Morality Without God

[davewhite04]

YOU did, Dave!

No Q. That article is making the claims. Like this infamous one:

We have seen animals defend each other from a common enemy and join together in running down prey for a common meal. There is a courting time for animals, there is a mating time, and there is a time however brief when the animal family of male, female and young exist. All this happened to the animals without God.

 

[cole grey]

The revelation, judging by after events, was not very well done,

zen teachings must also be very shoddily done also, because they don't just come out and specifically explain the things you won't understand anyway, unless you experience them, and/or are ready to understand, i.e. you already know them somewhat, or at least have the building blocks to mash together to synthesize the idea.
All poems and song lyrics that just give you a feeling and don't explicitly teach you are dumb too.

There seems a want of sense in giving man a revelation he could not understand. It is like lecturing in Greek to an audience that understands nothing but Dutch."

Actually, it is not like that, but IS like lecturing to an audience of greek students in greek, when all the students are at different levels of study, and letting them work out what the lecture is about over 60 or 70 years. Not too hard really. If one doesn't want to learn greek, one can always feel free to ignore the lecture.

 

[(Q)]

"Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astrophysicist and Catholic priest, came to be known as the "Father of the Big Bang". Lemaitre proposed that the Universe began as a single primordial atom of energy, something hot and dense that exploded, causing space to expand outward."

But that's not at all significant =)

Not really all that significant considereing Friedman had already proposed the theory some years before, and he based his hypothesis on Einsteins theories of relativity. It was only because of the media circus surrounding the event, ie. a Catholic priest proposing a theory based on science, that got Lemaitre the exposure he received.

Good example, nonetheless.

Any more?

 

[(Q)]

I've noticed this trend too, you perfectly described that article above, kudos to you.

Then you too, did not understand the article. What you refer to cop-outs are simply reason and rationale.

And if you did understand the article, why haven't you submitted any kind of argument yet?

 

[(Q)]

No Q. That article is making the claims. Like this infamous one:

We have seen animals defend each other from a common enemy and join together in running down prey for a common meal. There is a courting time for animals, there is a mating time, and there is a time however brief when the animal family of male, female and young exist. All this happened to the animals without God.

Why infamous, Dave? You've haven't said anything at all? I see no argument here.

It couldn't have happened with a god, Dave? How could it have? There was nothing in writing for the animals to see, like your revelations.

How did he do it, Dave? Where in the bible does it state anything of the kind?

Can you address the point and refute it?

 

[(Q)]

zen teachings must also be very shoddily done also, because they don't just come out and specifically explain the things you won't understand anyway, unless you experience them, and/or are ready to understand, i.e. you already know them somewhat, or at least have the building blocks to mash together to synthesize the idea.
All poems and song lyrics that just give you a feeling and don't explicitly teach you are dumb too.

You can use a strawman argument if you like, but I'd much rather prefer you actually argue the article. We can start another thread on Zen, if you like.

Actually, it is not like that, but IS like lecturing to an audience of greek students in greek, when all the students are at different levels of study, and letting them work out what the lecture is about over 60 or 70 years. Not too hard really. If one doesn't want to learn greek, one can always feel free to ignore the lecture.

In other words, what you're trying to say is god targeted a certain group that had to be at a certain level of some sort of competence, but I can't quite make out what it is they are to be competent? To what does your analogy refer? What is the religious equivalent to "Greek?"

And what would be the point in this somewhat futile exercise of guesswork? Why not just deliver a clear, concise message?

btw - Thanks, Cole, you've made the first honest effort in arguing the article. Kudos!

 

[davewhite04]

Why infamous, Dave? You've haven't said anything at all? I see no argument here.

It couldn't have happened with a god, Dave? How could it have? There was nothing in writing for the animals to see, like your revelations.

How did he do it, Dave? Where in the bible does it state anything of the kind?

Can you address the point and refute it?

So are you saying that because animals cannot read(and cannot write down their revelations to pass on), they couldn't have had any revelations from God?

 

[davewhite04]

Why infamous, Dave? You've haven't said anything at all? I see no argument here.

It couldn't have happened with a god, Dave? How could it have? There was nothing in writing for the animals to see, like your revelations.

How did he do it, Dave? Where in the bible does it state anything of the kind?

Can you address the point and refute it?

First of all, let me make this point very clear. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case you(standing in for the guy who wrote the article, which might be you I don't know). If you/they say that God had made no such revelations to animals, then you/they have to back that up.

As far as I can see, you argument is that animals cannot write/read so it's impossible(I'll await a response on this).

I will provide some information from the Bible that demonstrates God's sovereignty over the animal kingdom too.

God created land animals
Genesis 1
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God stepping in and lions obeying His angel(if they had no awareness of God then why didn't they just rip Daniel apart?).
Daniel 6
18 Now the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; and no musicians were brought before him. Also his sleep went from him. 19 Then the king arose very early in the morning and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 And when he came to the den, he cried out with a lamenting voice to Daniel. The king spoke, saying to Daniel, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?”
21 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! 22 My God sent His angel and shut the lions’ mouths, so that they have not hurt me, because I was found innocent before Him; and also, O king, I have done no wrong before you.”
23 Now the king was exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no injury whatever was found on him, because he believed in his God.

 

[(Q)]

First of all, let me make this point very clear. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case you(standing in for the guy who wrote the article, which might be you I don't know). If you/they say that God had made no such revelations to animals, then you/they have to back that up.

As far as I can see, you argument is that animals cannot write/read so it's impossible(I'll await a response on this).

So far, so good. No, animals can't read or write. There is no other way for them to have received such revelations.

I will provide some information from the Bible that demonstrates God's sovereignty over the animal kingdom too.

Sorry Dave, sovereignty does not equate to revelations, if it did, all mankind would have received the same revelations as the animals. And I don't see anything in your quotes that might suggest god had anything to do with their enlightenment, unless you can show otherwise.

 

[davewhite04]

So far, so good. No, animals can't read or write. There is no other way for them to have received such revelations.

You have just put the Christian God in a box, while at the same time providing no evidence to suggest He should be there.

Who's the one that has no intention of discussing anything?

Sorry Dave, sovereignty does not equate to revelations, if it did, all mankind would have received the same revelations as the animals. And I don't see anything in your quotes that might suggest god had anything to do with their enlightenment, unless you can show otherwise.

The Bible is not a book that describes the behaviour of animals, it describes that they were created by God.

I'm in a defensive position when really, it's your article that is under scrutiny, and it failed at the first hurdle.

Your problem is, you don't understand where the burden of proof lies. Let me spell it out for you.

If I wrote a paper and said:

God told the lion that he must look after its cubs this way...

Then you would ask, where is the proof?

If I responded like you have within this thread I would say.

I don't need any, God it.

 

[BSFilter]

To me it seems that the traits we inherently consider unique to humans are the bases of any platform to attempt to explain why God MUST exist, they are what seperates us from animals. Now that these traits that are supposed to be "unique" to humans are being found in other animals, it raises a couple of key issues.

Why would a supremely fair and omnipotent being enlighten only man to His presence? How did we earn his favor prior to being enlightened? Are animals aware of a God, but possess no means of indicating it? (doubtful)

I think what it boils down to is that we are no different than the other animals we share this planet with. Our system of right and wrong has developed along side that of every creature who strives to survive. God supposedly influences only man, yet animals sometimes show higher ethical standards then humans. (Murder without a cause is unheard of in the animal kingdom)

 

[davewhite04]

Why would a supremely fair and omnipotent being enlighten only man to His presence?

That's the thing. How do you conclude this? Where is your evidence? Is the lack of evidence evidence?

 

[(Q)]

You have just put the Christian God in a box, while at the same time providing no evidence to suggest He should be there.

I've done no such thing, but merely removed the senses of animals as the only means of receiving communications from a god. Is there some other method that a god would have of communicating rules of conduct to animals that you're aware?

The Bible is not a book that describes the behaviour of animals, it describes that they were created by God.

The bible asserts that we too were created by a god, yet a clear distinction has been made in the bible, and that is man received revelations from god as the word of god, while it appears no such mention of the same revelations were given to animals.

I'm in a defensive position when really, it's your article that is under scrutiny, and it failed at the first hurdle.

Yet, no one has shown it has failed.

Your problem is, you don't understand where the burden of proof lies. Let me spell it out for you.

If I wrote a paper and said:

God told the lion that he must look after its cubs this way...

Then you would ask, where is the proof?

If I responded like you have within this thread I would say.

I don't need any, God it.

Exactly my point, Dave, but it still does not appear that you understood the article, because you missed its point entirely.

You've essentially "spelled out" what the bible is comprised, and by using your example, a paper in which god is telling man how to conduct himself. But you left out something which the article addresses, and I'll once again use your example.

God told the lion that he must look after its cubs this way... BUT, god did not tell man how to look after his cubs this way...

So, why is it god told the lion but not the man, yet the man looks after his cubs this way... ? And why is it the lion already exhibited those traits before such revelations were received?

The article theorizes that both the lion and the man received no such commandments from a god, but instead, developed those traits through simple social interactions.

In other words, the theory from the article better answers the question regarding the origin of morality than the theist's version.

 

[davewhite04]

Yet, no one has shown it has failed.

Let me re-post what has been said, as this is sliding into an engineered farce.

I Said:


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, who made the claim?


You responded with:


YOU did, Dave!


Care to point out my claim?

While you're at it can you answer an earlier question. Can you provide evidence that supports the following assertion in your article:


CLAIM ALERT

All this happened to the animals without God

 

[davewhite04]

Name one cleargy that made contributions to science?

Considering he was speaking about mans religious tendencies why did you signal out the clergy?

 

[(Q)]

Care to point out my claim?

Sure, right here:

"This guy is making the fatal mistake of thinking that God is just concerned about humans, and that He had no role to play in how animals developed."

Can you substantiate that claim?

While you're at it can you answer an earlier question. Can you provide evidence that supports the following assertion in your article:


CLAIM ALERT

All this happened to the animals without God

There is no indication in the bible. There is no indication animals have the ability to receive revelations through their senses. Evidence suggests these are learned patterns through social interaction.

Jane Goodalls observations of the apes reveals they will canabalize their young as well as lay down their lives to protect them. Both traits have been found in humans as well.

 

[(Q)]

Considering he was speaking about mans religious tendencies why did you signal out the clergy?

To use as an example.

 

[MarcAC]

How else would have it been revealed? Hasn't everthing you've "learned" about religion been from books and listening to others? Or, was it beamed into your head?

An element of the post worth responding to.

Hmmm...

I wonder when the first men penned their revelations how it was revealed. Observation and interaction perhaps? Observing the world around them and interacting with it? But if you want to call observation and interaction 'beaming into your head', fine.

And please... Q... at least try to answer the questions which have been posed... by DaveWhite04, myself, and I'm sure is in the mind of others too.
[edit - just seen an attempted answer]

But you're never serious are you? Never interested in serious dicussion.

 

[(Q)]

I wonder when the first men penned their revelations how it was revealed. Observation and interaction perhaps? Observing the world around them and interacting with it? But if you want to call observation and interaction 'beaming into your head', fine.

Then, what was the point of receiving commandments, Marc?

And how is it that people can observe the world around them and come to the conclusion it was the result of a gods creation? What exactly is the connection, aside from their want to believe in such?

And please... Q... at least try to answer the questions which have been posed... by DaveWhite04, myself, and I'm sure is in the mind of others too.
[edit - just seen an attempted answer]

But you're never serious are you? Never interested in serious dicussion.

You haven't asked me a question, have you, Marc?

 

[MarcAC]

There is no indication in the bible. There is no indication animals have the ability to receive revelations through their senses. Evidence suggests these are learned patterns through social interaction.

Boy, Cohen really did a brainwashing number on some people...

Some of the clergy will say that God gave everything to man inasmuch as he let him find them out. But at any rate...

The whole article seems to hang on this unrepelled assertion, and it serves to answer the whole article.

The mistake Cohen makes is that he tries to use his (wouldn't even say scientific) observations to say: "Since I can say how I think it happened that means God didn't have a hand in it."

Somewhat like describing how a car is accelerated just short of saying the driver puts his foot down.

Of course without the driver the car wouldn't accelerate at all...
-

Then, what was the point of receiving commandments, Marc?

That is included in observation and interaction. Cohen provides a lot of useful conjecture in his article regarding group dynamics and society. The commandments were to serve as a code of conduct within the society. Look in the aft section of Cohen's article... you'll find it there.

And how is it that people can observe the world around them and come to the conclusion it was the result of a gods creation? What exactly is the connection, aside from their want to believe in such?

They come to the conclusion that it was created (there was a beginning), and it was created with a purpose (thus purpose in their existence). Very simple step to creator. Of course there's also the issue of absolute morality which is what is being addressed in Cohen's sermon.

The rest is a clear demonstration that you are overwhelmed by responses... or you're just not interested in serious discussion... take a look back... when I speak of answers I mean actual answers, not cop-outs.