Morality Without God

[(Q)]

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

Is that a claim? Are you prepared to show exactly what brainwashing techniques he used and what exactly was the subject of brainwashing?

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

How is Cohen using force to make that assertion? How does the entire article hing on that one assertion?

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."

Where exactly does he state that?

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...

What are you saying exactly? That people are just machines, like cars, that require a driver, like a god?

Sure, and the bibles in the glove compartment. But, where are the bibles for animals?
-

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.

You've just contradicted yourself. First, you claim it came from observation and interaction, now you claimit was the commandments, Which one, exactly?

And how is that through observations and interaction, we now have thousands of religions, all diametrically opposed to one another in their philosophies?

See the first paragraph of the article for that answer.

Look in the aft section of Cohen's article... you'll find it there.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.

Sorry, I don't see it, can you quote the exact words?

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.

You asked me no questions, you are therefore a liar if you say you did. Where exactly did you ask me a question?

 

[cole grey]

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.

I was being sarcastic. Pointing out the silliness of saying that nothing can be taught without direct, logical, pedantry.

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?"

The lecture series is for anyone who wants to learn greek, it has been recorded and you can look back at it anytime. There are countless discussions about the lecture series available if you want to get other people's opinions on the lectures or you can just try to figure them out yourself. If a person doesn't want to learn, they don't have to.

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

To make us intelligent.
What is the point of a crossword puzzle? Why don't they just give you the filled out answer page, and skip the one you have to fill in yourself?

 

[(Q)]

I was being sarcastic. Pointing out the silliness of saying that nothing can be taught without direct, logical, pedantry.

Nice one, I missed that.

But I suppose that without direct, logical, pedantry, as you call it, those being taught would most likely find a inexhaustible variety of interpretations from the mish-mash, how would that be useful?

The lecture series is for anyone who wants to learn greek, it has been recorded and you can look back at it anytime. There are countless discussions about the lecture series available if you want to get other people's opinions on the lectures or you can just try to figure them out yourself. If a person doesn't want to learn, they don't have to.

Which 'lecture series' do you refer?

To make us intelligent.
What is the point of a crossword puzzle? Why don't they just give you the filled out answer page, and skip the one you have to fill in yourself?

Well, a crossword puzzle requires clear and concise answers to vague clues. If you get the wrong answers, nothing fits together.

If we transfer that concept to religions, then it would appear that only one religion may be right and all the others wrong.

Then we have the problem of who exactly is the authority when it comes to deciding the correct set of answers.

 

[davewhite04]

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?

They/you wrote(warning sermon alert):

Are we to believe that if we had never received a revelation from God(This covers the bit about God concerned about humans), or even if there were no belief in God, a mother would never have learned to love her child, men and women would never have loved each other, men would never have placed any value upon honesty or truthfulness or loyalty? After all we have seen an animal mother caring for its young, even to the extent of risking its life for it. 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.(That sentence covers my so called claim as regards the guy saying that God had no such(In this context modelling their nature) role to play with animals)

Can you understand that, I hope so because I cannot put it across any simpler.

Remember who made the original claim, that is under scrutiny(before you maybe shift the goal posts once again).

There is no indication in the bible. There is no indication animals have the ability to receive revelations through their senses.

Shifting the goal posts again.

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.

Oh, does that mean apes learnt it from us or vice versa? What about the folks that wouldn't eat their kids or lay down their lives for their kids to protect them?

 

[audible]

dave: I've been following this thread, why do you keep side stepping the issue, Q has made it quite plain, answer his question.

 

[davewhite04]

dave: I've been following this thread, why do you keep side stepping the issue, Q has made it quite plain, answer his question.

May I suggest you read the first post first, then conclude where the burden of proof lies...

 

[audible]

it's not relevent to the question asked.

 

[davewhite04]

it's not relevent to the question asked.

What is the relevance of your intervention?

 

[audible]

mainly because I would like to see your answer, Q asked this

You'll first have to show, from the bible, that god did in fact instill those qualities into animals, and that he had a role in their development.

and this

That is not what is written there, Dave, nor is it implied in any way.
The author is simply asking how it is that man should need revelations of conduct from a god, yet animals show signs of that conduct without any such revelations of conduct given to them.

you totally avoided answering it, by constantly harping on about something that has nothing to do with his question, which after all was in reply to you, here.

How does this man conclude that the actions done concerning animals did not involve God? In the Bible He created them.

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.

They've went on to describe how that if animals seemingly show affection for their young then obviously no God is needed for humans. Where's the logic?

If you're going to argue against Christianty for example, you need to take in to account what God you are trying to disprove ie read the Bible first.

stop avoiding it and answer

 

[BSFilter]

He has no answer... I dont think anyone does

 

[davewhite04]

mainly because I would like to see your answer, Q asked this and this you totally avoided answering it, by constantly harping on about something that has nothing to do with his question, which after all was in reply to you, here. stop avoiding it and answer

I've already covered that.

Let me make this crystal clear. The Bible is not an instruction manual for how lions tend to their young.

OK, lets get back to the original post, and the claim in question, which is covered in my last post to Q.

Care to backup the claim in question?

 

[davewhite04]

He has no answer... I dont think anyone does

There's plenty of answers but no facts.

 

[MarcAC]

How is Cohen using force to make that assertion? How does the entire article hing on that one assertion?

You missed the point... again...

Cohen states that the assertion is made by men of the clergy.

Where exactly does he state that?

That's clearly the gist of the article as I attempted to illustrate with the accelerating car-driver analogy (see below).

What are you saying exactly? That people are just machines, like cars, that require a driver, like a god?

No, the analogy was forwarded to illustrate that Cohen is trying to say in his article; "Since I can say how the car accelerates then it doesn't need a driver to accelerate it" - clearly not perfect, as it is an analogy, but it should bring my point across.

Of course, as Cohen himself admits, a Christian (he referred to clergyman - 2nd paragraph) can simply say that God inherently has a hand in all natural processes (thus assigning some purpose to their direction). Man is clearly a part of the natural world.

You've just contradicted yourself. First, you claim it came from observation and interaction, now you claim it was the commandments, Which one, exactly?

So you see recieving commandments from God, and observation and interaction with your environment, your surroundings, through which God communicates, as mutually exclusive???

And how is that through observations and interaction, we now have thousands of religions, all diametrically opposed to one another in their philosophies?

See the first paragraph of the article for that answer.

Cole Grey has been covering that angle quite well with his lecture analogy.

Sorry, I don't see it, can you quote the exact words?

He doesn't state that expliciitly, however it can be gleaned via a brief perusal of the article. Refer to the 15th paragraph onwards... there's such a flow that it might be best to start from the 12th. Also take a look at the 2nd paragraph which contains the assertion referred to above.

You asked me no questions, you are therefore a liar if you say you did. Where exactly did you ask me a question?

No, you therefore suffer from spells of blindness, and have very short memory - I won't waste my time - playing games - going back and pointing it out - if you want to be delusional and see me as a liar so be it - I honestly couldn't care less.

There's another analogy for you: this little situation is like God obviously existing and you displaying selective blindness or something so that you can't see Him.

 

[-=T=-]

Pardon... but I believe this thread got started because in the other thread, dave asked "What are your rules"...

To illustrate that a human being CAN have morality (or "rules", if you will) without God, the link to the article was posted.

This brings us here...

Now, I don't understand why the focus is with the animals, but I, personally would be interested in seeing this addressed:

Broadly, then, the assertion that morality would never have existed for human beings without belief in a God or without a revelation from God is equal to saying that man alone should have never discovered the value of being honest and truthful or loyal. He would not even have had such terms as good and bad in his vocabulary, for the use of those words implies moral judgement, and there would have been no such thing -- at least, so we are told.

.... anyone?

 

[MarcAC]

but I, personally would be interested in seeing this addressed:

I think that is being addressed. He naturally arrived at this assertion (c.f. "Broadly then...") on the support of the previous paragraphs.

This article is clearly produced based on the assertion that man achieved some things "by himself".

A Christian can simply argue, as Cohen admitted (p2), that - God had His hand in it as much as he allowed it to be... man plays his part too of course...

For the Christian, God is always there; for the Atheist God is never there.

 

[AAF]

Morality & Cannibalism ​

On the surface, Intelligent Designists and Creationists appear to oppose Darwin's Evolution theory, because it contradicts the Book of Genesis.

But that is not where their real motive is.
Since the re-interpretation, here, is not very difficult. And it was done successfully before with regard to the much more devastating conservation laws of physics and Copernicus' astronomical theory.

The real reason behind that wrong-headed opposition is cannibalism.
Cannibalism is morally reprehensible, and especially to the religious ones.
And yet Evolution theory implies just that, i.e. humans are doing cannibalism all along!

Look at the slaughterhouses around every big city!
It's a massacre and cannibalism on a colossal scale.
Humans literally are devouring and cannibalizing millions of their mammal relatives every day.

There is no way around that. Meat is absolutely necessary. And unless scientists develop techniques for turning stones into meat, cannibalism will continue.

Now, those crack-brained and obnoxious Animal-Rights activists
have made life miserable for researchers at Oxford http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,,1722084,00.html
and other institutions for experimenting with scores of animals in order to save the life of millions.

But those same damn activists won't dare to raise a finger or even to come near a major slaughterhouse. Why? Because they are hypocrites and cannibals at heart. And because they know that butchers don't play games. The heads of those tender-hearted activists will be cut off, if they try to interfere with the butchers' grisly business.

Am I telling the truth?

 

[Godless]

But those same damn activists won't dare to raise a finger or even to come near a major slaughterhouse. Why? Because they are hypocrites and cannibals at heart. And because they know that butchers don't play games. The heads of those tender-hearted activists will be cut off, if they try to interfere with the butchers' grisly business.

Here!here! BEEF IS WHAT'S FOR DINNER

Good articles on topic:

Morality Without God
click

*"Convinced that there is no eternal life awaiting him,
he [man] will strive all the more to brighten his life on earth
and rationally improve his condition in harmony with that of his fellows."
- Ernst Haeckel*click

The whole superstructure of this argument is built upon another assumption that is incredibly cynical on the part of a group that delights in condemning the pessimism of philosophies that question the existence of God. This assumption is that man is incapable of making moral decisions without divine guidance. In other words, man must have God's help or else he just can't determine for sure what is right and what is wrong.

Infedel Guy

Profesional debate on the topic.
click

Little tid fact. I was the one that answered Dave with the link provide by Q, this topic has been round and round and rehashed, several times in Sciforum as well.

Conclusion; man does not need a god, to live a moral life, morality by "force" such as religious ethics is not a moral code. Ethics are different from culture to culture, religions carry different moral codes, Islam for example it's perfectly moral to kill an apostate, homosexual, and basically anyone who does not agree with their rhetoric, much the same as Christianity was in it's earlier years, is the bible moral? Would you call the slaughter of children moral today?

"Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you."

"Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me."

"Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

click

What moral code really does the bible have to offer?

Godless

 

[(Q)]

No, you therefore suffer from spells of blindness, and have very short memory - I won't waste my time - playing games - going back and pointing it out - if you want to be delusional and see me as a liar so be it

Unless you can show me where you asked me a question, my statement stands. Sorry you feel that way.

 

[(Q)]

Let me make this crystal clear. The Bible is not an instruction manual for how lions tend to their young.

Then, before we move on, please explain what exactly is the use of the bible, if not to pass on gods word, which should include codes of conduct?

 

[(Q)]

Now, I don't understand why the focus is with the animals, but I, personally would be interested in seeing this addressed:

This appears to be the stickler with theists as they alude to the ideal that god had already instilled those traits of honesty and truthfulness, since after all, god created men. So, they question the authors claim that those traits WERE a result of agod, long before god had to write it all down.

If so, we are to wonder why rules were then invoked, in the bible and the commandments if those traits were already instilled?

We are also to wonder how animals exhibited similar traits without a bible and a set of commandments?