OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

See above......Sorry GC, I love not606 but it isnt the only way around to communicate with our club.

 

Thought it was obvious that my post was tongue in cheek; my fault if it didn't read that way!

 

Ooppsss......Sorry mate (Insert embarrassed smilie)
Being at work from 7am and knowing I ain't getting out till 11pm is having a bad effect on me (Lame excuse I know)

 

No need, I don't have the skill to make myself clearly understood a lot of the time on here ;-)

 

Hands up - I'm one of the 'Ale 3'.

Fact is, I'm useless at personal messages. When cards come round at work, I only ever put 'Best Wishes'.

I'll try and come up with something appropriate - promise!

 

I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here Grif?

The reason that this thread attracts a lot of comment is because it is, on the whole, a damn good thread. Yes it is "Off Topic", but many of our best threads have been and, I feel, a reflection of the excellent standard of contributor we are lucky enough to have on this forum.

If some of these contributors have decided not to post on the Ale thread that is their prerogative. It does not mean that they don't wish him well, more that that is not their way of doing so.

As for the dwindling number of QPR threads, I think that was covered recently; we just haven't got enough to complain about.

 

Mmm..............I've been giving this thread some thought along the lines to which you're alluding for some time. I do wonder whether the OT section that Brix always resisted has arrived in the form of this thread.
I suppose the only difference is that those advocating an OT section were wanting it to be pretty much a free-for-all, devoid of the board rules and moderation. This thread is still controlled by the mods and is subject to all our board guidelines, so I suppose therein lies the difference.

As to Willy's excellent post.................the problem is, none of us really know mate do we? It's all a matter of faith.
I think I said earlier in this thread that I literally lie awake at night trying to figure out the "where did we come form/is there a God?" questions.
My Dad was brought up in a very strict religious family and although he broke away from what was almost a sect, he retained a very strong faith. When my Mum died, my Dad started to question everything that he had assumed about God, mortality etc. By the time he also sadly passed away, he was truly questioning everything that he had believed about the existence of a God. TBH I don't think I helped, as we had many, many long conversations where I pointed out all my doubts about the origins of religion and the Universe itself.

It's a strange one for me, because although I don't believe in a religious God, I would love the story of Christ etc to be true. How fantastic would that be? A God sends down his Son to save us all.........................but I just can't accept it happened.
However, spiritualism could be something completely separate from anything religious. Is it possible that our evolution has evolved an inner "spirit"? Or are we just more "self-aware"?
Could "ghosts" that people claim to see be spirits of all the dead people, or could they be a window into another dimension, that has, for some unknown reason, pushed over into our dimension? There are many theories now that the Universe is made up of numerous layers or dimensions. In fact, one theory is that our Universe was created when another one accidentally collided with it, causing what we know as the "big bang".
The Big Bang is a widely accepted interpretation of how the Universe began, but who knows, in a few decades' time we could discover something that proves this theory incorrect, or partially incorrect? I believe that the law of relativity has had to be adjusted and up-dated over time.
Mrs rangercol, who is overtly atheist, often says that she wouldn't be surprised if our Universe was started when a giant bloke in a white coat put a load of ingredients into a test tube and gave it a shake. For me, that is just as possible as the chance of there being a creative, religious God.
But the question always then goes back to this........ok, but where did the bloke in the white coat come from? Where did this religious God come from?

In some ways the discovery at CERN of the so called "God particle", the Higgs Boson, is another nail in the coffin of religion as it shows that there's no missing element. If they had not found it, religion could point to this missing element and say "there you are, that's God's bit".

These are eternal questions that I fear may never be answered, or certainly not for many thousands of years.


Willy...........you are completely entitled to your opinion and you could be right. If you don't mind, could I put you on the spot and ask your opinions on a few questions?

1) Do you believe that the bible is an accurate telling of history?
2) Do you believe that the World was created by a religious God?
3) If you do believe that God made the World, how do you think the Universe came about? Did a God create that too?
4) Do you believe that we're the only life in the Universe?
5) If not, did God create "aliens", if they exist, too?
6) Do you believe that the Earth is only a matter of thousands of years old, as Creationists do?
7) How do equate your beliefs to the scientific theory that our World will eventually die when our Sun dies in a few billion years' time?

Cheers.
This is in no way meant to be patronising, but more an opening up of dialogue.

 

But the point is that an 'individual is only accountable to the group as a whole' for one of two reasons: either the individual chooses to be, or the group tells the individual that it is so. The individual's choice may well be influenced by a desire to belong, a fear to be on the outside or whatever. But if the group tells him he is accountable irrespective of his own free will, then he may either choose to conform or not conform. If he chooses not to conform, then the group holds him to account regardless.

That is why we have society and laws, but it is also why we have gangs.

Whether we have a 'greater innate sense' of right and wrong is to an extent irrelevant. The individual chooses to behave in accordance with either his own needs or that of the group with whom he either identifies or is governed by. Right or wrong doesn't necessarily come into it.

Here's an example, maybe not a good one, but I think it fits...

Take a poor African eking out a meagre existence with a family to feed. There's a black market in ivory and his family are starving. He sees an elephant. Now he has exhausted every possible alternative and therefore believes he has no option but to shoot the elephant, cut off its tusks and sell them. This puts food on the table.

There may be national and international laws saying that it is illegal to kill an elephant for its tusks, but had he not done it his family would have starved. He has no affinity for the elephant and no guilt, particularly as his actions have saved the lives of people he loves.

To the likes of us he may be a vile elephant-murdering criminal. But to him he has done what was necessary to protect the group he cares about, i.e. his family. He would do it again and again and again under the same circumstances. There is no job, no charity, not enough food etc.

Under the same circumstances we may do the same thing.

Another example...

There are a range of opinions as to how many days it would take for society to collapse should the lights go out, some as short as 7-10 days. We only have to look at how general manners and courtesy go out of the window when there's a fuel shortage; not only do motorists fill up their tanks and bugger the next person, but all the basic food goes off the shelves pronto. I've seen people buying armfuls of bread and milk, for example. It doesn't take a huge leap to imagine a prolonged event leading to looting, robbery or worse.

So I go back to the basic point, if there's no ultimate accountability to a God, we are only bound to each other because we choose to be (there is bread and milk on the shelves) or the law makes it so (a big bad policeman will wallop you on the bonce with his truncheon if you steal the bread and milk). Take away the truncheon and it's every man for himself; and the guy who gets the bread and milk will be the biggest.

 

Thanks Roller.

 

If you could come through that and not be an avid atheist, there must be something out there mate!

 

I don't like the insinuations in these two posts. Both top posters and great blokes but I feel there's a bit of emotional blackmail involved here.

Whether people wish to to give personal messages to someone or not, it is entirely up to them. Its nobody else's business.

 

I firmly believe in a God ... not keen on many Churches as I believe God is in us all ... he or she helps me with things like Deja Vu and other difficult sums that science is unable to do.

I call this Joy and hope all find and connect

 

I think you will find that GC was most definately taking the p*** Swords.

 

I've looked back over the posts and I see you and Roller also thought he was being serious.

Grift, put a "wink" beside your next piss take will ya?!!

 

a winkya

 

There you go again with your dark view of the world, Uber!

If an individual chooses to be part of a group, and thereby benefit from the comfort or protection that may accrue from membership, he is obligated to conform to the rules laid down by the group. In the example of the poor African, he may feel that he does not belong to any group or society, or, if he does, does not benefit from it. He may well then choose to not to conform to the rules, or laws. Would he act differently if he thought God would judge him? I doubt it.

Conversely, would God-fearing people, presented with conclusive evidence that there was no God, suddenly start to commit all kinds of crimes if they thought they could avoid the law? I doubt that too.

 

Big questions, that deserve a thoughtful response. Let me ponder them during the day and I'll respond later - work now, unfortunately!

 

I know, thats why i pointed it out Swords. I wouldn't want you to make a fool of yourself like i did )

 

GC was taking the piss, but I thought Grifter was being serious, which was why Roller responded?

 

I'm afraid you're missing the point, Stroller. This is most likely a failure on my part to adequately articulate it. I'll try again...

Human beings are free to build their own societies, make their own laws and, importantly, enforce them. Equally, human beings are free to choose whether they wish to conform to that society and abide by the laws, else face the consequences of enforcement as applied by those that do conform and abide.

I don't see how there can be much argument with that as a reasonably accurate statement of affairs? But the point I am trying to make is more philosophical than this.

With God out of the equation these societies, laws and means of enforcement are all entirely at the discretion of the human being. And all I am simply saying is that there can be a difference between two human beings' definition of right or definition of wrong.

Of course, you can argue that a rational human being can tell the difference between right and wrong, and I would agree with you. The application of the "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" mantra is a fairly reasonable rule to apply in most cases. But the actions of individual human beings, I would suggest, are influenced by conscience, need and power. [I could include whim and other stuff as well if we want a long list, but I think these 3 are the main ones]

Circumstances effect need. Need effects conscience. If the then human being has the power to do something about his need, he will act. [There may then be a cycle in which his actions impact upon circumstances and around we go again]

Now, let's say that you throw God back into the equation. Let's say that there is categorical proof that there is a God and that you will be judged by him when you die. Don't you think, therefore, that the typical human being under such circumstances, if faced by a contradiction in law between God's and Man, would rationally choose to obey God over Man? At the 'extreme-extreme', Man might put him to death for his disobedience, but he would be safe in the knowledge that he would be judged favourably by God (and receive all the trappings one might suppose would be available to him as a consequence)... and that would be the most important thing to him. Why wouldn't it be?

[Of course, one would suppose that if there was categorical proof of God then the laws of Man and God would be in perfect harmony. But we don't live in a perfect world and there are always examples where one human being's right is another's wrong, such as those 'dark' ones I have given.]

So, forget what you yourself believe is right and wrong, Stroller, much of which I am sure that the vast majority of people in our society would agree with. Accept that it is still possible for an individual to determine for himself what is right or wrong, and that this determination might contradict the majority view, and that whilst deterrence, enforcement, punishment and rehabilitation are tools available to Man, the individual can still chooses his contrary course. That it is 'contrary' is simply the judgement of his fellow human beings.

I might well be mad. But this isn't meant to be a discussion on specific rights or wrongs, nor a discussion about the existence of God. All what you say about how society works and how it determines right and wrong is correct; this isn't a comment about any of that. It is merely an observation at a fundamental or philosophical level that, if God is out of the equation, human beings themselves are left to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and that different human beings may have different interpretations of this. Where there is a difference, the larger or most powerful group of human beings that think A over B win the day, so that A becomes right and B becomes wrong.

If science is right and the universe was created by accident, then there was no design. If there was no design there cannot have been an original purpose. Without an original purpose, or subsequent external intervention, everything (and I mean everything) is free to ping about and do its own thing, pro-acting and reacting with everything else around it. Just because some of the stuff creates obstacles (e.g. laws and consequences) is just something more powerful in the same pond.

This is straying into the territory that Col says keeps him awake at night.