Make up your own religion? Sure!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm one may ask what evidence have you examined to reach your conclusion that it seems impossible to determine whether god exists and secondly if you have not examined the basis of josephs evidence then how can you make the claim that he cannot know if God exists or otherwise?

I have been posting on these forums for seven years and have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of god. But I guess expecting you chowderheads to pull off something of that magnitude would be asking too much. I have also read a variety of other arguments from more scholarly sources over the years which have left me with the same impression. There is no reliable evidence to indicate your god exists, and I cannot accept your assertion on faith.

If, however, you are suggesting that perhaps god has personally talked to Joseph and that I have not examined this internal dialog of his...well, let's just say that that level of evidence is perhaps the least convincing of all. I would be disinclined to trust Joseph's personal testimony on such a matter.

On the other hand, there are many indications that your god does not exist. Of course they cannot 'prove' anything either, but the weight of evidence does seem to be against. In any case, you have failed to demonstrate the validity of your case. The verdict remains 'not proven'. Therefore I must withhold belief from your proposition. I cannot believe in your god.

I wish to make clear that I do not begrudge Joseph his right to believe whatever falderal he wants. My exception rests solely with his claim to know with certainty that his god exists and that everyone else will burn in hell for their beliefs. It is this level of arrogance and hubris which makes him a fraud and a charlatan in my eyes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm one may ask what evidence have you examined to reach your conclusion that it seems impossible to determine whether god exists and secondly if you have not examined the basis of Josephs evidence then how can you make the claim that he cannot know if God exists or otherwise?

what if god has communed with him directly and you were not party to ...[text shortened]... ure. what about you, what would it take for you to believe? how much evidence would you need?

It is an extremely annoying habit of you to perform major edits to your post once its up. The post, as it exist now, is not the one I replied to. Although it seems I correctly anticipated a portion of it.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is an extremely annoying habit of you to perform major edits to your post once its up. The post, as it exist now, is not the one I replied to. Although it seems I correctly anticipated a portion of it.

whats the editor for if not to edit? i am an artist, not a machine!

i strongly object to the term chowder-head, its an ungentlemanly comment and in days gone by i would have asked you to choose your weapon and meet me at dawn for such an unflattering insult, yet it is perhaps more a reflection of your disposition than ours, yet you should be careful in making assertions that you cannot substantiate, especially if you yourself have no way of knowing😛

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Is this a surprise in your opinion?

Not at all. lol

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not say there is no god. I have no way of knowing if there is a god, and neither do you. What I DO say is that since I see no evidence to indicate that your god exists, I cannot believe in him.

That's a relief. Then you're an agnostic?

Look rwinggett, I actually enjoy debating in this forum, but I don't enjoy it when I am percieved to be something I'm not. I realise though that I probably do sound badly at times because of the way I say things. I'm trying to learn to not be personally offensive in my posts. Everyone wants to be liked and respected. I'm no different.

I respect your opinions and beliefs in as far as they are your own, even though I disagree with them. I'm sorry if what I believe causes you to think that I am sitting in judgement of your eternal soul. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I also enjoy debating with you and reading your posts. But it is difficult for me to continue to engage with you if I think you have such a low opinion of me personally. Do you know what I mean?

Originally posted by josephw
That's a relief. Then you're an agnostic?

Look rwinggett, I actually enjoy debating in this forum, but I don't enjoy it when I am percieved to be something I'm not. I realise though that I probably do sound badly at times because of the way I say things. I'm trying to learn to not be personally offensive in my posts. Everyone wants to be liked and respect ...[text shortened]... ith you if I think you have such a low opinion of me personally. Do you know what I mean?

Dear Joseph, all I ask from you is that you be a little less demonstrative in your assertion of who is going to hell and who is not. After all, it is not for you to decide.

I am not an agnostic. I do not believe in your god. That makes me an atheist. Being an atheist does not require certainty that god does not exist.

Pax vobiscum

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whats the editor for if not to edit? i am an artist, not a machine!

i strongly object to the term chowder-head, its an ungentlemanly comment and in days gone by i would have asked you to choose your weapon and meet me at dawn for such an unflattering insult, yet it is perhaps more a reflection of your disposition than ours, yet you should be car ...[text shortened]... ing assertions that you cannot substantiate, especially if you yourself have no way of knowing😛

Have no way of knowing what? If you are a chowderhead? Alas, you are correct, I have no proof of it. I guess the forum participants are justified in not believing my claim as the truth. But the body of evidence does seem to indicate that...uh...oh, never mind.

Originally posted by rwingett
What? Where do you get that from? Nowhere in this thread have I said that religion was the cause of war, poverty, hunger and sickness. What I said was that the doctrine of original sin was a psychologically damaging one, that it degrades a person's sense of self-worth and fills them with unnecessary guilt. Plus it's not for anything they've actually done, t e only cure to that condition. It is a fraudulent con game run by complete charlatans.

You make the giant assumption that being a sinner equates them as being worthless. On the contrary, God valued humanity enough to come to earth as a mere human, serve them as if we were his master, and then die for their sins. Why would God die for "wothless" humanity? In fact, why would he create it?

We all have "short comings" and, as a result, must cope with them in one way or another. Does this nessesitate that one adopt a degraded sense of self-wiorth? I don't think so. Then again, some of us may not think they have short comings which is itself a short coming. Now as to whether you want to call these short comings "sins" is the question, but humanity seems to have within it an inherent flaw of some kind based upon man's consistant propensity of inhumanity to his fellow man throughout the ages.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]I have been posting on these forums for seven years and have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of god. But I guess expecting you chowderheads to pull off something of that magnitude would be asking too much.

"Chowderheads"!!?

A large population of the earth believes in some sort of diety suggesting there is something in man that desires to seek for one. It is an indivduals right to do so.

The fact that you and many others have chosen not to is fine of course - what's not fine is for you to insult people just because they hold a differnet viewpoint from you.

Why do you seem to hold that just because someone professes to be a christian (or whatever religion), it gives you the right to abuse people? Are you not doing what you so vehemently detest?

I find it difficult to engage with the ideas of a person who feels the need to emphasise those ideas by being childishly provocative and rude.

Originally posted by rwingett
Have no way of knowing what? If you are a chowderhead? Alas, you are correct, I have no proof of it. I guess the forum participants are justified in not believing my claim as the truth. But the body of evidence does seem to indicate that...uh...oh, never mind.

lol, ok, if i may press you on this point, if you do not determine your own morality and you are not a god then who does? is it imposed upon you by a third party and if so to what extent are you trying to free yourself and establish your own and finally if you are not a god and therefore as a natural consequence not divine then why should one adopt your religion?

Originally posted by divegeester
"Chowderheads"!!?

A large population of the earth believes in some sort of diety suggesting there is something in man that desires to seek for one. It is an indivduals right to do so.

The fact that you and many others have chosen not to is fine of course - what's not fine is for you to insult people just because they hold a differnet viewpoint fro ...[text shortened]... person who feels the need to emphasise those ideas by being childishly provocative and rude.

If you take offense at a term like "chowderheads", then I'm afraid the internet is not the place for you, divegeester. My advice to you would be to employ your moral indignation a bit more sparingly.

Truth is not decided by popular vote. People have believed many things which turned out to be wrong. I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you want, but I am not required to respect that belief itself. I think your christianity is a heaping pile of garbage, but I will defend your right to believe in it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, ok, if i may press you on this point, if you do not determine your own morality and you are not a god then who does? is it imposed upon you by a third party and if so to what extent are you trying to free yourself and establish your own and finally if you are not a god and therefore as a natural consequence not divine then why should one adopt your religion?

Morality is a social construct. It is arrived at and enforced by the collective social body. Individuals can attempt to pull that collective morality in a certain direction, and over time, with the help of other like minded individuals, they may succeed. This can clearly be seen with our changing concept of morality over time.

You don't need an immoral god to have a system of morality. Human reason alone is sufficient to construct moral codes that are beneficial to human livelihood. If we were to rely on your god for our morality, then we would come away thinking that genocide was perfectly fine, for example. If any person caused the earth to drown, or if he slaughtered all the firstborn of Egypt, or if he gave orders to slaughter the entire population of Jericho, then he would be ranked with the likes of Hitler, or worse. But somehow you seem to think your god escapes the charges of genocide and stands as a pillar of morality. No thank you. I don't think we need any such inspiration. I'll stick with human reason to devise a moral code fit for humanity.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you take offense at a term like "chowderheads", then I'm afraid the internet is not the place for you, divegeester. My advice to you would be to employ your moral indignation a bit more sparingly.

Truth is not decided by popular vote. People have believed many things which turned out to be wrong. I respect your right to believe whatever nonsense you ...[text shortened]... our christianity is a heaping pile of garbage, but I will defend your right to believe in it.

I wasn't offended by any of your comments rwingett, (i don't even know you so how could I be), I was just unpleasantly surprised at your crass rudeness in the face of polite debate; which I feel demeans your otherwise interesting perspective.

I'll lower my expections of your posts accordingingly, but please excuse me if I don't lower the tone of my own posts just to fit in with the "internet".

Originally posted by whodey
You make the giant assumption that being a sinner equates them as being worthless. On the contrary, God valued humanity enough to come to earth as a mere human, serve them as if we were his master, and then die for their sins. Why would God die for "wothless" humanity? In fact, why would he create it?

We all have "short comings" and, as a result, must c ...[text shortened]... ed upon man's consistant propensity of inhumanity to his fellow man throughout the ages.

Most, or all, people have done bad things of varying degrees. For most of us this amounts to petty transgressions that amount to little. For others, their crimes are significantly worse. The point is that they should be judged on the basis of things they have done in their own life, and not on the basis of some ancestral crime. You are not judging them. You are pre-judging them. And your judgment is tyrannical in the extreme. Everyone, no matter how petty and minor their offenses in life may be, is doomed to hell unless they submit to the yoke of your particular god.

If your doctrine said that people who led good lives could get to heaven whether they accepted your god or not, then I might be OK with that. But no, good behavior counts for nothing. Only submission matters. Not only that, but any amount of bad behavior can be overlooked as long as one submits in the end. Well, I will not submit to your tyrannical and despotic god. I will maintain that I have an inherent self worth that is independent from your god. I do not need your salvation.

Originally posted by divegeester
I wasn't offended by any of your comments rwingett, (i don't even know you so how could I be), I was just unpleasantly surprised at your crass rudeness in the face of polite debate; which I feel demeans your otherwise interesting perspective.

I'll lower my expections of your posts accordingingly, but please excuse me if I don't lower the tone of my own posts just to fit in with the "internet".

You've got to roll with the punches, divegeester. But I will tell you that I chose the term "chowderhead" because I find it to be amusing. For me it evokes images of Moe calling Curly a chowderhead and slapping him on the back of the head. If you find that to be crass and rude, then so be it.