Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:You don't have to doubt my position. I have plenty of posts on HWZ using the same nick, and had a lengthy debate with BIC ther. I also just posted a paper co-authored by Dennett on another topic in this forum.
However, I will debate anybody -- including fellow atheists -- on issues I disagree on. On HWZ, I certainly have challenged other atheists on vegetarianism and free will. That, I think, is more valuable than blind support.
On this additional point, sincerest apologies, sometimes you confuse me with the key message you are putting across to the discussion here
Its good to see you support your fellow Christians on religious evangelism.
Originally posted by laurence82:Similar to my very simple analogy of washing my hair daily does it require same washing to the buttock or even armpits? Even you yourself have make the distinction from other atheists. Are all atheists the same and should hold same view?
Your response is simply to prove they are one and the same thing. Its also akin to saying apple and orange are the same thing and should be treated with equal favour just because they are fruits.
I didn't think I really had to respond to this, but I will now. One consideration is that the hygiene factor of your hair may be different from that of your armpits or buttocks. Not only are there differences, these differences are material to the issue at hand. The dirtier your hair is, relative to your buttocks, the more frequently you should wash it. This is a vast simplification, but I hope you get the idea.
Apple and oranges are both fruit, but with different flavors. Therefore, if we are deciding which to eat, there is a real difference that depends on our taste preferences.
Now the ball is in your court. Again, why does religion warrant bans that other belief systems do not? What is the difference here, and how is it material to our discussion?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:I didn't think I really had to respond to this, but I will now. One consideration is that the hygiene factor of your hair may be different from that of your armpits or buttocks. Not only are there differences, these differences are material to the issue at hand. The dirtier your hair is, relative to your buttocks, the more frequently you should wash it. This is a vast simplification, but I hope you get the idea.
Apple and oranges are both fruit, but with different flavors. Therefore, if we are deciding which to eat, there is a real difference that depends on our taste preferences.
Now the ball is in your court. Again, why does religion warrant bans that other belief systems do not? What is the difference here, and how is it material to our discussion?
Thank you for finding the truth for yourself and distinctively lay out the key points.
I dont know about balls and courts, but I should be asking you this, knowing you had laid out the logic above. How do environmentalism and gay rights activism material to ban on religious proselytism?
I sincerely hope you are not pretending to be daft or something.
Originally posted by laurence82:Thank you for finding the truth for yourself and distinctively lay out the key points.
I dont know about balls and courts, but I should be asking you this, knowing you had laid out the logic above. How do environmentalism and gay rights activism material to ban on religious proselytism?
I sincerely hope you are not pretending to be daft or something.
Again, you don't have to worry about me pretending to be daft. I have "reasonable" in my nick for a few reasons, and one of them is that I aspire to be reasonable in my interactions with both believers and non-believers.
If we are looking to extend a certain law or regulation to an uncovered area (e.g. using broadcast rules to regulate the Internet), we ask a couple of questions:
1. What are the differences between the covered area (e.g. broadcast) and uncovered area (e.g. Internet)?
2. Are these differences material to the regulation (e.g. ban on pornography) we are considering?
In my example, IIRC the regulators did decide that the Internet is different from traditional broadcast media in material ways. For example, it is virtually impossible to monitor, control and ban all pornographic content on the Internet. Therefore, the Singapore regulator eventually decided on a symbolic approach of banning a small list of sites.
Now, in terms of our present discussion, one may argue that religion evokes strong emotive responses, and therefore requires a more careful and restrictive approach. However, the same can be said of gay rights: Many people feel strongly against gay sex and marriage in Singapore. There are also plenty of people who feel strongly about women's rights, one way or another. Therefore, if we choose to ban religious evangelism, we should also ban efforts to influence and persuade on other contentious issues.
We may also argue that religion needs to be more carefully handled because of our Muslim population and neighbors. Now, this is a bit of a bogeyman argument, but I'll put it aside. Here again, the majority of the population in the region appears to be anti-gay, so we should also ban gay rights advocacy along with evangelism?
There might be other differences that I haven't discussed, but at this point I'm just arguing on your behalf. My conclusion is this: I don't think there are material differences between religious evangelism and some other forms of advocacy, as far as a ban is concerned. Now, maybe we should ban the whole lot of them, but then we will be poorer in terms of our learning and understanding of alternative viewpoints.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Again, you don't have to worry about me pretending to be daft. I have "reasonable" in my nick for a few reasons, and one of them is that I aspire to be reasonable in my interactions with both believers and non-believers.
If we are looking to extend a certain law or regulation to an uncovered area (e.g. using broadcast rules to regulate the Internet), we ask a couple of questions:
1. What are the differences between the covered area (e.g. broadcast) and uncovered area (e.g. Internet)?
2. Are these differences material to the regulation (e.g. ban on pornography) we are considering?
In my example, IIRC the regulators did decide that the Internet is different from traditional broadcast media in material ways. For example, it is virtually impossible to monitor, control and ban all pornographic content on the Internet. Therefore, the Singapore regulator eventually decided on a symbolic approach of banning a small list of sites.
Now, in terms of our present discussion, one may argue that religion evokes strong emotive responses, and therefore requires a more careful and restrictive approach. However, the same can be said of gay rights: Many people feel strongly against gay sex and marriage in Singapore. There are also plenty of people who feel strongly about women's rights, one way or another. Therefore, if we choose to ban religious evangelism, we should also ban efforts to influence and persuade on other contentious issues.
We may also argue that religion needs to be more carefully handled because of our Muslim population and neighbors. Now, this is a bit of a bogeyman argument, but I'll put it aside. Here again, the majority of the population in the region appears to be anti-gay, so we should also ban gay rights advocacy along with evangelism?
There might be other differences that I haven't discussed, but at this point I'm just arguing on your behalf. My conclusion is this: I don't think there are material differences between religious evangelism and some other forms of advocacy, as far as a ban is concerned. Now, maybe we should ban the whole lot of them, but then we will be poorer in terms of our learning and understanding of alternative viewpoints.
Its good you realise those points yourself, but at times you do slip into quickly lumping things together for no good reason.
if it take whole paragraphs to have a discourse on religious evangelism, it takes one line for you to quickly lump evangelism with gay rights advocacy which you have barely touch on
Again, at this point, you have not clearly show similarities between environmentalism, gay rights advocacy or even religious evangelism that are so compelling to lump them together
I am touched you want to help your fellow Christians but you need greater conviction and facts to put your points across concisely, coherently and consistently
First of all, I'm an atheist.
Second, I've debated both sides extensively already, but I've yet to see you explain how religious evangelism is different from gay rights advocacy in the context of our debate.
So... Other people can generalize but we can't. If we don't under stand ur posts... Means we are humble. But if you don't understand our analogies... It's our fault and we fail in our explanation. Not to mention, any appearance of positive connotations towards Christianity and he is a supporter of christianity? Since when can we not stand up to assholes when there is one? Does everything have to be christianIty or non Christianity ? I didn't know the world is simplified to these two camps.
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:First of all, I'm an atheist.
Second, I've debated both sides extensively already, but I've yet to see you explain how religious evangelism is different from gay rights advocacy in the context of our debate.
Urm, Christian in waiting? Perhaps its good to come out of the closet?
Well, i am not so concerned whether you debated both sides extensively, I need concrete link on how religious evangelism is the same as gay rights advocacy
You already noted the underlying logic
In any case, i wonder if xtians are happy advocating for gay rights..
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:First of all, I'm an atheist.
Second, I've debated both sides extensively already, but I've yet to see you explain how religious evangelism is different from gay rights advocacy in the context of our debate.
It's different because -
1. Religious evangelism is about "who's god is better" while gay rights advocacy is advocating equal human rights.
Pretty obvious?
Advocating a belief in a god is a belief, a learned and biased opinion while advocating equal human rights is basic humanity.
Laurence82, just because I disagree with you on one aspect doesn't mean that I'm a closet Christian or one in waiting. I guarantee that we disagree on other issues, such as free will and vegetarianism. If those debates come up, will you accuse me of being a closet Christian again and again?
Furthermore, my religious position is almost irrelevant here. My arguments will stand or fall by themselves, whether I'm a Christian or atheist.
So far, I don't think you've understood my position very well, so let me take a different tack.
1. I would not support a ban on free speech. Free speech is important to our society, allowing different ideas to compete through discussion and debate.
2. Religious evangelism is a form of free speech.
3.Therefore, I would not support a ban on religious evangelism. Caveats do apply in certain cases, e.g. no evangelising to children, mentally disabled, etc, since these concern other fundamental rights.
You seem to disagree with me on (3), i.e. you're calling for a ban on religious evangelism. Now, is that because you disagree with me on (1) and/or (2)? Or is there another premise that I've neglected?
Originally posted by Tcmc:It's different because -
1. Religious evangelism is about "who's god is better" while gay rights advocacy is advocating equal human rights.
Pretty obvious?
Advocating a belief in a god is a belief, a learned and biased opinion while advocating equal human rights is basic humanity.
It's not as simple as that. One of the key objections to gay sex and marriage is religion, specifically what the various holy books say about sodomy and so on.
Therefore, advocates of gay marriage are advocating a belief that equal human rights are more important than the "sacred" word of God.
Also, if instead of gay rights, what if we use environmentalism? Isn't that advocating a belief as well?
I already addressed your question -
Advocating a belief in a god is a belief, a learned and biased opinion while advocating equal human rights is basic humanity
One is biased, one isn't. I dont see how advocating equality is being biased. Straight ppl have 100 human rights. So I am asking for100 human rights for gay ppl. How isthat being biased?
But religious evangelism is biased and ppl are "taught" to favour one god over the other.
Thats the main difference.
Gays are not asking to be favoured , they are asking to be treated equally.
Religious ppl evangelise to ask to be favoured.
I suspect plenty of anti-gay people will agree with you that equal human rights is important.
The question is whether equal human rights is more important than the "sacred" word of their God. Another question is whether equal human rights is more important than the "natural order" of man-woman unions.
Therefore, gay rights advocacy is not as simple as advocating non-bias. You are asking people to favor one element of their beliefs (i.e. human rights) over another (i.e. Bible; natural order). Isn't that advocating a form of bias as well?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:I suspect plenty of anti-gay people will agree with you that equal human rights is important.
The question is whether equal human rights is more important than the "sacred" word of their God. Another question is whether equal human rights is more important than the "natural order" of man-woman unions.
Therefore, gay rights advocacy is not as simple as advocating non-bias. You are asking people to favor one element of their beliefs (i.e. human rights) over another (i.e. Bible; natural order). Isn't that advocating a form of bias as well?
1. Anti-gay people ? Agree for equal human rights? Is there a contradiction herE??
2. What is sacred? What is so sacred that it is immune to error? Nothing. Religion is not immune to error. Natural order? Excuse me but Homosexuality is Natural too. It is prevalent in most animal species. So to advocate for EQUAL rights for gays is natural and fair.
First of all, I agree with you that the bible is man-made and subjected to fabrication, among other things. I also think "natural order" is irrelevant to the debate about gay rights, despite often being raised by those who oppose the movement.
But the point is this: gay rights advocacy is more than a simple push for equal human rights. You are in essence advocating a certain worldview (e.g. equal human rights is more important than the Bible's preaching), with which you may be accused of bias.
Therefore, I still haven't seen any material difference between religious evangelism and gay rights advocacy in the context of our debate here. Your arguments about (a) advocacy of a belief versus advocacy of equal human rights, and (b) bias in religious evangelism, do not appear to provide sufficient distinction between the two. If we are willing to accept one, we should accept the other. If we want to ban one, we have to ban the other.
Originally posted by laurence82:I never did, you are the one shifting from my view on evangelism to trying to wrangle with constituitional terms which you do not even have basic understanding
I do not care about dictionary term if i am concerned with the legal aspects of it, with so many caveats to consider. If the law does not provide or determine, then its not unlawful
I cannot help but notice 2 changes in paradigm from your end
And i cant help also but noticing you are determining what is right from secular laws perspective, what a laughable action
laurence,
Let's do a recap. You said public evangelism should be banned. I disagreed because the propagation (which most certainly includes evangelism) of one's religion is a freedom provided under our Constitution. You then said that there is no such thing as freedom to propagate. I then showed you the actual Article 15, which you later also finally googled on Wiki. But instead of being grateful for being corrected and having your ignorance plugged, you went off on a tangent and gripe about the word not being interpreted by the courts. The only point that I wanted to establish, and you were obviously too puffed up with pride to concede that you did not know it, was that the freedom to propagate one's religion is a freedom enshrined by our Constitution.
And why are you laughing when I talk about "secular" laws? Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:First of all, I agree with you that the bible is man-made and subjected to fabrication, among other things. I also think "natural order" is irrelevant to the debate about gay rights, despite often being raised by those who oppose the movement.
But the point is this: gay rights advocacy is more than a simple push for equal human rights. You are in essence advocating a certain worldview (e.g. equal human rights is more important than the Bible's preaching), with which you may be accused of bias.
Therefore, I still haven't seen any material difference between religious evangelism and gay rights advocacy in the context of our debate here. Your arguments about (a) advocacy of a belief versus advocacy of equal human rights, and (b) bias in religious evangelism, do not appear to provide sufficient distinction between the two. If we are willing to accept one, we should accept the other. If we want to ban one, we have to ban the other.
So you are essentially saying -
Denying a gay a basic human right to buy a house is the same as denying a religious person to sell his religion?
Sorry I dont get you. One is a right. One is a privilege to sell.
Basic rights to buy a house, to marry =/= Privilege to sell one's religion
Self-control must be there....
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Laurence82, just because I disagree with you on one aspect doesn't mean that I'm a closet Christian or one in waiting. I guarantee that we disagree on other issues, such as free will and vegetarianism. If those debates come up, will you accuse me of being a closet Christian again and again?
Furthermore, my religious position is almost irrelevant here. My arguments will stand or fall by themselves, whether I'm a Christian or atheist.
So far, I don't think you've understood my position very well, so let me take a different tack.
1. I would not support a ban on free speech. Free speech is important to our society, allowing different ideas to compete through discussion and debate.
2. Religious evangelism is a form of free speech.
3.Therefore, I would not support a ban on religious evangelism. Caveats do apply in certain cases, e.g. no evangelising to children, mentally disabled, etc, since these concern other fundamental rights.
You seem to disagree with me on (3), i.e. you're calling for a ban on religious evangelism. Now, is that because you disagree with me on (1) and/or (2)? Or is there another premise that I've neglected?
Apologies if i come across as branding you as xtian. I do understand at times it can be offensive to some to be branded with their lot. It just that your points are so confusing and contrary to being an atheist. By all means disagree with me if you have to.
I think i made it clear - my stand is on banning religious evangelism because its an act of public nuisance, along with littering and spitting. We can deep dive into the metrits or demerits of my stand. I cant see why would trying to ban religious proselytism is direct link to gay rights advocacy or environmentalism.
Are xtians promoting gay rights? Shocking...
Originally posted by Tcmc:
So you are essentially saying -
Denying a gay a basic human right to buy a house is the same as denying a religious person to sell his religion?
Sorry I dont get you. One is a right. One is a privilege to sell.
No. I'm saying that:
1. Selling the idea of a Christian God.
2. Selling the idea that human rights are more important than religious views.
3. Selling the idea that environment is being depleted by our everyday actions.
4. Selling the idea that vegetarianism is the more humane choice.
And the opposing ideas:
5. Selling the idea that we have insufficient proof for God.
6. Selling the idea that God takes precedence over gay rights.
7. Selling the idea that our everyday actions play little part in the global warming.
8. Selling the idea that consuming meat is the natural way of humans.
These are all efforts at evangelizing a particular idea. They vary in terms of popularity, controversy, and amount of evidence. However, if you accept the importance of free speech, you have to accept freedom for people to sell ideas that you are personally hostile to.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:laurence,
Let's do a recap. You said public evangelism should be banned. I disagreed because the propagation (which most certainly includes evangelism) of one's religion is a freedom provided under our Constitution. You then said that there is no such thing as freedom to propagate. I then showed you the actual Article 15, which you later also finally googled on Wiki. But instead of being grateful for being corrected and having your ignorance plugged, you went off on a tangent and gripe about the word not being interpreted by the courts. The only point that I wanted to establish, and you were obviously too puffed up with pride to concede that you did not know it, was that the freedom to propagate one's religion is a freedom enshrined by our Constitution.
And why are you laughing when I talk about "secular" laws? Do you have a problem with that? Why?
Firstly, i did not say the law does not allow for propagation. I merely asked for proof this is provided under the Constitution. Please do not change this fact. Hence i will disregard the remainder of your personal attack.
Secondly, you should be grateful I asked you to read further. Propagation is not defined nor discussed in laws of courts in Singapore. I am not interested in your English dictionary. I am more interested in how the judges, appointed by the His Excellency the President of the Republic of Singapore, with the advice of the demoractically elected Prime Minister and his Cabinet, within the confines of legal discussions, define propagation. As of now, you have repeatedly fail to establish how banning evangelism is unlawful.
Lastly, from xtian perspective, if evangelism is decreed by god (thats for you to prove), do you have to care if secular laws allow it or not? I am just aghast that you centre the entire conversation based on laws made by man.
Its understood that godly laws dont hold up anyway. I guess secular laws is the centrepiece and source of moral authority?
Originally posted by laurence82:
Apologies if i come across as branding you as xtian. I do understand at times it can be offensive to some to be branded with their lot. It just that your points are so confusing and contrary to being an atheist. By all means disagree with me if you have to.I think i made it clear - my stand is on banning religious evangelism because its an act of public nuisance, along with littering and spitting. We can deep dive into the metrits or demerits of my stand. I cant see why would trying to ban religious proselytism is direct link to gay rights advocacy or environmentalism.
Are xtians promoting gay rights? Shocking...
Frankly, I don't care if you label me a Christian. It is however important to me that atheists do not fall into the trap of groupthink, which I've seen in evidence here.
I think that a blanket ban on religious evangelism on the grounds that it is a public nuisance is not a strong enough argument. There are plenty of things that annoy me: burning of stuff during the Chinese seventh month, the getais that go late into the night, the neighbor next door who plays his trombone (badly), the people who ask me to fill up surveys at train stations.
Yes, religious evanglism can be annoying to us. However, the right to free speech is so important that I'm willing to accept that public nuisance. If one day the religious movement becomes dominant in Singapore, I also want to be able to go door-to-door and promote the ideas of curiosity, critical thinking and science.