http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html The above link was posted in another thread and provides an argument that values such as honesty, truthfulness and loyalty were not provided through divine intervention in the form of revelations from gods, but were in fact a result of social interactions amongst groups tribes and then nations. I started this thread as it appears davewhite found many holes in the argument and chose to be challenged on his claims. I hope we can attack it paragraph by paragraph to see exactly if such holes exist. Of course, it is a thread like any other for all to participate. Here is the opening paragraph: "Christianity is what is called a "revealed" religion. That is, God himself revealed that religion to man. In other religions man sought God -- some god -- and eventually found him, or thought he did. In the case of Christianity God sought man and revealed himself to him. The revelation, judging by after events, was not very well done, for although a book made its appearance that was said to have been dictated or inspired by God so that man might know his will, yet ever since mankind has been in some doubt as to what God meant when he said it. Evidently God's way of making himself known by a revelation is not above criticism. 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." I couldn't agree more and have probably stated that myself on many occassions. In fact, I submitted that a message from god would have to be not only crystal clear, but also revealed to all equally and unequivocally. That is certainly not the case as is attested in the multitudes of religion and their diametrically opposed messages. There ya go, Dave. Have at 'er.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Believe it or not, almost all contemporary religions have taken over, as theirs, the splendid moral principles that perfected by the Ancient Greeks, but with a twist. The true moral principles of the Ancient Greeks are based on 'Do what is RIGHT because it is RIGHT in itself' & 'Avoid what is WRONG because it is WRONG in itself'. Modern religions, by contrast, have done away with the axiom of ['Do what is RIGHT because it is RIGHT in itself' & 'Avoid what is WRONG because it is WRONG in itself'], and have used the [REWARD & PUNISHMENT by a Deity] instead. So religiolus morality is a kind of legal code and cannot be strictly called morality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Read the bible first, Dave? Lame. 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. Can you, Dave? Or was that your fatal mistake?
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. Where is the logic in that, Dave?
Since Dave is clearly not interested in discussion, I invite any others to take his place to discuss the article.
Hmmm... Strangely enough; I read the article and somehow the support for that assertion flew right over my head. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyone at all who's actually read the article care to point it out for me? - One reason I would avoid church is to avoid preaching like that. That article is a sermon! An absolutely repulsive read... just due to the preaching nature of it. Disgusting (but that's just emotion I know... born out of experience). Loosen you up with a few jokes and then try to pump baseless crap into your head... notice how he was advocating alcohol and getting drunk? Best way to loosen up... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mean look at this: He seemed to be trying to sneak that one past the audience... hasn't addressed it... Wow... so because it isn't said it means it wasn't revealed. Trying to sneak that one past too... civilisation started with God/gods as its centerpiece. Many early and crucial innovations were driven by man's religious tendencies. You can't remove anything related to human civilisation from God... not even Atheism... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Humanity grew, has grown, is growing and will grow around religion. DaveWhite04... the support for that article is like a honeycomb structure... hit it from a suitable side and it crumbles.
Good question... and as usual... no answers - just "cop-outs" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course, another theist with the inability to argue an article which evidently has 'gone over your head.' Didn't understand the article one iota, it appears. 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? Name one cleargy that made contributions to science? That's merely the ignorance of the past. Religion will go the way of the dodo soon enough. But of course, Marc is unable to hit the broad side of a barn with a hand grenade, as can be seen here.
And of course, when I invited someone to argue the article, I asked just that. What the hell are you doing?
"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." http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/universe_level2/cosmology.html But that's not at all significant =)
