalyst”? (getting back to the original context of that statement) Hmmm, I guess if a high school science student comes up to me telling me he knows what the word means because he has attended a single class of chemistry, I’d take his word for it. Besides, I never considered my learnings made me a voice of authority. Check out my choice of words,
Who’s nitpicking now? You ignored every argument I made and focused on my phrasing in telling Scott that yes, I happen to know the meaning of a word. If I say “Okay, I’m not a man of science and I did not, in fact, know the meaning of the word ‘catalyst’”, does it affect any of my arguments in the least?
Ooh, what are the five degrees in? “negative criticism + arrogance + nit-picking + name-calling”? What’s the fifth one? Condescension?
I am ….? Ran out of names to call me?
Are you saying you are a… troll? Because that’s what being a troll means. So I was right! You WERE projecting! xD
Yessir. I shall listen to you on this. Don’t worry because I sure as heck ain’t going to start out on my preaching-teaching-healing ministry till I am an adult of at least 30 years of age, no sirree. Scout’s honour, suh.
Look you don’t have to take my word for it. You can look up “projection” to see that it meant exactly the way I meant it. I argued (quite plainly, I daresay) that you are attributing traits and behaviour to me which you are clearly guilty of. You replied by pulling another ad hominem attack – which is basically what aaalllll your comments consist of.
What’s wrong? Never met an atheist before who told you the truth about yourself. Can’t accept the fact that it is happening?
Next up, a whole volley of bilious name-calling and ad hominem abuse by one Simon Thong:
oh, don’t flatter yourself, hon. You’re so different, really. Most Christians living today are just as bad as you are. No one seems to give two hoots about what Jesus, god or his apostles say anymore. What with all the eating of pork and shellfish, wearing jewelry, working on the Sabbath, and women keeping hair uncovered and speaking (even preaching!) in churches. It’s like nothing your deity says matters anyway.
Now where should I begin? Okay. First, tell me how both scripture passages don’t mean what I think, and how it demonstrates the shallowness of my understanding.
To answer you, it’s bad to admit to being spiritual retardation if that’s a lie. I happen to consider myself very spiritual as do many other atheists and Buddhists, in spite the lack of a belief in the supernatural. It’s the height of arrogance to assume that only Christians who know God’s presence in the Holy Wotsit can be spiritual. What pride! What hubris! Look up “spiritual” in the dictionary. Surprise, surprise! Your very specific, very narrow definition is not there. Mine is there.
Wait, several of mine are there, in fact.
September 29, 10 at 1:56 pm
“I happen to consider myself very spiritual as do many other atheists and Buddhists, in spite the lack of a belief in the supernatural. It’s the height of arrogance to assume that only Christians who know God’s presence in the Holy Wotsit can be spiritual. What pride! What hubris! Look up “spiritual” in the dictionary. Surprise, surprise! Your very specific, very narrow definition is not there. Mine is there.”
Wow.. I’m surprised… here’s one atheist (i think k0k is a self-proclaimed atheist, from what I understand his PoV) admitting that Atheism is a religion.
Spiritual (New Oxford American Dictionary)
adjective
- Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things: I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
- Of or relating to religion or religious belief: the tribe’s spiritual leader.
I thought Atheism only believed in the natural (hence no supernatural)… if the spirit (something supernatural) can be considered real and exist, why does he reject God? The plot thickens….
And k0k, I believe you’ve been misinterpreting several statements by both Scott and Simon…
Scott:
“God could easily have let some rival assassinate him and be the stubborn ruler instead, or if Pharaoh were a nice dude to the Israelites, God could have shown His glory and brought the Israelites out of Egypt some other way (speculation here of course). ”
This was his speculation… not the part he spoke about ‘God raised up Pharaoh’..
“Even if using the rendering ‘raised up’, it says nothing about God determining Pharaoh’s decisions – merely that God allowed this fellow to become ruler of Egypt for a purpose.”
And regarding Pharaoh.. can you please quote me the passage that says Pharaoh was changing his mind/heart before God hardened it?
I seriously don’t recall of such statements made.
And regarding Simon’s statements about ‘spiritual retard’, to be spiritual means to believe in the spirit (an immaterial matter and naturally consider part of the supernatural)… Yet you say you as an atheist don’t believe in the supernatural.. but yet believe you are spiritual.. Please define what you mean by ‘being spiritual’.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding between you and Scott/Simon because of your different understanding of terminologies, it seems to me so far.
September 29, 10 at 2:02 pm
“I happen to consider myself very spiritual as do many other atheists and Buddhists, in spite the lack of a belief in the supernatural.”
I find this statement inaccurate… Buddhists DO believe in the supernatural. I was a Buddhist and grew up in a Buddhist home within a community that is rather familiar with Buddhism, Chinese traditions/cultures, etc.
Buddhist DEFINITELY are believers of the supernatural. They believe in gods/goddesses, reincarnation, hell, monsters, ghosts, etc. (Just watch Journey to the West to get some idea of Buddhism)
Atheism and Buddhism are far from similar… Atheism, as you said, is a belief system that denies any form of the supernatural… you don’t believe in any sort of God/gods/goddesses.. you probably deny ghosts or demons or an immaterial/eternal soul, since those are unprovable by science.
I hope you’ll not make such a mistake again, as it shoots your credibility as someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.
and really appreciate it if you explain how you believe and think of yourself as a ‘spiritual’ man..
September 29, 10 at 2:37 pm
“..Hawking adds, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..”.
Stephen Hawking is an authority people say. But I think that piece of his statement cannot be confirmed or accepted by all renowned astro-physicists/ scientists. To common man like me..I just wonder if the existence of gravity he was talking about, was there before every stars/ planets exist billions of years ago? By gravity, then came stars and planets?
If there was such a thing, then gravity is “god”.
I think, no planet earth, no gravity also on earth, am I right?
September 29, 10 at 2:51 pm
I think, no planet earth, no gravity also on earth, am I right? – Nasaei Ahmad
Do you even know what gravity is?
http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml
September 29, 10 at 4:18 pm
Buddhism is the reason why I prefer to use the term irrreligious instead of atheist when referring to the secular naturalist type of atheist.
September 29, 10 at 4:49 pm
I mean, if there no stars/planets/moon etc, gravity is not there maybe.
But Hawking says because of gravity then, universe exists, planets possible came into being because of it – not the other way around (because of the existence of stars/planets then..gravity exists.
Gravity on the moon.. If moon is not there, is gravity exists on the moon exists also? I’m eager to learn that.
September 29, 10 at 5:12 pm
It seems like theists just enjoy misrepresenting what atheists say or do – but again, Hanlon’s razor. What you did is just like how Scott misrepresented the physicists he quoted in the post he showed me. Most of them are clearly godless or at least agnostic – and that by definition meant that they don’t belief in a creator deity, or thinks that there aren’t enough evidence to say there is one. Yet, he titled the post: Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer). That is an outrageous lie. One of the physicist he quoted clearly said, in no uncertain terms, that he does not believe in a creator.
In the same way, at no point did I make the assertion that atheism is a religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god or gods. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not-collecting-stamp is a hobby.
Now, Zack, here’s a the definition of “spiritual” from oxforddictionaries.com,
And from dictionary dot com,
Thus, I have proven that you have griveously misrepresented me, made offensive remarks about my personal character and told outright, demonstrable lies about my spiritual position. If you have any honour, you’d apologise, Zacky boy. That’s what people should do when they tell lies.
Did I say that anything more than that to be part of Scott’s speculations? It seems more like you are misinterpreting what I said.
I’ve quoted two excellent sources of definitions above, with the ones representing my position bolded. If anyone requires clarity, it’s you and Simon. Perhaps you should have addressed Simon – not me. It seems to me that his definition is not listed in any dictionaries at all.
I find this statement inaccurate… Buddhists DO believe in the supernatural. I was a Buddhist and grew up in a Buddhist home within a community that is rather familiar with Buddhism, Chinese traditions/cultures, etc.
I AM a buddhist. Still am. And an atheist. You do realise that Theravada Buddhism is perfectly compatible with atheism don’t you? There’s no absolute requirement for a Buddhist to believe in anything supernatural if he doesn’t want to. It’s not like Christianity where you’ll be tortured for eternity if you don’t believe that Jesus is the son of god.
You speak as if Buddhists are a homogeneous group of people all holding the same beliefs. Utter nonsense. The central tenets of Buddhism: the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble 8-fold Path has nothing supernatural about them. No mention of gods, spirits, ghosts, hell, monsters and all the other etceteras you so boldly assert. LOOK IT UP. Everything else is accessory to the central teachings of Siddartha Gautama, tacked on to Buddhism as it spread through diverse cultures with indigenous beliefs. It’s called syncretism.
Also, I suggest that you get your knowledge up to speed before engaging me. Journey to the West is one of the 4 Great Classical Novels of Chinese Literature, often thought to be written by Wu Cheng’en. It’s not a holy book of Buddhism. It’s not representative of the Buddhist philosophy. The novel is a fictionalised account of the mythologized legends around the Buddhist monk Xuanzang’s pilgrimage to India. Google or Wiki it.
What most Malaysian Buddhists practice is a hodgepodge mix of Mahayana Buddhism (what Theravada Buddhism turned into when it reached China), Taoism and ancestor worship.
I hope you’ll not make such mistakes again, as it shoots your credibility as someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Pathetic.
September 29, 10 at 5:21 pm
Wrong.
He said laws such as gravity. Quote him right.
And even if not a single body of mass (stars, planets, etc) exists in the universe, the law remains. Dense particles pull together to form cosmic bodies because the laws of gravity pull them together in the first place. Everything in the universe follows the laws of Physics. The laws of physics weren’t created by everything else.
Didn’t you study Physics in high school?
September 29, 10 at 5:26 pm
Besides, I didn’t quote Stephen Hawking as an argument from authority. What he say is right or wrong is immaterial. The reason I quoted him was to demonstrate that Scott misrepresented him as a physicist who believes in a creator or designer of the universe.
This is just in case a nitwit starts challenging me on this. I can’t even tell people that I’m a spiritual person without some dictionary-handicapped popinjay coming along to tell me what I am or am not.
September 29, 10 at 5:54 pm
“It seems like theists just enjoy misrepresenting what atheists say or do”
“Thus, I have proven that you have griveously misrepresented me, made offensive remarks about my personal character and told outright, demonstrable lies about my spiritual position.”
Uh.. Hello, k0k… I’ve just came onto this scene for the first time (with you anyway) and I’ve only made ONE statement regarding you (namely you indirectly admitting Atheism is a religion with your ‘spiritual’ declaration) and I gave you my reason why (definition of spiritual from NOAD). I also gave my opinion that you’ve misinterpreted what Simon or Scott were trying to say in their comments and reasons, and also made a comment about what you said about Buddhism and advised that you not made any similar mistakes or your credibility will be shot…
Where in my two comments did I:
1 – grievously misrepresented you,
2 – made offensive remarks (mind you, not ONE swear/cuss word is present in my comments or any form of personal attack/remarks, unlike you)
3 – and told AN outright, demonstrable LIES?
Please show me. And if indeed I inadvertently did, I shall apologize. Otherwise, you’re the one that needs to apologize for making such accusations.
I swear my credibility upon the name of Jesus Christ and with God and everyone else here as my witnesses and declare that you are mistaken with that accusation, k0k.
September 29, 10 at 6:04 pm
Zack T
You grievously misrepresented my theological position. I do not believe in spirits. You said in no uncertain terms about my admittance that atheism is a religion – which is not my position at all.
I find saying I believe in spirits and yet reject God is offensive, because I did neither. Taking offense is a subjective emotion. Now don’t you start telling me what I should or shouldn’t feel offended by.
And the above statements are demonstrable lies, as demonstrated by the definitions from oxforddictionaries dot com and dictionary dot com. Spiritual can be used outside the context of spirits and the supernatural.
Apologise now. It’s your honour and credibility upon the name of Jesus Christ and God.
September 29, 10 at 6:38 pm
Now k0k, weren’t you just chiding me for being condescending with regards to your knowledge of biology? Although I do not see how my explanation of what a catalyst is, with regards to God and free will, was at all condescending. But personal interpretations are different for each person (as you say, subjective), so if you took it as condescension I apologize – it was not my intention.
On that note, I don’t interpret my remark about atheists converting to Christ as sounding like an argument of any sort. But I accept that you may have taken it as one. If you wish, I can run a poll on this issue, and I will accept the majority decision on whether my remark could reasonably be construed as an argument from authority.
Analogies – yes, I admit that mine aren’t perfect. Have you come across any analogy that is a perfect reflection of the situation it tries to simplify? That is the nature of analogies, and honestly most of mine are thought up ad hoc.
Personal interpretations and personal standards – I have come to accept that each person has different standards for what constitutes reasonable doubt and irrefutable evidence. When I feel it has reached a point where both sides are rehashing their mutually exclusive interpretations, I just drop the subject and move on.
This seems to be the case with God and Pharaoh. By my standard, short of the Bible actually saying that Pharaoh would have let the Israelites go if God had not intervened, I accept that God did not force him to change his mind on anything. The speculation was merely on how God might have accomplished His plans in other ways, not that He never co-opts free will. Meanwhile, I can see why you would argue otherwise – but I simply do not see it that way myself. Hence my not bothering to argue on about the matter.
Let’s move on to your blowjob-gun analogy, from a certain angle it does seem to reflect the situation of eternal judgement. However, I instead compare hell to other natural consequences – such as falling as the natural consequence of jumping off a cliff.
After all, as I said hell is exactly where those who reject the Christian God intend to be – as far away from God as possible! (The real hell would be if they had to spend eternity with God, no? Whether cruel as you say or good as I say, the mere idea that they’ll be in His presence surrounded by throngs of worshipers CONSTANTLY AND FOREVER is anathema!) Just as the natural consequence of wanting to avoid a doggy poo is walking around it – barring interference such as a shove from behind – the natural consequence of wanting to avoid God is ending up where God is not – barring interference such as a life-changing experience.
But from your blowjob-gun analogy, it kinda seems that your standard of purity for ‘perfectly free will’ is very exclusive. How many of our everyday choices are really free from all coercion, persuasion and constraints?
I don’t want to work all day long. But if I don’t, I don’t get paid. I can’t buy food. I starve and eventually die. Isn’t that a constraint on my free will? Isn’t it just a gun at my head dragged out over the week or so it takes my body to waste away?
And free will is NOT preempted. Gun or hell, one can still say NO. I can quit my job if I want, and there’s nothing that my bosses can do to actually change my decision itself. (With due notice under threat of financial recompense, oh noes another constraint on mah free willz!)
That is what martyrs (both religious and irreligious) have done over the millenia – “Renounce your beliefs or die!” “Then I die.” No amount of persuasion, coercion or constraints can change their firm decision. Free will is still free, gun or no gun.
Just as I can jump off a cliff, gravity can persuade me not to, but it can never reverse my decision if I truly want to take the leap.
And just as gravity cannot force a decision, God cannot force Pharaoh or anyone to make a decision they are adamant on avoiding. That is my interpretation.
Irreducible complexity… I suppose a demonstration that complex organ(elles) really can be formed through evolution would do it for me. Not that I don’t believe in evolution…
Belief in God? I suppose, honestly, only after death would I be convinced otherwise. Such is the strength of conviction from my personal experience. Which other atheist commentors have handwaved as not very extraordinary at all, but as I said, personal standards of evidence.
IMHO, if God really is as righteous and loving and merciful as Christians believe, then all assumptions otherwise are a misinterpretation. In fact, I believe God is so righteous that in the end no one will be able to fault Him for His final decision regarding salvation/damnation. But if you’re right, then woe to me.
On your current spirituality point with Zack T… I’ve had the problem myself with the word ‘natural’, as applied to homosexuality among animals. Whereas I mean it in the sense of whether it fits the ‘survival of the fittest’ purpose, many took it in the sense of ‘happens without human interference’. And yes, I resorted to the dictionary definition as well – it didn’t help, because so did the other guys using the other interpretations. In retrospect, I could have used a narrower term instead. Hence my preference for ‘irreligious’ rather than the widely-encompassing ‘atheist’ when referring to secular naturalists.
And finally… No offense dude, but you come across to me (by my subjective personal standards and interpretation) as very tightly strung, combative, antagonistic and sensitive. You’ve been talking down various commentors since you arrived, especially with regards to their intelligence and education. At the same time, you respond with forceful vehemence at the slightest perceived insult,
I could understand if someone had gone over to your blog and made rape comments about your relatives, thus provoking you to come over here and call them out, but dude! It’s like Christianity itself personally came and threw red paint on your door and you’re here for a street fight with everyone in its house as well as the neighbors!
Chill a bit.
September 29, 10 at 6:42 pm
In fact, I’d like to call on all parties to de-escalate.
Continue with the debate, by all means. But lay off the name-calling, don’t make intentionally condescending remarks, avoid references to the other guy’s intelligence/education/sanity, and take deep breaths and count to twenty before responding to a remark directed at you.
If you could, go by rules of conduct and etiquette that would be expected of in a professional environment such as an typical office, or use the sort of language that wouldn’t require a local newspaper to heavily edit your submission for print.
Of course, you’re free to ignore my request – that just means more fighting and less actual discussing (and more work for Mr. Moderator).
September 29, 10 at 6:56 pm
How wonderful you must be, a “man of science” who never insulted me or misunderstood me or Zack T? the one who is never free with insults and mockery? the one who calls me a poor representation of Jesus Christ? the one who tells me what I ought to be and do as a christian? the one who never uses ad hominems? By the way, how many people visit your blog? your kakis? soooo many that even if you let them all say and write what they want, it’s ok.
If ever anyone qualifies as a pompous ass, your royal a$$ does, medica STUDENT.
September 29, 10 at 6:57 pm
Grievously misrepresented:
I quoted from one dictionary that defines spiritual in the ‘spirit’ sense of things..
So with the information I have, that was how I understood your position. And hence why I found it strange that your position accepted ‘spirits’ (according to the definition I found about spiritual) but yet you rejected God.
It is NOT a misrepresentation. It is a misunderstanding.
Demonstrable lies:
Was my action meant for deceit? Or merely lacking of certain information?
I used a dictionary program called WordWeb and included a few different dictionaries into this program and looked up ‘spiritual’ in each of them. All of them gave me definitions that related to spiritual or religion.
So it seems oxford’s website gave more information/definitions to the word ‘spiritual’ compared to the dictionaries provided by my WordWeb program.
So was my statement/s meant for deception? Or was I just missing out certain information that were relevent to you?
I dare say others will testify to the latter.
Offensive:
If you take those statements as offensive, and since taking offense IS a subjective matter, I will apologize sincerely to you with regards to that.
However, then that would mean you should be apologizing to Scott and others for your offensive remarks (e.g. ‘free will, my 455′) because I’m sure most of everyone, especially Scott and Simon, took that as an offensive remark (although you feel it is not).
And also, I want you to apologize for your VERY offensive statement that our God “is a cruel, bigoted, inconsistent, racist, ………..”, because just as you feel that my statement about you was false and was offended, we (especially me) find it offensive that you made such false statements about our God. So I ask politely that you apologize for your offensive statements.
September 29, 10 at 7:03 pm
And please self-bowlderize the A S S word. Putting it in spam watch bars all words with that combination in the spelling, such as assumptions.
September 29, 10 at 11:25 pm
1 “Most Christians living today are just as bad as you are. No one seems to give two hoots about what Jesus, god or his apostles say anymore.” What kind of research is there to show both assertions, “man of science”? Your own limited knowledge? How many christians do you know? 25, 65, 6500? Is that “most”? Never read anything except what pleases you and is that why you don’t know that many people would give more than an arm and leg to STOP christians, whose influence continues? Which well are you in? One in which ignorance passes for knowledge?
2 “Also, I suggest that you get your knowledge up to speed before engaging me. Journey to the West…” Kids’ stuff, still important to a person barely out of his teens. The stuff of HK and Taiwanese serials, hardly entertaining stuff except for bored housewives and kids waiting for tomorrow to come. Did you watch it with your mum?
3 “I happen to consider myself very spiritual as do many other atheists and Buddhists, in spite the lack of a belief in the supernatural…” Well, you’re the first atheist to come to this blog and proclaim himself “very spiritual”. Is it because you’re a worshipper of the big navel-gazer that makes you think you’re spiritual? The few atheists who dropped by, and one who still visits, wouldn’t be caught dead admitting that! You’re special..specially naive.
4 “Look you don’t have to take my word for it. You can look up ‘projection’ to see that it meant exactly the way I meant it. I argued (quite plainly, I daresay) that you are attributing traits and behaviour to me which you are clearly guilty of. You replied by pulling another ad hominem attack – which is basically what aaalllll your comments consist of.”
I don’t need to look up the term; knew it b4 you were born. My point was simply that you said “we in the psychiatric discipline”. That’s a lie. You’re not in any discipline yet; maybe one day you’ll be a doctor but now, you’re a medical STUDENT, and to imply otherwise is misleading, presumptuous and self-aggrandizing. Making yourself sound important to impress me. In doing so, you invited an ad hominem for implying that YOU KNEW, and I KNOW that you didn’t know. Indeed, you invite ad hominens on yourself because your comments are pervaded by implied ad hominems. There was also one ad deus, ranting on and badmouthing God.
5 “What most Malaysian Buddhists practice is a hodgepodge mix of Mahayana Buddhism (what Theravada Buddhism turned into when it reached China), Taoism and ancestor worship.”
And your version is pure, so much above them that you’re in the clouds?
6 “This is just in case a nitwit starts challenging me on this. I can’t even tell people that I’m a spiritual person without some dictionary-handicapped popinjay coming along to tell me what I am or am not.”
Who would believe that you are spiritual? How would they get past your foul-mouthed rantings? Inside spiritual, outside vulgarity-spouting troll? You found the term for yourself, so apply to yourself, hypocrite. And read those ad homnems, “a nitwit” and “dictionary-handicapped popinjay”.
September 30, 10 at 12:04 am
Zach T,
Just out of idle curiosity, does the ‘T’ stand for Thong too?
You both misunderstood and grievously misrepresented me – they are not mutually exclusive actions. You spoke in no uncertain terms about what my beliefs constitute. I shall quote you again,
“The plot thickens” eh? You did not make a statement of opinion. You made a statement of fact; “here’s one atheist admitting…”. If that’s not a misrepresentation, then my stating that you are a lover of the taste of penises based on a misunderstanding of one of your words is not a misrepresentation.
You misrepresented me based on a misunderstanding. Be man enough to own to that.
By this time you ought to know better than to quibble with me over word definitions, but if you insist,
From Dictionary dot com,
A lie can be perpetrated in the absence of conscious intention. You asserted (again, in no uncertain terms) falsely that I consider atheism a religion and that I believe in spirits – which I demonstrated to be false. You made an untrue statement. A false statement. A lie. It matters not if others can testify to your unintentionality (in fact, I did too by citing Hanlon’s razor). You did in fact, by dictionary definition, lied.
My full accusation still stands. You’ve apologised for one third of it and wormed out of the other two (or are we going to be discussing about the dictionary definition of “worm” as well, hmmm?).
For my part, I apologise if Scott ever felt offended by anything I said. That’s unfortunate. However, I make no apologies to Simon because if anything, I wish I have offended him more. Nor will I apologize to you for my description of the christian god as described by the bible and if your lord takes offence, he knows where I live. But like the “mini” free will debate I was having with Scott demonstrated, something as direct as several repeated statements of “God hardening Pharaoh’s heart” in the Bible can can launch a a whole bunch of analogies and metaphors (and one teensy little speculation, in case you get on my case again) – I hate to think about the length of the ensuing back-and-forth if we go into what I perceive as god’s many failings. I do however want to retract what I said about god being genocidal tyrant. He is in fact a near omnicidal one, considering his little temper tantrum in exodus involving a very large amount of water.
If you insist, I can go through the motions of apologising for it, but I cannot do so sincerely. I will still hold the same opinion I hold of the biblical god regardless.
Anyhow, I have no more wish in engaging with you since, on your own conditions, you wagered your credibility,
You apologised as per my accusation (even if you wormed out of doing it in full) so your forfeited your credibility. Also, I cannot take anyone who ask me, a buddhist myself, to watch Journey to the West, a fictional novel, to get a better handle on the teachings of buddhism. I literally laughed out loud when I read that.
September 30, 10 at 1:04 am
At Scott,
Is Simon like your younger brother or something? I don’t think I cannot engage him in a rational exchange because he never concedes any points, even when I show him dictionary definitions on why he is wrong. Then he tried to ridicule me for bringing up the Journey to the West dramas when it was Zach who thought it had any bearings on the buddhist belief. Then, he went on to imply that few if any atheists will admit to being spiritual, when the very article he himself asked me to look at earlier said,
SEEEEEEEEEE?
He’s not even consistent anymore. Now, on that note, I shall happily ignore the fella from this point onwards.
Chiding? I like to think of it as more of teasing, really.
We both know that online polls never solves anything objectively. Run a poll here, you get one result. Run it in say, a website maintained by a atheists, you’ll get another. But argument from authority or no, saying that they have accepted “the truth” (your words, not mine) by converting to Christianity is still making a claim on a question that is far from being resolved.
As for your answer to the blowjob at gunpoint analogy, I accept that it is internally consistent with your worldview, but not with mine. Like I already conceded waaay earlier (and to put aside all religious elements), I believe in causal determinism and therefore, think that free will is an illusion because our minds have no way of tracing every causal chance all the way to the very beginning. I believe that if we can rewind time, events in the cosmos will play out in exactly the same way till this moment. But I shan’t describe what causal determinism is to you because I am sure you know what it means – whether you agree with it or not.
Talking about what god did or did not do in the bible, as i expressed earlier, is just an exercise of rhetorics to me. From my point of view, I’m just arguing about what characters did in a work of fiction. So, I agree with you that we have pretty much wore the topic out.
Agree again. That’s why I try to avoid them as much as I can. They are suppose to make things clear, but oftentimes, they end up muddying the waters more.
Plain text frequently fails to convey emotions effectively and no offense, dude, i think you are wrong. I think all these failings you ascribe to me can be more accurately applied to Simon (by my subjective personal standards and interpretation). Does it matter one whit to me if anyone apologises to me for offending my sensibilities? Not at all. I was surprised that Zach would go as far as he did, but it’s not like it’s going to ruin my day if he didn’t. It’s all verbal jiujitsu to me.
As for talking down and making remarks about other commenters’ education level, I can only remember two direct instances I might have been misconstrued for doing so:
When I ask one about whether he had Physics in high school, I think it’s a fair question considering that the majority of people did not go through the science stream.
The other was when to Zach, because all his arguments against me happen to be either a deficiency of time spent with a dictionary or with wikipedia.
If you want to bring up more instances, I’d be more than happy to address my reasons for doing so.
September 30, 10 at 1:05 am
Oh dear, I meant in Genesis. It’s a typo, people! Mea culpa
September 30, 10 at 1:24 am
Scott,
Anyhow, the pleasure of engaging you in debate is at a wane so this should (i hope) be my final comment. I’ll be out of everyone’s hair very soon. I stumbled upon this post when googling for information about malaysian atheists actually. Again, I feel sincerely regretful if I have offended you.
I have to leave this place at some time because I can’t conceivably be commenting here indefinitely – and now’s a good time as any. But just in case anyone start going “ooh, he’s running away from ‘this immensely popular blog of scott thong’s'” (heh), I’ll say to that person that I am completely reachable by e-mail or through my little personal journal.
S’long. I wish you all the best, Scott.
September 30, 10 at 6:51 am
k0k,
You are really antagonistic and make no room for any form of intellectual discussion or debate.
Any form of argument against your point, you respond with condescending remarks about our intellect or whatever and you yourself misrepresent me (with your words and what definition you chose for those words, which aren’t a common definition for those words).
I still did not misrepresent you, because those are my opinions on your statement based on definitions that I came across. And plus, as I mentioned, your definitions for certains words are the less common one, as compared to the generally known definition of the words (spiritual – involving spirits; lie – involving deceit with intent)
I define those words in those sense, which ARE the common understanding of the words and thus, will not apologize for those. (Btw, I don’t know what is this “Hanlon’s Razor” you mention of.)
“The plot thickens” was just a joking remark. Not a statement of fact. Sorry if you can’t understand a statement meant for a joke.
I mentioned Journey to the West to get an IDEA of Buddhism.. I never said it was the teaching of BUddhism or the official handbook of Buddhism. But it included a number of common Buddhist beliefs; e.g. Buddha ‘God’, Goddess of Mercy, enlightenment, etc.
And I asked you to apologize for your offensive remark.. and to US, not to God. I said I and WE were offended. I did not ask you to change your opinion. Your remarks were unnecessary and were just meant to offend and insult.
It appears to me you’re more interested in insulting us, rather than debate/discuss and come to a conclusion together through our discussion.
Personally, I wouldn’t continue to bother with you, because of your constant condescending nature. What’s more, you force on us your choice of definition on certain words, but yet refuse to allow us to keep our definition of those words, making it rather unfair and one-sided.
I have gladly apologize for causing you to be offended. But I will not apologize for the other two which are not what you accuse them to be, according to the definition I understand them to be.
Otherwise, if I do, then like you, it wouldn’t be a sincere apology.
September 30, 10 at 7:19 am
“The other was when to Zach, because all his arguments against me happen to be either a deficiency of time spent with a dictionary or with wikipedia.”
Wow… he knows me like the back of his hand……… not.
I’ve explained what dictionary I used and never relied on Wikipedia for such definitions…
“I was surprised that Zach would go as far as he did, but it’s not like it’s going to ruin my day if he didn’t. It’s all verbal jiujitsu to me.”
And I’ve explained how I got ‘as far as I did’. The problem was your choices of definition for those words do not match with mine.
I will not apologize further than that on such subjectivity.
I find it unfair and somewhat inconsistent that you demand an apology from others for offending you, yet will not apologize for offending others and in fact deliberately offend others and insult. I’m glad you’re willing to apologize to Scott, and I can understand why you would choose not to apologize to Simon. But I have been neutral and not even begun to ‘debate’/'argue’ with you about God and never even once condescended you. But you continually make condescending remarks to me and my intellect, etc.
I’m just saying this for your own reflection. You’re going further and further on your own way to ‘defame’ me just because of some differences in definitions.
I came in and made one false/inaccurate statement and you call me a liar (which in my definition and the number 1 in your definition, involved being intentionally deceitful). I will not correct you if you had said I made a false statement or misunderstood you, but for me to admit I lied, when I did not lie in that definition of the word, I will only be lying to myself.
September 30, 10 at 7:19 am
k0k,
First of all, my ‘T’ does not stand for Thong. There are many surnames that starts with a ‘T’. Sounds like you’re a Malaysian or at least someone familiar with Malaysia, so I think you should very well understand that.
Second of all, I never came across an actual group of Buddhist who, as you say, is very similar and in line with atheism.. I’ve always come across Buddhist who are very atheistic in their thinking, but never actually a group that believes/thinks so.
Could you enlighten me on what your group teach that is consider Buddhist and maybe also give us some highlights of what your group teaches (that makes yours distinct)?
September 30, 10 at 8:50 am
Time for getting more personally insulting; give as much as you get, and more.
1 Look at the statistics for kOk blog: Blogger Since February 2007
Profile Views (approximate) 3335
3335 estimated views. Poor fellow. A measly 3335. Can count 3336 already, coz I just looked at it. No wonder he keeps saying about Scott’s blog, “this immensely popular blog of scott thong’s’” (2.6m+ hits).
But who would want to visit such a pompous writer? I went as couple of times, just out of curiosity, and curiosity DIED OF BOREDOM. I’m sorry I went. Sorry for myself. But he came to this blog to talk kOk.
2 Apologize to me? Why?When his intention is to demean? And to win, not to engage in rational discussion until you agree that he wins? “Is Simon like your younger brother or something? I don’t think I cannot (sic) engage him in a rational exchange because he never concedes any points, even when I show him dictionary definitions on why he is wrong.” Must concede just because he thinks he is right? Fellow is dense, and keeps missing the point, which is that he keeps claiming to be SO SPECIAL, a member of the psychiatric discipline..an OUTRIGHT LIE. Oh, he knows form six physics! And I had hoped he had studied the philosophy of science! Not a sincere fellow but a debater, twists and turns, pretends to apologize a little and then attacks straightaway, hoping to score points off an opponent. Uses the dictionary for his own purpose, not to add to understanding but to score points. So here I am, using the same combative debater’s style. A waste of time. When he finally leaves, who cares? Everyone would have time and space for rational discussion instead of responding to his personal insults.
3 Fellow can’t count. Says “As for talking down and making remarks about other commenters’ education level, I can only remember two direct instances I might have been misconstrued for doing so.”
4 He has contributed nothing to the debate except his brash personal failings. Calls others liars all the time and takes offence when he is called one himself. A YOUNG man, more than a man. Has so little empathy for the beliefs and feelings of others that his first words are combative, insulting and crude. Won’t make a good doctor but should become a specialist, a surgeon, CUT CUT CUT, for the money of course.
August 31, 11 at 11:31 am
Its ok, there’s a time for everything, and now it is time for the curtain of mis-information to fall – religions will be bunked. The truth is out, people over the world are talking.
I am trying to gather Malaysian Atheists and freethinkers together to compare notes, please join me in my page – Malaysian Freethinkers.
Hope to c u all there.
August 31, 11 at 8:10 pm
OH!
MY!!
FSM!!
First gays, now atheists and freethinkers.
Malaysia is going to hell in a hand-basket.
September 1, 11 at 6:09 am
Freethinkers are okay if they do think and know how to, having studied sufficiently all round towards that end.