Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Too bad Atheism is not protected in Singapore. Otherwise he would be illegally disturbing religious harmony and soon put in his place.
-
I wanna find out how the religious act protect people who are harassed by religious talk.
-
ask his fellow mates
that chap who posted leaflets on his muslim neighbour's car
rony tan
etc
they might now know how the law works
-
my case is the bitch everyday harass us with preaching and quoting of bible verses and singing christian songs and her behaviour shows otherwise. If she practises what she preaches and not disturb the peace and affect work we have nothing to say.
that case you mentioned is different leh
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
my case is the bitch everyday harass us with preaching and quoting of bible verses and singing christian songs and her behaviour shows otherwise. If she practises what she preaches and not disturb the peace and affect work we have nothing to say.
that case you mentioned is different leh
Do you have a religion? You can tell her this is offensive to your religion (even if you don't have) she will get scared and shut up. If at work one, just go and complain to HR.
If you are not religious, then her behaviour is unpleasant but not illegal. The most you can do is be unpleasant back. But as BIC shows, don't try to debunk her faith as it will only make her harder.
Who is this bitch?
-
Originally posted by alize:
Do you have a religion? You can tell her this is offensive to your religion (even if you don't have) she will get scared and shut up. If at work one, just go and complain to HR.
If you are not religious, then her behaviour is unpleasant but not illegal. The most you can do is be unpleasant back. But as BIC shows, don't try to debunk her faith as it will only make her harder.
Who is this bitch?
I do go temples and believe in some religions but not seriously getting myself to commit to any religions.
She is a colleague whom is working with us on a project. A old unmarried bitch who everyday boasts and boasts about herself, preach, sing and quote bible verses. To those unfortunate ones she bitch around with us. To people from good family background like rich family she treats them well.
She is using the office resources to do her christian work. When my colleague saw her doing her christian work when my colleague collected her bag from where she sat, after that she removed my colleague's bag and placed her bag in the open area in the sitting area where the sofa is.
We observe her. She has no heart to work and all she does is place the first priority to do her church and christian work in the workplace. i help to clear her shit.
-
there are many ways
if she can be told, tell her in a firm unemotional manner
if not, escalate to the managers
refuse to clear shit, question why is there shit in first place and how come it gets to you
a lot of people might not like what i say, but non christians need to start to be more vocal and firmly reject all these nonsense
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
there are many ways
if she can be told, tell her in a firm unemotional manner
if not, escalate to the managers
refuse to clear shit, question why is there shit in first place and how come it gets to you
a lot of people might not like what i say, but non christians need to start to be more vocal and firmly reject all these nonsense
I clear it for reason not to affect the project. Feel like bringing the mantra buddhist small radio to play when she starts her nuisance.
-
thats good reason - not to affect the project, but eventually you got to escalate to your managers
bringing the radio does not help, IMO, it will only escalate the conflict, not reduce it
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
thats good reason - not to affect the project, but eventually you got to escalate to your managers
bringing the radio does not help, IMO, it will only escalate the conflict, not reduce it
K. Will discuss with the other victimized colleague on briinging it up to the management or other relevant party
Thanks
-
Originally posted by winsomeea:
I do go temples and believe in some religions but not seriously getting myself to commit to any religions.
She is a colleague whom is working with us on a project. A old unmarried bitch who everyday boasts and boasts about herself, preach, sing and quote bible verses. To those unfortunate ones she bitch around with us. To people from good family background like rich family she treats them well.
She is using the office resources to do her christian work. When my colleague saw her doing her christian work when my colleague collected her bag from where she sat, after that she removed my colleague's bag and placed her bag in the open area in the sitting area where the sofa is.
We observe her. She has no heart to work and all she does is place the first priority to do her church and christian work in the workplace. i help to clear her shit.
Not educated is like that one. Unmarried somemore, only got god for her. She in high or low position?
Recommend you get whole office to complain TO her together. Say if she don't change you will all complain ABOUT her.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Not educated is like that one. Unmarried somemore, only got god for her. She in high or low position?
Recommend you get whole office to complain TO her together. Say if she don't change you will all complain ABOUT her.
She is educated but has no good IT skills, does not even know how to forward email and create lines to do her church work in the office and asked for help. Kept boasting of her last job which got her retrenched. She is ugly inside out la. in her 50s la.
-
I've met a lot of christians like that. They think they are so fortunate to be in god's favour even though their life is shit.
Go and check out Joseph Prince's sermon about a month ago entitled "You're walking on favour ground". Really no joke.
-
"Food for thought: why is it that we can communicate to each other and employ laws of logic in our reasoning? How does atheism account for the existence of the laws of logic and our ability to communicate, bearing in mind that atheism holds that are evolved pondscum that came from nonliving mattee?"
Does it matter what proficiency others have in arguing? To be the harbinger of truth, one's words has to be at least logical, honest and consistent.
"Coneys and rabbits are very similar, if not the same. So what's your point? Seehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coney#section_2
Red herring... Its clear that lev 11: 5, 6 refers them to different animals.
"Yes I know you are accusing me of double standards. I am asking you WHY you say that. Based on what?"
Its when you said "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook.." You can accuse me of not appreciating the bible not being a science text (when I did), so can others accuse you.
"Creationists have answered that question about chewing the cud, so why would it be false to give credit to them?"
Since when creationists had been credible in explaining scientific questions?
"Your English got problem..."
Ad hominem...
"...The point is not to argue what is the opposite of limited, but the context is saying that chewing the cud has a broader meaning to the Hebrews and applied to the rabbit even in today's scientifically minded use it would exclude the rabbit.
Ignoratio elenchi... In a unlimited sense (hyperbole), all herbivorve are likely chewer of the cud as they eat the plants thats nurished by their own dung...
"And you failed to understand what is a strawman argument."
You tried to argue as if the word "gay" in the bible is one of my position. If not why bring it into discussion?
"So how many fallacies have you spotted that were committed by atheists? List a few if you can? Let me know if you need help ya?"
I am not concerned of others arguments, really no obligations to do so... but enthusiastic if you can list my fallacies... :)
I'm curious about how you'd answer and believe you have missed my "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffer death because of Adam's sin? ..."
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument. It is to bypass the argument to attack the person. I am thus not guilty of that because I actually explain where Tcmc's error lies."
argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.
You did another... when you said " You seem confused about what is an ad hominem argument..." Simple as such, an attempt to negate the (subjective) truth of a claim by pointing a negative. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong.
"And please explain why you think I committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Don't just drop names of fallacies if you are not sure how to use them."
Change is the only constant. Maybe the change may not occur not tomorrow but we can have infinite tomorrows theorectically. Unless you are arguing objective truths... which does not seemed so... so far....
"An argument is either sound or unsound. A statement by itself is usually not treated as logically sound or unsound, unless that statement is crafted in such a way as to become an argument. So you need premises which leads to the right conclusion."
Any statement can be argued if its deemed unsound, untruthful or illogical. What premise are you taking regarding your statement "If you claim lack of evidence, then you can only say that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of God. You cannot say that there is no God."? What premise did you think your opponent took?
Sorry but it seems that you are STILL confused about what is an ad hominem argument. I have explained where Tcmc's reasoning error lies in, that's the difference. It's not about pointing a negative, it's about attacking the person but not the argument. An ad homimem simply sidestep interacting with the argument and attack the person, kind of what you are really doing now.
You also failed to understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Anyway, you are confused. I was talking about objective truths which does not change. If it rained on 1 May 2012, then it did. 1000 years later this would still be the truth. Truth by definition is objective.
You are also confused as to what is a statement. A statement is NOT an argument. It is often a claim or proposition which can be disputed, treated as true or false, but by itself you don't call it sound or unsound. The premise I took was that if you claim lack of evidence, then the conclusion follows that you cannot declare there is no God.
Try to catch up with the line of reasoning please.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Nothing wrong with that. Atheists and Christians are diverse groups in outlook.
Some but not all Atheists have a faith-based view of Atheism. But ALL Christians have a religion.
I simply say I won't believe in fairy tales. Another Atheist might say there definitely cannot possibly be a god.
You are mistaken again.
ALL atheists have faith. Atheism is a faith-based worldview, just like any other religion. And atheists who deny the faith-based nature of atheism do not really understand atheism at all.
Here, let me help you out on this one. Atheists like to claim that they base their outlook on science and reason, not religion or revelation. But what is science and reason based on? That the universe is uniform, that laws of nature and laws of logic exists. But why and where do they come from? Think about it and you would realise that you have stepped into the realm of metaphysics.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Too bad Atheism is not protected in Singapore. Otherwise he would be illegally disturbing religious harmony and soon put in his place.
Are you now trying the intimidation tactic?
As a religion, atheism is protected under the Constitution, so not to worry.
In any case, if it should be illegal to rationally critique atheism, then I don't see how any of the atheists here should be off the legal hook for their even more hostile and vitriolic criticism of Christianity.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Food for thought: why is it that we can communicate to each other and employ laws of logic in our reasoning? How does atheism account for the existence of the laws of logic and our ability to communicate, bearing in mind that atheism holds that are evolved pondscum that came from nonliving mattee?"
Does it matter what proficiency others have in arguing? To be the harbinger of truth, one's words has to be at least logical, honest and consistent.
"Coneys and rabbits are very similar, if not the same. So what's your point? Seehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coney#section_2
Red herring... Its clear that lev 11: 5, 6 refers them to different animals.
"Yes I know you are accusing me of double standards. I am asking you WHY you say that. Based on what?"
Its when you said "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook.." You can accuse me of not appreciating the bible not being a science text (when I did), so can others accuse you.
"Creationists have answered that question about chewing the cud, so why would it be false to give credit to them?"
Since when creationists had been credible in explaining scientific questions?
"Your English got problem..."
Ad hominem...
"...The point is not to argue what is the opposite of limited, but the context is saying that chewing the cud has a broader meaning to the Hebrews and applied to the rabbit even in today's scientifically minded use it would exclude the rabbit.
Ignoratio elenchi... In a unlimited sense (hyperbole), all herbivorve are likely chewer of the cud as they eat the plants thats nurished by their own dung...
"And you failed to understand what is a strawman argument."
You tried to argue as if the word "gay" in the bible is one of my position. If not why bring it into discussion?
"So how many fallacies have you spotted that were committed by atheists? List a few if you can? Let me know if you need help ya?"
I am not concerned of others arguments, really no obligations to do so... but enthusiastic if you can list my fallacies... :)
I'm curious about how you'd answer and believe you have missed my "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffer death because of Adam's sin? ..."
But the problem is that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty.
It is not a red herring at all. Coneys and rabbits are belonging to the same kind. You would be missing the point if you wish to split hair on this.
There is no double standard involved when I am telling you that I already know that the Bible is not a science textbook. I am simply saying that you are not telling me something that I already don't hold to. That's all.
To say that creationists are not credible in their answers is to commit the genetic fallacy. You may wish to make a count of your fallacies I point out.
I was using the "gay" analogy as another example. I did not say you made that claim. Why you ignore the word "IF"?
And I understand your reluctance to count the fallacies committed by your fellow atheists. You would not wish to antagonise them by agreeing with me.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are mistaken again.
ALL atheists have faith. Atheism is a faith-based worldview, just like any other religion. And atheists who deny the faith-based nature of atheism do not really understand atheism at all.
Here, let me help you out on this one. Atheists like to claim that they base their outlook on science and reason, not religion or revelation. But what is science and reason based on? That the universe is uniform, that laws of nature and laws of logic exists. But why and where do they come from? Think about it and you would realise that you have stepped into the realm of metaphysics.
So you're saying atheism comes from science > science comes from laws of nature > laws of nature were created
The more we fight here the better to exhibit your erorrs to the public.
-
Let's say I entertain your contention that the universe and the laws of nature were created. How then do we verify the unverifiable parts of the bible, such as whether people used to live till 850 years old, and whether there is really an afterlife? Whether there is really a Satan or if people just sin or err out of their own imperfections?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Are you now trying the intimidation tactic?
As a religion, atheism is protected under the Constitution, so not to worry.
In any case, if it should be illegal to rationally critique atheism, then I don't see how any of the atheists here should be off the legal hook for their even more hostile and vitriolic criticism of Christianity.
Of course it's not protected in Singapore. Why else are Muslims and Buddhists excused from prayers in Christian schools but Atheists not excused?
If you want to fight about whether Atheists or Christians are more critical of each other, we can go on all day. No evidence to cite but everyone knows the answer.
-
"Sorry but it seems that you are STILL confused about what is an ad hominem argument. I have explained where Tcmc's reasoning error lies in, that's the difference. It's not about pointing a negative, it's about attacking the person but not the argument. An ad homimem simply sidestep interacting with the argument and attack the person, kind of what you are really doing now."
You are not reading it right... ad hominem simply meant attacking the person to disprove/ discredit the argument. I'm questioning your reasoning(and understanding) by pointing out the illogical fallacies of your arguments. Objective truths need solid evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, to convince.
"You also failed to understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Anyway, you are confused. I was talking about objective truths which does not change. If it rained on 1 May 2012, then it did. 1000 years later this would still be the truth. Truth by definition is objective."
Objective truths need solid evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, at least to be logical. Else its just as subjective as anything else. For you benefit, you claimed "What is true now cannot be false tomorrow." On the premise that Tcmc was arguing, your arguments seemed to be claiming something like the earth was flat some donkey years ago = true , therefore the earth is flat today = true. Just to let you know this is not saying you did claim so... Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.
"You are also confused as to what is a statement. A statement is NOT an argument. It is often a claim or proposition which can be disputed, treated as true or false, but by itself you don't call it sound or unsound. The premise I took was that if you claim lack of evidence, then the conclusion follows that you cannot declare there is no God."
An argument IS a statement. Rhetorics aside, all claims, propositions, arguments and even opinions are statements...no less. And the premise he/ she took was if one is lack of evidence, one cannot claim existence.
"Try to catch up with the line of reasoning please."
Redundundant appeal to ridicule... I'm not one to stoop so low.
"But the problem is that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty."
There wasn't any problem to begin with... even if your above claim was true.
"It is not a red herring at all. Coneys and rabbits are belonging to the same kind. You would be missing the point if you wish to split hair on this."
You can add dogs and rats into the list as they behave the same... in reference to refecting. The point now is you are saying that Lev 11:5 and 6 is describing the same animals by the way, which makes no sense to me.
"There is no double standard involved when I am telling you that I already know that the Bible is not a science textbook. I am simply saying that you are not telling me something that I already don't hold to. That's all."
You exact words... "I don't need you to tell me that the Bible is not a science textbook. Creationists by and large already know that." is basically telling me to shut up since the creationists already know that... but others cannot have the priviledge to tell you the same.
"To say that creationists are not credible in their answers is to commit the genetic fallacy. You may wish to make a count of your fallacies I point out."
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
This is false accusation... I based my aguments questioning their credibilty rather than origins... Try harder...
"I was using the "gay" analogy as another example. I did not say you made that claim. Why you ignore the word "IF"?"
Subtle it may seemed, its not my position at all as "gay" can mean sexual preference to elation... "chewer of the cud" however refers to behaviours/ practise only.
'And I understand your reluctance to count the fallacies committed by your fellow atheists. You would not wish to antagonise them by agreeing with me."
Wrong assumption that I can't be bothered to correct... but its reflecting how you stereotype people... I'm quite saddened by this revelation...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But the problem is that the atheist CANNOT account for things like truth, logic, or moral qualities like honesty.
It is not a red herring at all. Coneys and rabbits are belonging to the same kind. You would be missing the point if you wish to split hair on this.
There is no double standard involved when I am telling you that I already know that the Bible is not a science textbook. I am simply saying that you are not telling me something that I already don't hold to. That's all.
To say that creationists are not credible in their answers is to commit the genetic fallacy. You may wish to make a count of your fallacies I point out.
I was using the "gay" analogy as another example. I did not say you made that claim. Why you ignore the word "IF"?
And I understand your reluctance to count the fallacies committed by your fellow atheists. You would not wish to antagonise them by agreeing with me.
BIC,
And you can account for honesty and morals because you believe in the magic fruit and talking serpent?Makes sense.
-
Originally posted by alize:
So you're saying atheism comes from science > science comes from laws of nature > laws of nature were created
The more we fight here the better to exhibit your erorrs to the public.
You are knocking down your own strawman argument.
I am not saying that atheism comes from science. Science is the study of the world, there is nothing inherent in science that should make it the basis of atheism. Nor should doing science leads one to atheism. In fact I have pointed out before how it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science. Even secular writers have acknowledged this. Sadly many atheists refuse to come to terms with this.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Let's say I entertain your contention that the universe and the laws of nature were created. How then do we verify the unverifiable parts of the bible, such as whether people used to live till 850 years old, and whether there is really an afterlife? Whether there is really a Satan or if people just sin or err out of their own imperfections?
It's OK if you wish to patronise my views. But just think about it, what are the options available for you? This universe had a beginning and thus had a cause. Then either the universe was caused by something external to it, or the universe caused itself. But the latter is absurd, so you are only left with an external cause.
Now, once we get past the point that there is a cause and that this cause is God, it becomes easy to answer the rest.
Jesus said, "But if you don't believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"
In short, if the earthly things in the Bible can be trusted (i.e. tested and found to be true), then we can also trust what the Bible says about heavenly things or things that cannot be directly verified. Makes sense?