Messages

  Share or Bookmark   

michaelcahill
rumours and innuendos
rumours of innuendos

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  37

Short Works Rating

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  139

Yes or No

   Thread Started September 25 at 6:54AM

<< Thread Modifed September 25 at 7:22AM >>

It occurs to me that these debates end up being an unfair comparison between science and religion, usually Christianity.

Christianity vs Science is somewhat an apple/orange consideration in my view.

Science is strictly fact and not subject to much dispute. Indeed if there is dispute it begins to fall out of the realm of science, does it not? Astrology is not science, is it? Practices in the medical field that were once accepted science are no longer so. We no longer bleed people for ... EVERYTHING.

In spite of some attempts to offer "proof", Christianity or any religion or faith is just that, "faith" or belief. In essence it is belief in something that cannot be proven.

Gravity can be proven. Sure, I can say, "God created it and could cause it to cease". But it doesn't sound like much of an argument to me either. I could also say, "I created it and I'd stop it, but I don't want to ... so there!"

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? Yep, the word of God. Sez who? God? AND so on ... BECAUSE we believe it. That's all. We can't even agree on a spokesman amongst ourselves. LOL So, we'll ALL debate you with our own individual ideas and it will be FUN.

So, is there something to discuss?

I think perhaps the basic question is one of yes or no. And then, why?

Maybe I'm wrong and just musing due to lack of sleep ... wouldn't be the first time.

I once posted a long winded blurb that began:

In the beginning

God.

The question was posed: What would a non-believer substitute for "God".

The answer was, "Nothing".

That seems like a decent topic for debate.

Why do you believe there is a creative force or power behind our existence OR why do you believe there isn't?

For the sake of argument, "God" is a familiar name and should be acceptable to most people of faith as the creative force, yes? That way no one is claiming that "God" is some guy sitting in a rocking chair with a beard smiling down on us from a cloud. It's agreed that "God" is something quite a bit more than that, yes?

As a believer in God, I'll try and make a point just to start things off. There is order to living things. Though the cells that form my physical being constantly die and are replaced by new cells, I retain the same form. Who I am as an individual is stored in my memory and I recall past events that are peculiar to me and me alone. Therefore, I see a design and being that there is a design I also perceive a purpose. That fact I perceive a purpose is of paramount importance. If it's all a result of chaos, then what is the purpose? Why would it matter if one did something "good" or "ill". Why would there even be good or evil? Why would it be evil for me to kill a man so I could have his pretty woman? In my world, it is "wrong". Where does "wrong" come from in a world of chaos?

I'll leave it at that. I hope this isn't a cricket farm. :))



Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  778

RE: Yes or No

Reply on September 26, 2017 03:04 AM << Modifed September 26 at 3:11AM >>
I think the whole moral question comes back to my basic point of 'survival of the species'. This might sound a bit cold, but if we were all sociopaths with no feeling or consideration for one another, we'd have wiped ourselves out years ago. In order to survive as pack animals, we have to be able to work together in groups, yes? You'd get a bad feeling if you hit your neighbour because of your empathy/goodness, but that stems from an instinctive self-preservation. If you'd hit your neighbours in tribal days (or more likely killed them), you'd have been isolated from your group, with little chance of survival.

If you look at those who do evil things on a grand scale (Hitler, and so on), you can still see this self-preservation evident, it's just differently formed. Warped, you might say. He believed he was protecting himself and progressing his country. The fact that he was a)wrong and b) totally insane doesn't alter the fact that he thought he was getting rid of not just his enemies but enemies to his country, but he couldn't have done any of it if he hadn't been able to make the people around him do his bidding, and in order to do THAT, he couldn't just be an indiscriminate bastard. He had to appear to be socking it to 'the bad guys', for the benefit of 'the good guys', i.e himself, and those that thought like him. Does any of this sound a bit familiar. It should. Leaving aside Hitler's deranged mass genocide, most wars have been fought based on the 'good guy/bad guy' principle, but what determines which guy is good or bad depends which side of the fence you are on. It's basic pack survival.

Science and the flat earth ... well, yes and no. Again, I point to early tools and rudimentary understanding. The difference with science is that each answer is not definitive, it will be overturned when new evidence arrives. And since most men of science were, at one point, men of god (or claimed to be), in fact, most observational science which led away from biblical understanding was generally sat on. Galileo being a good example.

I appreciate that you 'bend your knee' to Jesus. His depiction in the bible is of a pretty sound guy, I wouldn't knock anyone for wanting to live like him. It's just that I think he's a composite character. As I've said before, I think he's based on Siddharta Gautama Buddha (c. 563 BCE/480 BCE ? c. 483 BCE/400 BCE), who also preached some pretty decent stuff about selflessly helping others, etc, but without the bells and whistles of miracles and being the son of god (or claiming to be).

But nether Buddha nor Jesus make the claim that one should do these good things merely for the sake of others. There's always a personal reward; in Buddhism it's enlightenment, and an end to the eternal revolving door of reincarnation (which is where Buddhism and I part company), and Jesus' offering his father's love and protection. Because both figures recognise, though they've put fancy spirituality around it, that life is just easier if everyone helps everybody else out, and as individuals, your life will be better with more friends than enemies.

I'm afraid I don't believe anyone works tirelessly for others with no thought for themselves. That sounds nasty, but it isn't really. I don't mean people do it for material gain, or to make themselves look good, or even just to get to heaven, or reach enlightenment. People who devote their lives to others get a personal kick out of it, even a simple as that warm, glowing feeling. If you felt awful when you did something good, would you do it? If you felt an awful sense of guilt when you helped a neighbour, but a positive sense of wellbeing when you punched him, which would you do? (Some people, of course, do have that problem. Something's not quite right with the wiring, there).

Some people have a stronger instinct to do 'good' in that way than others. Those people are rare, and to be treasured. But it's like every primeval instinct, some of us have more of some things than others, which is why we were never meant to live as solitary species. We aren't cats. We don't survive well on our own, so we have to get on better with each other than cats do. It's all about optimal survival.





Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  778

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 26, 2017 03:24 AM
Craig, I gave Recon's video points for at least attempting to address scientific discoveries, which is more than I've seen anyone else do. I've yet to see an answer to my question of what is all the rest of the stuff in the sky for. There isn't one in the bible.

Most of the science stuff, which I admit is rather dull, isn't really addressed when I bring it up in this forum. Mikey, any and all scientific theories are available for discussion in their entirety, and anyone is 'allowed' to pick them apart, and people do. Evolution being a good example of this. 'The origin of species' is as freely available as the bible. People on this very forum have scoffed at that (many, I'll warrant, without ever actually reading it), in exactly the same way others do with the bible, so not really sure what your point is there.





michaelcahill
rumours and innuendos
rumours of innuendos

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  37

Short Works Rating

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  139

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 26, 2017 04:11 AM
Briefly ... it's 1AM here and I'm an insomniac. A good excuse for some of my ramblings.

It doesn't occur to me when I'm doing something "good" that there is some kind of a reward involved. In fact, I find that motive to be bordering on evil really. There is no doubt though that I have received satisfaction as a result of a kind act. It may not have been my motive, but, yes, I've been rewarded. In fact, I've been richly rewarded. Most would call me poor by most societal standards. But truly, by any other standard, I am blessed. I'm absurdly lucky and there has to be a host of Angels protecting me. But, no, I don't expect tenfold return when I drop a buck in the offering plate or give someone panhandling a five dollar bill to get a bottle.
Do I get that return? I don't know. I don't have much. But I do have peace. So, maybe.

I do know that there are some true low lifes who use the concept of giving for reward to get filthy rich and call themselves Christians. I shouldn't judge, but I don't appreciate them setting themselves up as spokespeople for my chosen faith. It ain't my view.

As far as evolution. Count me in. A great theory that I would call a science really. Yep, the evidence supports evolution as the likely progression and advancement of life here on Earth including us. There is plenty of evidence that we are continuing to evolve. Take a look at your little toe. It's disappearing. No need for it. There are other examples. Our evolution is part of the reason I don't think we've advanced to where our capacity has reached a point where we have the understanding of creation that we may a thousand years from now.

We claim five senses when it is becoming clear there are MORE. In any case, I believe in facts arrived at empirically. Why wouldn't I? AND, how does that abrogate the existence of a higher power and negate the fact or possibility that this power is the force behind creation?

There's no question that mankind is one messed up species. Perhaps it is because it's a primitive species not yet fully evolved or finished. I do see wonderful aspects of our kind as well. Look at what we create. Look at the incredible kindness and sacrifice we are capable of. We aren't all greedy killing machines. I don't steal. I'm a pretty nice guy really.

Anyway, this is a short response. HAAAAAHAHAHA!!


Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  778

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 27, 2017 03:08 AM
Yes, there's something nasty about doing good for financial gain or notoriety, but that isn't what I mean (though there are people who do that). What I am attempting to do here is explain how moral values come about without a supreme being.

When decent folk like yourself do something negative, something which hurts another, even if justified, you wouldn't feel great about it. Perhaps it my wake you up at night, or gnaw away at you. It's not necessarily a conscious thing, but most folk are aware of this consequence of our actions. The consequence of doing positive things in relation to the people about us is different. I'm not saying we all go about thinking, 'yes, I will help that little old lady across the road because I'll feel good about it afterwards', it's more instinctive than that. But, if helping an old lady across the road had the same effect on our brains as say, tripping her up (which, as I've said, for some it does, sadly), would we do it? If you, instead of feeling a vague satisfaction, felt self-loathing and disgust when you helped someone in need, would you really do it?

There's a reason why we get those feelings appropriate to what actions we've taken, and it's related to species survival, that's all I'm saying.

This is really related to your question about what the 'purpose' of an inbuilt moral code is. And the fundamental answer is optimal chances of survival.

As to whether or not all the science negates a god, well, you've got to admit, it pushes him a lot further back than true creationism. If I was to believe, I'd have to believe in the whole shebang for it to make any kind of sense. I mean, if all your god did was set up the whole thing to just happen on its own, with evolution and all, why be so bothered about the behaviour of one species to send his son down here to straighten us all out. If he was that bothered about how we behaved, and what happens here, he'd have made us to specification, rather than leaving us to chance. And why make us all die, just to get resurrected later on, if we behave ourselves. Why not just say, 'okay, you will die if you're bad, live forever if you are good'. A belief in the existence of Jesus, and the purpose to which he was apparently sent, points much more towards an 'intelligent design' view of humanity than the possibility that this world was, indeed created by a god, but only in the sense that he orchestrated the big bang, etc. To me, anyway.

Seems to me that, far from being too well ordered, the processes of survival, life and death, birth, etc, are just too inefficient to be made. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that I should have to bleed every damn month just to be able to reproduce, and certainly that I should have do the equivalent of shoving a marrow down a one inch diameter tube to give birth. I mean, he can create whole planets but he couldn't give women a little zip somewhere? (If there was a creator, trust me, he wasn't a woman).







Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  778

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 27, 2017 05:01 AM
Since it's been mentioned, I'd also like to take a brief look at prayer. Prayer doesn't make much sense to me. Oh, it's a harmless enough activity, but ... well ...

I look at this way. Mikey, you say you aren't saying you could pray for a new car, and get one, but that's not to say you couldn't. Well, OK, since millions of people across the world pray, and surely some of those do pray for things like new cars, or even to find their lost car keys, at some point the law of averages suggests that some people get those things. Then they say to their neighbour, 'oh, wow, by the grace of god I've got this new car/found my car keys/got my lost dog back'. Meanwhile, their neighbour, who is just as good a Christian as his neighbour, does all the things he's supposed to, lives his life as close to that of Jesus as he can, etc, has been praying to god to cure his wife of her terminal disease. But she dies. What is he to make of the god who drops a Maserati into his neighbour's lap, but doesn't spare his wife? Being a good Christian, he'll probably think the stock thoughts - 'he's taken her to a better place, I was selfish to ask, god gives us what we need, not what we want, etc.' But, really?

An old friend of mine who was from a devout family once came into college one day full of the news that, after much prayer, god had seen fit to provide her family with a new washing machine. I can't remember how this miracle came about, I thinking it had something to do with someone having a spare one they gave to the family. Now, at this time I was still doing the whole belief bit, but even then I could see this seemed a bit frivolous when there were decent people dying of poverty and disease in the world.

When there's a big disaster, like the recent hurricanes, or that boxing day tsunami, there'll be stories everywhere of survivors talking about miracles and how their prayers were answered, or someone was looking after them that day. So what does that say about all the people who lost their lives, their loved ones, etc. Why was nobody looking after them? The rather fundamentalist answer to that is, 'they obviously lived in sin/without god/weren't good people'. Really? Only the godless died?

Or, are there thousands of people whose prayers weren't answered, simply because god decided for some reason that they didn't need their families to survive that day, but Joe Bloggs on the other side of town did? Or maybe he was too busy finding Aunty Martha's lost wedding ring?

Believers have their answers for this, some of which I've given here, but for me, prayer is the ultimate in human self-deception. The belief that there is something we can do to save ourselves and loved ones beyond the necessary precautions of shoring up our homes as best we can/fleeing to safety. We like to feel in control of our own destiny, and major disasters beyond our control take that away from us. Our last hope of retaining any control is to believe that an act of prayer to a deity will spare us. Understandable, really, and understandable that we should, when our prayers aren't answered, seek positive reasons for not getting what we asked for.

Sometimes, people think there might be negative reasons - 'god took my family because I didn't go to church' - again we are seeing that desire for control, that desire to believe there is something we could have done, therefore there's something we can do in the future. again, understandable, but potentially harmful. After that boxing day tsunami, there were people tearing themselves to shreds over how their sinful ways might have caused the deaths of thousands. Which does what good, exactly? I doubt most of these people had been very bad, and the really bad people in this world seldom think like this, so it's unlikely that suddenly everyone 'saved' will go on to lead changed lives, though it does happen sometimes.

If your dog gets lost, and you put posters up all around the neighbourhood, is it really a remarkable miracle that he is found and returned to you? Is it because you prayed, or because you did something pro-active about finding your dog.

If you are sick, and do everything in your power to get well again, is it really your prayers that save your life? When you look across to the next bed in the ward and see that the godless heathen atheist from down the road with the same illness, who received the same treatment, also survived, wouldn't you wonder how much difference the prayers made?

If it's of comfort, pray away, this is merely an explanation of why I, personally, don't think it affects people's survival, or what they have in life in any way whatsoever.

But if someone says, 'I'll pray for you' to me, I wouldn't get angry about it, like some atheists do. I'd be flattered they cared enough to do something they think works. But I'm not going to rely on it.








CD Richards

Poet Rating
 
Rank:  11

Short Works Rating

Novel Rating
 
Rank:  22

Review Stars
 
Rank:  33

RE: Yes or No
Reply on September 27, 2017 05:46 AM
Spot on, Emma. This goes back to the point I am constantly making about unfalsifiability. Pray for something, and if it happens, "praise be to God". If it doesn't happen. "it's not His will". At no point could the answer be "nobody is listening".


Sarkems
I like bacon
because it tastes good.

Short Works Rating

Review Stars
 
Rank:  778

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
 

Short Works Rating

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  409

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
 

Short Works Rating

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  409

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:  37

Short Works Rating

Novel Rating
 

Script Rating
 

Review Stars
 
Rank:  139

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.

      -1-   2  3  4  5  6
Next Page


A book by our feinerthoughts

The King's Crown Is Upside Down, by Fanstory's Robin Feiner, is a children's picture book for ages 7 and up.

Delightfully told in rhyming verse, this story features a young hero (Sophie) who encourages a self-conscious king to show himself even though he is different. Sensitive and silly, this vibrantly illustrated tale will show readers that when we embrace diversity and difference, we open up a world of friendship and possibilities.

Order this title in paperback for the child in your life at Amazon.com for only $10.50.

Buy It On Amazon


Advertise With Us

DON'T DRINK and DRIVE
contest entry