Make up your own religion? Sure!

Originally posted by rwingett
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.

Arguing about whether or not there is a God is pointless. But over the years you have started several threads and engaged is dozens of these pointless discussions with religious 'chowderheads'. I suggest that you must be a chowderhead yourself but of a different persuasion .... 😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
Arguing about whether or not there is a God is pointless. But over the years you have started several threads and engaged is dozens of these pointless discussions with religious 'chowderheads'. I suggest that you must be a chowderhead yourself but of a different persuasion .... 😀

Discussing whether there is a god is indeed pointless. That is why I never discuss that topic. What I discuss is whether any attributes of a specific god can be known, whether belief in that supposed god is justified, and whether religious systems built around that belief should be adhered to.

So take that, you knucklehead (just to mix things up a bit).

Originally posted by rwingett
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 ...[text shortened]... d any such inspiration. I'll stick with human reason to devise a moral code fit for humanity.

ok then where does this sense of morality originate, if not in the human conscience? why if we were the product of evolutionary change where the survival of the fittest, which assumes a self preserving motivational force at all times, irrespective of the needs of others did this morality develop? because quite clearly in any given circumstance the application of an a-moral path, in terms of humanity is incredibly destructive, socially, economically, racially etc etc. one need not go on about the horrors of both world wars, the Nazi ideology, the profusion of sexually transmitted diseases, the breakup of family etc etc to realize this. No the only way one can explain the human morality is in biblical terms, that we were created, in the likeness or image of God, in the sense that we reflect certain divine attributes, universally, for example everyone normally has a sense of justice, thrives on love, can generally display wisdom, the application of knowledge etc etc so where did this sense of morality come from if we are simply the product of chance, battling one another for our right to exist, it simply does not make sense unless we view it in biblical terms, im sorry, but that's the way it is, unless you can provide any other reference for its origin then i demand that you publicly admit that you have recanted of your atheistic dogma and have accepted the inevitable, that god exists and is a potent force for good in the universe.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok then where does this sense of morality originate, if not in the human conscience? why if we were the product of evolutionary change where the survival of the fittest, which assumes a self preserving motivational force at all times, irrespective of the needs of others did this morality develop? because quite clearly in any given circumstance the d have accepted the inevitable, that god exists and is a potent force for good in the universe.

Your primary mistake is in failing to understand evolutionary change. You assume that conflict is the hallmark and sole mechanism of advancement. This is false. There are many cooperative strategies that various species employ to advance their chances for survival. Groups in which members cooperate with each other, instead of killing each other willy-nilly, have a greater chance of survival. Morality has a practical value for the benefit and survival of a species. Of course there are individuals who may violate a group's moral code with an eye toward selfish gain, but the group has ways to keep these individuals in check.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your primary mistake is in failing to understand evolutionary change. You assume that conflict is the hallmark and sole mechanism of advancement. This is false. There are many cooperative strategies that various species employ to advance their chances for survival. Groups in which members cooperate with each other, instead of killing each other willy-nilly, ode with an eye toward selfish gain, but the group has ways to keep these individuals in check.

no, i did not state that it was the sole mechanism, nor did i assume that this was the case and while there may be various cooperative strategies, for example bees and flowers, pilot fish and sharks etc etc the matter was not to do with the evolutionary premise, but its assumption of progress with regard to humanity and our understanding of the development of conscience, which i may hasten to add, you have still not furnished a legitimate and credible source of its origin, so make with the readies or offer up your recantation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, i did not state that it was the sole mechanism, nor did i assume that this was the case and while there may be various cooperative strategies, for example bees and flowers, pilot fish and sharks etc etc the matter was not to do with the evolutionary premise, but its assumption of progress with regard to humanity and our understanding of the devel ...[text shortened]... timate and credible source of its origin, so make with the readies or offer up your recantation.

The conscience likely developed in the same way. As an evolutionary adaptation within an extended group. The evolution of the human brain allowed for the development of self awareness, and this led to the ability of being able to view others as 'selves.'

If that doesn't answer your question, then I'm not sure what it is you're asking me exactly. It may be that your braggadocio (while somewhat amusing) is impairing the clarity of your post.

Originally posted by rwingett
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

I'll try to be more objective. Peace be with you!

Originally posted by rwingett
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 ...[text shortened]... t I have an inherent self worth that is independent from your god. I do not need your salvation.

So tell me, where does it say in the Bible where some will be damned to hell and others will not? By what criteria based upon your knowledge of the Bible? You say that I am judging everyone and even prejudging yet I don't recall doing so. My position is that I point to a God that has a perfect will and strive to align myself with his perfect will because I have faith that says God is benevolent and all knowing. You see, Biblically, whether it be old testament or new testament, God seems to desire people to place their faith in him in what he has revealed to them. Now as to who goes to hell and who does not based upon faith in him or lack thereof, the Bible simply does not spell out how God will judge each and every one of us so why should I?

Now as for sin being passed down from generation to generation, you say that this is not fair. Of course, no one ever said it was. In fact, setting aside God for one second we see things passed down from generation to generation whether it be genetic defects and/or sins that burden down future generations that are not fair yet we cannot fathom that a sin nature could not also be apart of the mix. The bottom line is that you simply cannot divorce one generation from the next no matter how unfair this may be because we are not born in a vacuum. In various ways, we are apart of those who have come before us.

As for your assumption that "good" behavior counts for nothing, you put these words in my mouth, I never said them. Having said that, however, I am also cognizant of the saying that the road to hell is paved with "good" intentions. In other words, what we may think as "good" may not be. I can think of many such examples in my life that reflect this truth that had I included God in the mix perhaps I could have avoided down falls brought about while trying to do "good" deeds.

To sum up, what you view as tyrannical I view as redemptive interventions due to my seeking God's perfect will. He imposed nothing on me, rather, he simply let me know that he was there for me and wishes to guide my every step via my faith placed in him.

BTW: I am a self professed chowdahead. I just love a good bowl of chowda!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok then where does this sense of morality originate, if not in the human conscience? why if we were the product of evolutionary change where the survival of the fittest, which assumes a self preserving motivational force at all times, irrespective of the needs of others did this morality develop? because quite clearly in any given circumstance the d have accepted the inevitable, that god exists and is a potent force for good in the universe.

No the only way one can explain the human morality is in biblical terms

Oh, come on, that is patently absurd. Descriptive facts about the human moral faculty (for instance, that we make moral judgments, think in moral terms, hold notions such as justice and desert, etc., etc., as well as the descriptive facts that we often display altruistic behaviors and prosocial emotions and tendencies) are easily understandable within an evolutionary framework. To understand this on a first-order level, one just needs to understand natural selection as it relates to so-called helping behaviors (such as those involved with kin selection, mutualism and cooperation, direct reciprocity, and indirect reciprocity); and that it is entirely reasonable and plausible that our moral sense or faculty arose, in part, as a mechanism (in concert with other mechanisms) for regulating helping behaviors.

You silly god botherers always make yourselves look ridiculous, declaiming on evolution when you obviously don't know squat about it. This can be seen in your caricature of evolutionary product -- as psychological egoists battling it out with one another. You should educate yourself so you understand things a bit better. For instance, read a book. I've been reading Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality, and I would recommend that one.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]No the only way one can explain the human morality is in biblical terms

Oh, come on, that is patently absurd. Descriptive facts about the human moral faculty (for instance, that we make moral judgments, think in moral terms, hold notions such as justice and desert, etc., etc., as well as the descriptive facts that we often display altruistic be ...[text shortened]... een reading Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality, and I would recommend that one.[/b]

lol, despite your verbosity and superfluity of language you still have not explained how it developed and more importantly why it developed. so enough of your postulation and dogma and downright condescension, if you cannot explain it then shut up! and more importantly if you cannot explain it in simple terms, using unambiguous language so that the essence of thought does not get cloaked in language then you are a very poor teacher. we have been through this on many occasions and have still to be informed of the scientific nature and validity of the evolutionary process itself never mind the by products that you make the most ludicrous baseless assertions for. so until you do i suggest that you refrain from your pretensions and quit leveling lack of understanding, which seems to be your prime defense, at individuals who understand as readily as you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, despite your verbosity and superfluity of language you still have not explained how it developed and more importantly why it developed. so enough of your postulation and dogma and downright condescension, if you cannot explain it then shut up! and more importantly if you cannot explain it in simple terms, using unambiguous language so that the ...[text shortened]... standing, which seems to be your prime defense, at individuals who understand as readily as you.

i thought you packed your toys and left, unwilling to discuss evolution with heathens like me, hamilton or twhite. did you find others to drive nuts?

if you cannot explain it then shut up
coming from you that is hilarious. when did you ever explained anything? when did you give the impression you have opinions of your own and not some quotes from phd's that got their degree from a cereal box or are outright lying to score some research grants from fundamentalists?

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, where does it say in the Bible where some will be damned to hell and others will not? By what criteria based upon your knowledge of the Bible? You say that I am judging everyone and even prejudging yet I don't recall doing so. My position is that I point to a God that has a perfect will and strive to align myself with his perfect will because I ...[text shortened]... him.

BTW: I am a self professed chowdahead. I just love a good bowl of chowda!!!

Can someone get into heaven without faith in Christ? Yes or no? If not, then good actions are irrelevant. If so, then your redemptive sacrifice is irrelevant. If you don't know, then what basis do you have for saying anything?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, despite your verbosity and superfluity of language you still have not explained how it developed and more importantly why it developed. so enough of your postulation and dogma and downright condescension, if you cannot explain it then shut up! and more importantly if you cannot explain it in simple terms, using unambiguous language so that the ...[text shortened]... standing, which seems to be your prime defense, at individuals who understand as readily as you.

You're ignorant on this subject and, far worse, you seem intent on remaining ignorant on this subject. My advice to you is the same: read some frickin books or articles on the subject. I offered you one for consideration, I can offer more if you have any actual interest in dissolving your ignorance.

If your knowledge of evolution and natural selection is so good, then you ought to be able to read the book I mentioned and tell me why it is so far off-base.

As for my side, I've already read your book, the Bible. And I can tell you that its account of the origin of human moral faculty (if we can say that it even offers one) is outrageously implausible. Your book is also not so good at offering any support or argument for its assertions and empirical claims (again, supposing we even feel justified in interpreting it as such and not as, say, a book concerning principally metaphorical and figurative material as it relates to this subject).

Originally posted by rwingett
Can someone get into heaven without faith in Christ? Yes or no? If not, then good actions are irrelevant. If so, then your redemptive sacrifice is irrelevant. If you don't know, then what basis do you have for saying anything?

I am not the gatekeeper into heaven. All I know is that Christ died for our sins. Now does this include people who have never heard of him? For example, what of those who died before Christ walked the earth such as figures in the Bible like Moses, Abraham etc. I know of no person of faith who would say they are not "saved" yet they died without knowing who Christ was. Nevertheless, I think it is by Christs sacrifice that they are ultimately redeemed. Now as far as people who have never heard of him or people who are deceived about who he is, only God knows the answers to such questions. He is the judge, and not myself.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're ignorant on this subject and, far worse, you seem intent on remaining ignorant on this subject. My advice to you is the same: read some frickin books or articles on the subject. I offered you one for consideration, I can offer more if you have any actual interest in dissolving your ignorance.

If your knowledge of evolution and natural select ...[text shortened]... ok concerning principally metaphorical and figurative material as it relates to this subject).

are you gonna make with the readies or not? i love it when you guys postulate on evolutionary science as if it was an established fact, because as you and i both know, its nothing of the sort, and perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the passages that you make reference to that has led you to the conclusion of the implausibility of a biblical explanation, so that we may examine the evidence for ourselves and draw conclusions on its basis. I apologise for telling you to shut up, it was out of character, early in the morning when i posted it, and a reactionary rather than a reflective statement, sorry!