Messages

  Share or Bookmark   

Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Review Stars
 
Rank:  437

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 27, 2017 06:44 AM << Modifed September 27 at 7:01AM >>


Interestingly, the same sort of applies from a medical point of view. I watched a fascinating documentary once about a chap looking at alternative 'cures' for his HIV. He joined some sort of faith-based programme, promising to change the course of his disease by doing all this praying, and chanting, ingesting some sort of herbs and some other stuff I can't remember. Anyway, it was supposed to show pretty quick results. When it did not, he was told, 'you didn't believe enough'.

For all that is said about big pharma, much of which I do agree with, at least if it doesn't work, doctors don't get to say (if, of course, you followed the course of treatment as directed), 'well, you simply didn't believe in the drug enough'. They either have to try something else, or admit defeat. They don't really get to heap all the responsibility on the sick person in quite the same way.

And that course, incidentally, for the HIV 'treatment', wasn't free, or anything close to it. It was a huge amount of money to pay to be told at the end of it it's your own fault it doesn't work.

Faith healers aren't beyond taking advantage of the sick in a similar manner to 'big pharma', and it's far less regulated. Any Joe can set up 'practice' and make claims of a 'miracle cure' in a way conventional medical practitioners cannot. Because how could you legislate the will of god? How easy is it to be accountable for promises you make based on something as measureless as the amount of belief a person has? It's not like a doctor saying, 'I gave him a prescription with clear directions, he didn't follow them, and here's the toxicology report to prove it'.

There's some well shifty conventional practitioners of medicine out there, but at least there's ways of finding them out, and a register for them to be struck off.







AnnaLinda
AnnaLinda (SweetLinda)

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  168

Short Works Rating

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  245

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 28, 2017 11:16 PM
So what is your point here, Mikey?

Your quote:

"Noah parted the Red Sea by holding his staff over it and called upon the power of God. Yeah? Uh ... got some proof of that, bro? Sure, it's in the Bible. The Bible"

Who was it that "parted the Red Sea?" Noah? Really?

Okay...Science...I'm good with science.


AnnaLinda
AnnaLinda (SweetLinda)

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  168

Short Works Rating

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  245

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 28, 2017 11:17 PM
Remember Moses? Sound familiar??


michaelcahill
rumours and innuendos
rumours of innuendos

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  29

Short Works Rating

Rank:  42

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 
Rank:  2

Review Stars
 
Rank:  207


#2 Ranked Script Writer

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 29, 2017 11:26 AM
Moses?

Built an ark and made salt with Gandhi G ... A LOT of salt.

The polar bears were flown in by Trump Airlines causing bankruptcy before he became the chosen one.


djeckert
Premier Author
Premier Reader

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  293

Short Works Rating

Rank:  146

Novel Rating
 

Review Stars
 

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 30, 2017 09:40 AM
I'm kind of curious Craig, what exactly is this moving goal post that you speak of? I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're talking about here. Is it that goofy piece of logic you keep trying to employ?...the one that says something like "you can't not disprove the non-existence of God" or something like that LOL the one that, in your mind stands in exclusivity. Might that very point be trying to tell you something else Craig? Of course I probably just moved the goalpost on you. . Go figure. But, perhaps the moving goalpost is that eternal, never changing God of the Bible. The one you fail to, or fail to even try to understand... Because you choose to sustain yourself off of that eternal fruit that you inherited. The goalpost is right there, right where it has been for 2000 plus years now. Lol.

Your point saying that the religious say morality can't exist without religion, is not quite correct. The point these religions are making is, how can you establish any kind of standard of morality? If there is ultimately nothing to set the standard upon. Hence, really there is no standard, or even ultimately no morality at all. Blessings!

CD Richards

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  104

Short Works Rating

Rank:  59

Review Stars
 
Rank:  161

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 30, 2017 11:13 AM
"The point these religions are making is, how can you establish any kind of standard of morality? If there is ultimately nothing to set the standard upon. Hence, really there is no standard, or even ultimately no morality at all."

And from where do these religions get their morality, DJ? From a God that both commits and commands the murder of thousands - even millions of humans, and in the same breath tells us "thou shalt not kill"? Who orders his armies to kidnap and rape women, and to plunder homes, goods and livestock, and after writing on tablets of stone "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's"? Is this your source of morality? If it is, I think I'd rather be "flying blind", without a moral compass.

My morality comes from basic human decency (something you, of course, will deny). From recognising that it is in the interest of myself, my fellow humans and all life to do no harm. I don't need 10 archaic rules written on a clay tablet to know whether an action I'm contemplating is good or evil. All I need to do is ask "will it hurt someone or something?"

And again, I will repeat that compliance out of fear of retribution and judgement is not morality - it's subservience. Religion has for far too long presumed that it can lecture the rest of us about morality. History shows the last people anyone should listen to as far as decent behaviour goes are the religions of the world.

Concerning the shifting goalposts - it's quite simple. Any time someone counters a claim of religion by pointing out either a lack of confirming evidence, or evidence to the contrary, believers simply counter by inventing an explanation which renders normally acceptable evidence inadmissible or irrelevant. I will again use Sagan's "dragon in my garage" example to explain. Imagine the following conversation:

"There is a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage."

"I've been in your garage many times, and never seen a dragon there."

"It's an invisible, fire-breathing dragon".

"But your garage floor is dirt, and there are no dragon tracks."

"It's a flying, invisible, fire-breathing dragon."

"But I've never bumped into it."

"It's an incorporeal, flying, invisible, fire-breathing dragon."

"But I've never felt any heat from the flames of its breath."

"It's an incorporeal, flying, invisible, heatless-fire-breathing dragon."

And so it goes on...

Now substitute "god" for "dragon", and you've pretty much got the "moving goalposts" I'm talking about.

And if all of the goalpost-shifting and red herrings fail, then we have the piece-de-resistance...

"But he is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and you are but a stupid creature who can't possibly understand his ways. So anything which appears to contradict this snake-oil I'm selling you must, by definition be wrong [Psalm 14:1].

And yes, this is what I mean by "unfalsifiability". I will try one more time to explain the concept, because it seems a difficult one for many to grasp.

Let's assert something to be true - we'll call it "hypothesis A". IF there are a number of tests or pieces of evidence I could collect which might show hypothesis A to be false, but no one has ever found such a piece of evidence, or successfully conducted such a test, then I have very good grounds for believing hypothesis A to be true. The more ways that it could be shown to be false that fail, the more reason I have to believe it is true.

Now let us take "hypothesis B". Suppose there is no test which could ever be devised that would show this hypothesis to be false. There is no piece of evidence I could find which could disprove it. Note, I'm not saying no evidence has ever been found, I'm saying no evidence would qualify as evidence.

Given that there is no way to ever prove hypothesis B wrong (because we have a priori defined it as non-unprovable), I contend there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be correct.

Your God, along with Sagan's jolly green dragon, falls into the hypothesis B category.




reconciled

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  137 (+2)

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  386

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 30, 2017 08:57 PM
and God created life diverse...

some watch in technicolor some high definition absolute...and then theres that old zenith. the worms crawl in ...the worms crawl out...whistle woo a woo hoo hoo ah ha ha woo hoo woo hoo hoo-


michaelcahill
rumours and innuendos
rumours of innuendos

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  29

Short Works Rating

Rank:  42

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 
Rank:  2

Review Stars
 
Rank:  207


#2 Ranked Script Writer

RE: Yes or No
Reply on October 1, 2017 02:47 AM
Thanks to this nice person for the use of a tablet. LOL

Craig, you say:

"My morality comes from basic human decency (something you, of course, will deny). From recognising that it is in the interest of myself, my fellow humans and all life to do no harm. I don't need 10 archaic rules written on a clay tablet to know whether an action I'm contemplating is good or evil. All I need to do is ask "will it hurt someone or something?"

And again, I will repeat that compliance out of fear of retribution and judgement is not morality - it's subservience. Religion has for far too long presumed that it can lecture the rest of us about morality. History shows the last people anyone should listen to as far as decent behaviour goes are the religions of the world."

Yes, I think I can agree with all of that. I don't believe it is the intent of Christianity to instill fear of any kind or pass judgment. Nor should any Christian presume to lecture anyone on morality. And YES, we and ALL "Religions" have a poor track record when it comes to decent behavior.

Remember though, I can claim to be anything. That doesn't mean I am what I claim to be. I may not be what I claim to be EVEN if I believe it to be so. I claim to be a Christian. That doesn't pass muster even in this forum by many. If I am, I am one that should hang my head in shame, yes?

Certainly ISIS is not a Religious group, is it? The KKK is not quite in tune with any Christian tenets I'm familiar with, nor are Nazis, neo-Nazis, or even grammar Nazis.

No doubt, the sense of good and evil is innate baring a mental defect. Yes, it's there from the beginning it seems. I had no father and an insane mother. I wasn't raised by anyone. I raised myself. But, I still had a strong sense of right and wrong. I think it comes from a force that isn't ALL me to put it as simply as possible.

You would say it IS all me. That's our difference, is it not? I don't much care how polar bears got on Noah's Ark or if in fact they ACTUALLY did. Maybe it's a story to illustrate something. It doesn't bother me how anyone perceives it. BUT I sure won't try and offer a factual scenario as to HOW it all went down. If it really did, I don't have the first clue how something so fantastical could be accomplished.

In any case, I don't see why a well thought out and considered point of view should simply be dismissed and mocked as though it has no merit. It seems that it would be as easy or easier to mock MY point of view as I have no facts, just faith.

One thing I do know, anyone who lives a life based on love and trying to do no harm to anyone, is living a life on a par with the one I'm trying to live.

It occurs to me that we aren't infinitely far apart nor diametrically at odds with each other. Seems like a pretty similar path.

Yes, there's still a discussion to be had. But I don't see how it's so contentious. It needn't be.

CD Richards

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  104

Short Works Rating

Rank:  59

Review Stars
 
Rank:  161

RE: Yes or No
Reply on October 1, 2017 03:14 AM
I'm a little perplexed by your comments, Mikey. Have I ever mocked anything you said here? I don't recall doing so. Also, I think I have let pass many of your statements that I could have taken issue with, and where we agree, have said so. In spite of the fact that we have obviously different opinions on some things, I think that you and I quite possibly agree on more than we disagree about, and I've said that repeatedly.

Yes, sometimes I tend to be blunt in my comments concerning matters raised here. I think you might find that the more insistent and strident the claims made by someone with an opposing view, the more direct my remarks tend to be in response.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever insulted the intelligence of someone here, as happens to me quite frequently. I accept that, because I understand many with opposing views don't like their views questioned - whereas I couldn't care less.

From the time I was in primary school, I've enjoyed rigorous debate. I see no point in having a forum where everyone just sits around espousing their particular world view, and everyone chimes in congratulating them on how correct they are. That's more about ego-pandering than anything useful, I think.

Anyway, when I'm engaged in "robust discussion" with Recon, or DJ, or anyone else, I'm aware that many things I say to them won't apply to you - because you are quite a different flavour of Christian from the majority here (not that I needed to tell you that). Also, I'm aware that you also won't like some things I say. Rest assured they're not directed at you. And if I'm too blunt, or rude for your liking, then I'm sorry, really. But I'm not going to be told what I can and can't say because it might upset people who think only their opinions may be expressed with impunity (not directed at you).

Also, if you think my last post was meant to "mock" anyone, I can assure you it wasn't. It simply used an example (not of my own making) to illustrate a point. It was not my intention at all to mock anyone.


michaelcahill
rumours and innuendos
rumours of innuendos

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  29

Short Works Rating

Rank:  42

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 
Rank:  2

Review Stars
 
Rank:  207


#2 Ranked Script Writer

RE: Yes or No
Reply on October 1, 2017 03:57 AM << Modifed October 1 at 3:59AM >>
NO! Actually I was referring to the tone of Recon's response which I found offensive. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

You've always been totally cordial with me and I think we have great discussions.

Sorry to give you the WRONG impression. I thought your post was great and an opening for a great discussion.

   
Previous Page
1  2  -3-   4  5  6
Next Page


A book by our own Unspoken94.

Dawn Munro (ideasaregemsl-Dawn) writes: This is the finest work of nonfiction and if you read nothing else this year, I recommend "Conversations". Signed copies provided. Contact him for details.

Buy It On Amazon
A book by our own Brigitte Elko.

This is a story about a little girl who loses her favorite comfort object. During her search , she faces many obstacles which she must overcome. She tackles her environment with her problem solving skills. Boys will enjoy this book because the little girl gets in so much "trouble". Contact Brigitte for a signed copy.

Buy It On Amazon
A book by our own Celtic Angel.

This character-driven tale embarks on a journey towards self-worth involving Cass Backus, a young girl experiencing awkward teenage moments and bullying. Longing to escape her adolescent drama, she looks forward to reconnecting with her childhood friend, Brad. However, numerous obstacles and misadventures stand in her way. The question remains: Will Cass and Brad ever manage to catch up and take their friendship to the next level?

Buy It On Amazon



Advertise With Us
A Clearly Present Danger
Kathy is afraid of August