Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

What about Theist who are not part of organized religion, like me?

Damn, because you are an atheist does not mean you do not have any morals. Just respecting people would include not killing them. So if you don't have a God you revere to, you have to be a sociopath? I don't follow.

I'm not an atheist but that was a weird question.

so what you are really saying is that you would really like to be killing people but the bible says you can't so you don't.

oh, altruism + evolution = me benefiting through not killing you

Haha. I'm an atheist. My heathen, devil-inspired opinion follows:

1. A system of moral laws from a supposed deity is just as arbitrary as any system. If the Christian Church can make a set of moral laws, so can I...and both are equally as valid so long as they are supported by justifiable reasoning.

2. Don't you find it odd that the reason that you are "good" is because someone told you to, with fear of punishment (Hell) for not following them? Sounds like an angry parent dictating rules to a child to me. I'm "good" because I decide to be on my own. It's liberating. You should try it.

3. Social relativism: If I didn't have some standard of moral that is at least roughly consistent with the status quo, I'd end up in jail or dead. Same with anyone, religious or not. Why do think religious teachings, on the whole, have mellowed through the centuries? It's so they aren't persecuted by the general populace for being too rigid and evil. Witch burnings ftw!

4. Evolution. Inamilist summarized it well. basically, our bodies are programmed via thousands/millions of years of genetic conditioning to be altruistic in a general sense toward the species (and more specfically toward close relatives) to ensure the survival of our genes. In an evolutionary sense, terms like morality, altruism, and selfishness are explained fully and the whole thing becomes de-mystified.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

That's a bit silly. I mean, if there was no bible are you saying that you'd go around killing people? Is the bible the only reason you don't go about killing random people? If so that's pretty ****ed up.

Of course it's wrong to kill someone, why? I wouldn't want to be killed, so I wouldnt kill anyone. Why would you want to destroy life? Some people have respect for life and have no desire to destroy it.

I believe it's wrong to kill a human being needlessly.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

I don't think it is wrong on a grander scale. On a personal level I don't kill for multiple reasons, being afraid of punishment, compassion, fear of revenge, etc.

Also, I feel good when living according to some rules I made up myself. Not to forget I was conditioned to believe it is wrong.

So, lots of reasons. Just that I (contrary to you) don't believe any of the reasons has to apply absolutely.

Why did everyone attack Quiero instead of answering his certainly reasonable question?

Morality doesn' t require religion. My consideration for other people is not based upon what some god tells me to do.

Originally posted by Storm
Morality doesn' t require religion. My consideration for other people is not based upon what some god tells me to do. Funny thing, some guy actually made a thread to discuss what they are based on. Maybe you can find it if you do a search..................wait a second....it is this one. Oh my me.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I believe it's wrong to kill a human being needlessly.

That's what everyone here is saying, but where do you get this belief from? That's my question.

Originally posted by Storm
Morality doesn' t require religion.

That's very true, ey. But then again, morality is subjective. The moral system that I adhere to was made long before I was born, but where do your personal moral beliefs come from?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I Why did everyone attack Quiero instead of answering his certainly reasonable question?

God knows...

You admit to having read The God Delusion, but Dawkins also explains the reasons for morals...

altruism helps to prove that the altruist is superior, that it has the capacity to lose advantages, and still be dominant (which is a good way to get mates, passing on the genes that caused the altruism to begin with...)

also, because humans (and animals) tend to become possesive of things and people, and because communities develop stable strategies, many members use "***-for-Tat"

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I like that, and pretty much agree with it.



I'm not denying that at all. Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion "Atheists can be moral." Ok, fine, but where do these morals come from? Did Dawkins just pull his morals out of his ass "I think this is wrong. I didn't get this from any formulized rules, I just arbitrarily made this up. This is what I will live by"? I think much of morals had also to do with the development of the human emotion of empathy, once one puts themselves in the shoes of the other they could feel and understand what the killing, stealing and harm that one did and apply that to themselves. Once humans developed this emotion then I believe the concept of morals evolved.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
where do these morals come from?

Morals are not always things that are taught to people. Many people develop their own morals, based on empathy. Basically, I believe anything that can negetively effect someone is immoral. How on Earth did I come to think conclusion without a divine figure guiding my poor godlles soul? Because, I wouldn't want the same to happen to me and as long as people keep those basic morals, we can all live harmoniously.

Originally posted by Jbill311
You admit to having read The God Delusion, but Dawkins also explains the reasons for morals...

altruism helps to prove that the altruist is superior, that it has the capacity to lose advantages, and still be dominant (which is a good way to get mates, passing on the genes that caused the altruism to begin with...)

also, because humans (and animals) tend to become possesive of things and people, and because communities develop stable strategies, many members use "***-for-Tat"

No, I only read an excerpt on the internet. So he says that alturism is genetic? If so, why are there still serial killers around, and why do otherwise "good" people do bad things on occasion? Why did evolution miss those kinks?

Originally posted by Bardiel13
Morals are not always things that are taught to people. Many people develop their own morals, based on empathy. Basically, I believe anything that can negetively effect someone is immoral. How on Earth did I come to think conclusion without a divine figure guiding my poor godlles soul? Because, I wouldn't want the same to happen to me and as long as people keep those basic morals, we can all live harmoniously.

I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?

How can the theory of evolution explain morals?

I don't know. I'm just asking about this whole genetic altruism thing.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, I only read an excerpt on the internet. So he says that alturism is genetic? If so, why are there still serial killers around, and why do otherwise "good" people do bad things on occasion? Why did evolution miss those kinks?



I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?

You could ask Why are there still christians who do bad things, why is the Catholic Church Paying out many millions of dollars because the priests commited unspeakable acts to children etc...

The reason morals are simmilar (in my opinion) is that the community you grow up in requires your morals to overlap, at least a little bit. Your parents also help to teach you morals, so your morals must be simmilar to your parents, which are also similar to their parents, which continues through the ages...

I didn't start this thread with the intention of being one of those annoying, idiotic "soldiers of Christ" who tell other people how to live, and that frequent this forum, like JIA, Marchello and Nellinator. I'm far from being an angel myself, and I'm first to admit that.

I'm just asking a serious question and wanna encourage a discussion about morals outside of religion or any set, formulized code.

I find it fun to debate with the "soldiers of Christ" because, even if no minds are changed, I still got to prove some people wrong. I do however appreciate real discussion.

I don't know If i explained the concept very well before... If a serial killer is unmasked in a tribe, his (or her) chances for further reproduction are diminished. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if you are part of a tribe, or out of jail would be the modern equivallent, you have a better chance to make babies. Those with good morals will be better represented in the gene pool........

Originally posted by Jbill311


I don't know If i explained the concept very well before... If a serial killer is unmasked in a tribe, his (or her) chances for further reproduction are diminished. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if you are part of a tribe, or out of jail would be the modern equivallent, you have a better chance to make babies. Those with good morals will be better represented in the gene pool........

Using a serial killer is a bad example, since the traits that makes one a serial killer are not inherited from birth.

Have you been reading the teachings of Francis Galton?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

If you notice society, that big thing you are a part of, like most other people, has laws, has reason, has people understanding, be it by way of reason, by respect for the law, by the empathic understanding that "hey, I wouldn't like to die, so other people wouldn't like to die either, thus it is wrong to kill people".

I never needed the Bible to not want to kill people. I like living, I respect other peoples rights to live, and I understand that a human being has fundamental rights and it is wrong to infringe upon them, which includes taking their life.


http://freethunk.net/apologetix/apologetix_livingdeadC.gif



Come now, morals in religions don't even have set codes - they evolve like all morals. Some are big sure, and don't change much ever, but little changes happen over time.

Using a serial killer is a bad example, since the traits that makes one a serial killer are not inherited from birth.

I agree, but it was what I came up with off the top of my head.

Have you been reading the teachings of Francis Galton?

no, but he is on my list now, thanks.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Funny thing, some guy actually made a thread to discuss what they are based on. Maybe you can find it if you do a search..................wait a second....it is this one. Oh my me.

Then it is supposed to be in the philosophy forum smartass.

Morals could damn near be summed up in stuff you just would not do to yourself.

Examples:

Would you ass rape yourself?

Would you kill yourself?

Steal from yourself?

So on and so on.

Morality becomes complex ONLY when trying to justifying these actions that you would never do to yourself.

Act: Murder (obviously never something you would do to yourself)

Intention is what will decide what makes it "ok."

So if you cover it up with some bullshit like "these terrorists" then it dehumanize the "enemy" and all is well and ok because the intention is to "protect."

I could make this bullet proof but I am far too lazy right now to explain in full. I'm sure someone will pick it up.

Originally posted by chithappens
Then it is supposed to be in the philosophy forum smartass.

Not necessarily, what with the connection people make between morals and religion.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not necessarily, what with the connection people make between morals and religion.

I'll give you that but...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

This is a question based solely on morals. In the philosophy forum, this would get much more respect as a topic. Posting it here seems like a troll topic because it was OBVIOUSLY going to annoy many. Posting in the religion forum SUGGESTS that you do or do not engage in certain behaviors simply because of the fear of damnation (which I will jokingly say is synonymous with love for God).

I'm no atheist but it was an insult to everyone no matter what religion you choose to follow.

As explained later:

Originally posted by inimalist
so what you are really saying is that you would really like to be killing people but the bible says you can't so you don't.

oh, altruism + evolution = me benefiting through not killing you

And the other things that followed. If any person decided not to murder because the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/etc. forbids it (and that was their sole reason from going cannibal on everyone), then they are a drone. Period.

Originally posted by chithappens

This is a question based solely on morals. In the philosophy forum, this would get much more respect as a topic. Posting it here seems like a troll topic because it was OBVIOUSLY going to annoy many. Posting in the religion forum SUGGESTS that you do or do not engage in certain behaviors simply because of the fear of damnation (which I will jokingly say is synonymous with love for God).

I'm no atheist but it was an insult to everyone no matter what religion you choose to follow.

As explained later:



And the other things that followed. If any person decided not to murder because the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/etc. forbids it (and that was their sole reason from going cannibal on everyone), then they are a drone. Period.

Perhaps, but I don't necessarily feel so. It is a question based on morals and their source: that is religion or lack of it - ie: My morals come from a religious source, where do Atheists get their morals?

I find it a wee bit twee perhaps (as what is essentially an Atheist) but I respect his right to ask the question. Personally I do find it a little bit disturbing the people who claim their main moral compass is a highly interpretable text from 2000 or more years ago. Or very disturbing. Even more so the people who would like to base political policy on Biblical morality "The sotry of Adam and Eve shows man and women, homosexuality must there for be immoral."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why did everyone attack Quiero instead of answering his certainly reasonable question? First thing I thought.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?

Well, I believe that it is wrong to hate someone for their skin color, religion, orientaion, etc. Subsequently, I also believe it is wrong to hate someone for their beliefs, be it racism, anti-semitism, or homphobia. Therefor, I can maintain a friendly relationship with many of my homosexual and homophobic friends.

Originally posted by Nellinator
First thing I thought.

I don't think I attacked him.

May not have, though it seems an innocent and honest question has stirred up something in some people. General observation, not everyone.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.




Even before I was Buddhist, I thought killing, torturing, or controlling another human being was wrong. I never needed a book or idealogy to tell me what to think.


And btw, the Bible tells you killing is wrong, but God had commanded the killing, even genocide of many people, so that's a contradictory statement.


As you grow up, you learn about people's pain. You learn the reality of suffering. When you suffer, you realize what it is, and therefore understand that no one deserves this.


You don't need a religion to have a morality, all you need is logic. A religion cannot teach you how to love. Morality comes from yourself, it is your response to the environment. Your response to other people, your response to suffering and joy, your response to creation and destruction, and your responses to social organizations such as religion, school, family, etc. shape your morality.


I can't beleive you are a grown adult, and do not understand that yet.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I didn't start this thread with the intention of being one of those annoying, idiotic "soldiers of Christ" who tell other people how to live, and that frequent this forum, like JIA, Marchello and Nellinator..



I wouldn't clump Nellinator with the likes of JIA and Marcello.



I'd clump him with Feceman and Regret

YEAH!

The question is an insult to me. If anyone else sees it as "innocent" that is a point of view I guess, but why would I need God for morals?

Besides, he used "murder" in the question and then mentioned a broader idea of moral dilemma, but who the hell needs a system of morality to not kill? That's not something you just up and do when a guy takes a pencil off your desk or jumps in front of you in rush hour traffic.

I just do not see the point of the question. Murder is an extreme circumstance for most people. Murder occurs frequently, in that people are getting murdered everyday, but I do not know a murderer? Do you?

Murder is not common enough to ask it as if that's some shit we all go through.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
How can the theory of evolution explain morals?

It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

...

As for attacks that atheists arbitrarily decide on a set of morals, to me (and many others) the moral standards of religions are equally as arbitrary. And you aren't automatically more "correct" because you have the backing of an organized body of people (neither is 'correct' or 'incorrect' in a strict sense).

Originally posted by chithappens
The question is an insult to me. If anyone else sees it as "innocent" that is a point of view I guess, but why would I need God for morals?

Besides, he used "murder" in the question and then mentioned a broader idea of moral dilemma, but who the hell needs a system of morality to not kill? That's not something you just up and do when a guy takes a pencil off your desk or jumps in front of you in rush hour traffic.

I just do not see the point of the question. Murder is an extreme circumstance for most people. Murder occurs frequently, in that people are getting murdered everyday, but I do not know a murderer? Do you?

Murder is not common enough to ask it as if that's some shit we all go through.
It is a valid question. He didn't ask "as if that's some shit we all go through." He also didn't suggest if everybody was atheist we'd all be eating each other's brains, all he asked was where our moral codes come from.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

...

As for attacks that atheists arbitrarily decide on a set of morals, to me (and many others) the moral standards of religions are equally as arbitrary. And you aren't automatically more "correct" because you have the backing of an organized body of people (neither is 'correct' or 'incorrect' in a strict sense).




As social creatures we are compelled to work together to survive. It is in our best interest to support each other, and work together. I think it is counter productive to kill each other for the sake of pleasure or sport, or even anger. Self defense seems to be the only kustified reason to kill, as far as survival is concerned.



Selfishness comes from fear of others. We only feel we can trust ourselves, therefore we associate another's success with our own failure. For a person who is selfish, it is hard for he or she to see another's happiness as anything other than a threat to his or her own happiness.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
As social creatures we are compelled to work together to survive. It is in our best interest to support each other, and work together. I think it is counter productive to kill each other for the sake of pleasure or sport, or even anger. Self defense seems to be the only kustified reason to kill, as far as survival is concerned.



Selfishness comes from fear of others. We only feel we can trust ourselves, therefore we associate another's success with our own failure. For a person who is selfish, it is hard for he or she to see another's happiness as anything other than a threat to his or her own happiness.

That first paragraph is the basic outline of group selection, which is incorrect in an evolutionary sense...even though it seems to make intuitive sense to us. Its appeal has led to many misconceptions in the genetic base of species altruism. And in actuality, there's more reasons than simply self-defense that help to ensure survival, both within humans and other species.

Acts of survival are more closely related to selfishness, even many acts that appear outwardly altruistic.

Humans stand alone in our ability to go against our genetic programming, so not all of it is genetic selfishness, but a lot more than any of us are aware of is rooted in the innate programming we receive at conception....even if that programming (inherently slefish toward our genes) manifests itself as outward altruism. It's the nature (genes) vs. nuture (environment) argument...but both are partially correct for humans, though if I had to guess I'd say the scales are still tipped more toward nature than we think.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That first paragraph is the basic outline of group selection, which is incorrect in an evolutionary sense...even though it seems to make intuitive sense to us. Its appeal has led to many misconceptions in the genetic base of species altruism. And in actuality, there's more reasons than simply self-defense that help to ensure survival, both within humans and other species.

Acts of survival are more closely related to selfishness, even many acts that appear outwardly altruistic.

Humans stand alone in our ability to go against our genetic programming, so not all of it is genetic selfishness, but a lot more than any of us are aware of is rooted in the innate programming we receive at conception....even if that programming (inherently slefish toward our genes) manifests itself as outward altruism. It's the nature (genes) vs. nuture (environment) argument...but both are partially correct for humans, though if I had to guess I'd say the scales are still tipped more toward nature than we think.




I wasn't talking about Evolution. Human Beings are classified as social creatures, like lions are, like wolves and monkeys are. We benefit off socialization with eachother, and human history has shown this.


We are not like Tigers who live alone, or want to.


People need other people to survive, and it's always been that way. To attack another person, for a reason other than self defense or food, goes against our social nature.


That doesn't mean anything though.


How do you know humans are the only animals capable of going against our "natural programming" ?



There are plenty of animals in the wild who express eradic behavior, even on the verge of being "pointless". Animals are not like computers who follow the same pattern as every other animal. Animals have the ability to make choices, and have shown emotions.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I wasn't talking about Evolution. Human Beings are classified as social creatures, like lions are, like wolves and monkeys are. We benefit off socialization with eachother, and human history has shown this.


We are not like Tigers who live alone, or want to.


People need other people to survive, and it's always been that way. To attack another person, for a reason other than self defense or food, goes against our social nature.


That doesn't mean anything though.


How do you know humans are the only animals capable of going against our "natural programming" ?



There are plenty of animals in the wild who express eradic behavior, even on the verge of being "pointless". Animals are not like computers who follow the same pattern as every other animal. Animals have the ability to make choices, and have shown emotions.

Most erratic behavior can be linked to genetic mutation...which sounds nasty, but is just a recessive gene becoming dominant or a new gene forming that exhibits a different behavior. Even much of our 'social' activity (altruism toward family members, for example) has a clear genetic backdrop for survival pruposes.

Saying it goes against our social nature to kill may be true, but it also goes against (speaking to the majority, excluding rogue mutations) our genetic nature...because genes that promote serial killing mentality, for example, will have their hosts die on them without reproduction and therefore, over time, won't become numerous in the gene pool....this is a case example of natural selection, which is indicative of a FAR larger trend than we could hope to catalogue here.

As for no one but us going against programming, no I can't claim that definitively, so my apologies for slightly overstepping my bounds. Environmental factors play a part in every species. But I'm still not far from the truth...because like I said, far more than most of us are aware of comes down to predetermined genetic disposition.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Haha. I'm an atheist. My heathen, devil-inspired opinion follows:

1. A system of moral laws from a supposed deity is just as arbitrary as any system. If the Christian Church can make a set of moral laws, so can I...and both are equally as valid so long as they are supported by justifiable reasoning.

2. Don't you find it odd that the reason that you are "good" is because someone told you to, with fear of punishment (Hell) for not following them? Sounds like an angry parent dictating rules to a child to me. I'm "good" because I decide to be on my own. It's liberating. You should try it.

3. Social relativism: If I didn't have some standard of moral that is at least roughly consistent with the status quo, I'd end up in jail or dead. Same with anyone, religious or not. Why do think religious teachings, on the whole, have mellowed through the centuries? It's so they aren't persecuted by the general populace for being too rigid and evil. Witch burnings ftw!

4. Evolution. Inamilist summarized it well. basically, our bodies are programmed via thousands/millions of years of genetic conditioning to be altruistic in a general sense toward the species (and more specfically toward close relatives) to ensure the survival of our genes. In an evolutionary sense, terms like morality, altruism, and selfishness are explained fully and the whole thing becomes de-mystified.

Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.

West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.

Right, which would go into the "social relativism" section of my numbered opinions there. I was also brought up a Catholic, so I more than most current atheists can probably attribute my idea of morality to Christian influences.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Most erratic behavior can be linked to genetic mutation...which sounds nasty, but is just a recessive gene becoming dominant or a new gene forming that exhibits a different behavior. Even much of our 'social' activity (altruism toward family members, for example) has a clear genetic backdrop for survival pruposes.

Saying it goes against our social nature to kill may be true, but it also goes against (speaking to the majority, excluding rogue mutations) our genetic nature...because genes that promote serial killing mentality, for example, will have their hosts die on them without reproduction and therefore, over time, won't become numerous in the gene pool....this is a case example of natural selection, which is indicative of a FAR larger trend than we could hope to catalogue here.

As for no one but us going against programming, no I can't claim that definitively, so my apologies for slightly overstepping my bounds. Environmental factors play a part in every species. But I'm still not far from the truth...because like I said, far more than most of us are aware of comes down to predetermined genetic disposition.



Not all humans are the same, and likewise, niether are all animals. And I don't beleive that survival is our only desire in life, only our first instinct. I highly doubt that survival is an animal's only desire either, especially where pets are concerned.


The confusion I have with God having set forth Evolution is that it would suggest that God is working by means of chance, through uncertainties, and through a series of conditional consecutive choices.


That's unlike a "perfect" "all knowing" and "unchanging" God to do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.

West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not.



Which is why I feel I am right to challenge it or question it. For one to say that Christianity has no effect on my life is false, for it has been one of the greatest forces in shaping my self and environment.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Right, which would go into the "social relativism" section of my numbered opinions there. I was also brought up a Catholic, so I more than most current atheists can probably attribute my idea of morality to Christian influences.

Its a collective Western morality. Everything in the West is shaped and influenced by Christianity - some things more than others. (Well Roman Catholicism to begin with, then it branched off)

We can argue that it slowed down a lot of progress in some aspects - but that too is part of the culture.

Also, I said in the previous post Christian culture, its actually more Judeo-Christian, but you get the gist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

So you'd probably think it was okay to kill people if the bible didn't say otherwise?

Our morals come from places other than religion. Such as contributions from society, and just basic human morality.

Originally posted by BackFire
So you'd probably think it was okay to kill people if the bible didn't say otherwise?

Our morals come from places other than religion. Such as contributions from society, and just basic human morality.



Exactly. I am surprised he needed a book to tell him that killing someone was bad.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Not all humans are the same, and likewise, niether are all animals. And I don't beleive that survival is our only desire in life, only our first instinct. I highly doubt that survival is an animal's only desire either, especially where pets are concerned.


The confusion I have with God having set forth Evolution is that it would suggest that God is working by means of chance, through uncertainties, and through a series of conditional consecutive choices.


That's unlike a "perfect" "all knowing" and "unchanging" God to do.

No, all humans aren't alike. That's the point. We have different genes, which construct us differently. And since, for example, our family share more genes with us than strangers, we're more likely to be programmed to be altruistic toward them, because genes would tend to survive that promoted mutual altruism instead of mutual slefishness, which would quickly kill themselves off and diminish themselves in the gene pool.

And it is isn't about individual survival. It's about gene survival. They don't actively "want" anything, even survival, since they aren't at the level to have such desires. But because of their nature they construct survival machines (us) to help them survive. We aren't conscious of this either, it's simply hard-wired into our tendencies and actions. Thus, acts like altruism can genuinely be thought of as 'selfless' and 'good' on an individual (human) level because we don't perceive ourselves as doing this for some kind of genetic survival....but these acts can simultaneously be acts that serve the good of our genes. Natural selection has developed, over millions of years, vessles that act on behalf of their genes unconsciously, and this generally involves altruism toward kin and even a larger community of our species.

There are always exceptions, of course, and our consciousness and intelligence gives us other tools for overcoming these tendencies, but that remains the general rule.

...

Yes, throwing God into it poses problems. Evolution is actually quite elegant however...not the hyper-unlikely nigh-impossibility some believe.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Exactly. I am surprised he needed a book to tell him that killing someone was bad.

That is because you're speaking from perspective of someone living in a developed society, 2007AD.

If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.

Or even if you're born in Middle East, your answer might not be the same.

Regardless, I'm not saying Bible told everyone what to do, I am saying those ten commandments have influenced laws and morality of Western Society.

Sometimes it influenced right people, sometimes the wrong ones.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is because you're speaking from perspective of someone living in a developed society, 2007AD.

If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.

Or even if you're born in Middle East, your answer might not be the same.

Regardless, I'm not saying Bible told everyone what to do, I am saying those ten commandments have influenced laws and morality of Western Society.

Sometimes it influenced right people, sometimes the wrong ones.






Well...the Middle East is full of poverty and suffering, to a greater extent than the West. Not to mention fueds which keep refueling themselves between towns.


If I were filled with Anger and Rage, I would think killing was right, or atleast not a big deal in comparison to the pain I felt.


However, being someone with a generally basic slate, I can objectively look at an act of murder, and still see something i just don't like.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its a collective Western morality. Everything in the West is shaped and influenced by Christianity - some things more than others. (Well Roman Catholicism to begin with, then it branched off)

We can argue that it slowed down a lot of progress in some aspects - but that too is part of the culture.

Also, I said in the previous post Christian culture, its actually more Judeo-Christian, but you get the gist.

For the most part, I agree. Much as I can't agree with Catholicism anymore, I'm probably indebted to it for shaping much of my moral "base". And yes, culture defining morality is a huge trend throughout the world, whether it is merely social morality or religious morality.

As for its impact on culture, a Christian will tell you the Church kept progress alive suring say, the Dark Ages and has had countless positive cultural influecnes (partially true) and others will say it inhibits scientific progress, among other things (also partially true). It's an amusing matter of perspective.

I feel like I am beginning to break down my traditional Christian morality (I no longer believe in root concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' for example) but in terms of functional reality (what I do in my life) not much has changed between Mark "then" and Mark "now" and it's because of my culture, most likely.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

It is a great book.

Originally posted by chithappens
The question is an insult to me. If anyone else sees it as "innocent" that is a point of view I guess, but why would I need God for morals?



Thats exactly what I was thinking and why Queiro got attacked. It sounded like hey "The Bible tell me what to do, but athiests make up morality as you go along."

Where did he say or imply that?

A-T-H-E-I-S-T.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Where did he say or imply that?

A-T-H-E-I-S-T.

Here.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

and here.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I'm not denying that at all. Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion "Atheists can be moral." Ok, fine, but where do these morals come from? Did Dawkins just pull his morals out of his ass "I think this is wrong. I didn't get this from any formulized rules, I just arbitrarily made this up. This is what I will live by"?

Are you correcting my spelling?

What the hell? In what way does "This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference." imply that atheists "make up morality as they go along"?

The second quote was a jab at Dawkins, if that.

And am I correcting your spelling? I thought it was very evident that I was.

Originally posted by backdoorman
What the hell? In what way does "This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference." imply that atheists "make up morality as they go along"?



The way I see it no religous perference can mean that you dont really believe in religon, its like saying you dont have an opinion on a subject. If you dont have an opinion you dont care or think the subject is irrelevant, if you dont have religous prefernce you dont care about religon and think its irrelevant. I think athiesm comes under that.


Originally posted by backdoorman

The second quote was a jab at Dawkins, if that.

Right....so how did the issue of Dawkins come up? Did it come up because somebody thought that atheism was an example of no religous pereference? Also did you notice that Quiero didnt say "Hey man I said people with no religous preference, that doesnt include atheism!" Therefore you can see that Quiero saw Dawkins as somebody who had no religous preference.

Oh god, you have to be kidding. All he was saying was that the thread was aimed at people that don't have religious beliefs. I.E. atheists and agnostics.


Atheism does ****ing fall under "no religious preference" in the context in which Quiero said it.

Bottom line, you're making a ridiculous and incoherent argument.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Oh god, you have to be kidding. All he was saying was that the thread was aimed at people that don't have religious beliefs. I.E. atheists and agnostics.
Isnt that what I said?

Originally posted by Alfheim
The way I see it no religous perference can mean that you dont really believe in religon, its like saying you dont have an opinion on a subject. If you dont have an opinion you dont care or think the subject is irrelevant, if you dont have religous prefernce you dont care about religon and think its irrelevant. I think athiesm comes under that.



Originally posted by backdoorman

Atheism does ****ing fall under "no religious preference" in the context in which Quiero said it.

Bottom line, you're making a ridiculous and incoherent argument.

Is this some sort of joke?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Isnt that what I said?






Is this some sort of joke?
Hahaha, no. I asked you where he implied that "Atheists make up morality as they go along".

Originally posted by backdoorman
Hahaha, no.


What so i didnt say that the thread was aimed at atheists?

Originally posted by backdoorman

I asked you where he implied that "Atheists make up morality as they go along".

Because the thread was aimed at athiests. Christians get their morality from the Bible, therefore its not illogical to assume that he thinks that athiests create their own morality. Is there an athiest bible, no.

I mean look at this. He even put decided in italics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?

Here he is implying that Dawkins makes up his morality.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


I'm not denying that at all. Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion "Atheists can be moral." Ok, fine, but where do these morals come from? Did Dawkins just pull his morals out of his ass "I think this is wrong. I didn't get this from any formulized rules, I just arbitrarily made this up. This is what I will live by"?

I dont see how thats an illogical conclusion.

Originally posted by backdoorman


Atheism does ****ing fall under "no religious preference" in the context in which Quiero said it.


...but you said earlier that the thread was aimed at agnostics and atheists, didnt you?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Oh god, you have to be kidding. All he was saying was that the thread was aimed at people that don't have religious beliefs. I.E. atheists and agnostics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I see. So you just made up your own morals, or otherwise decided on some for reasons that weren't already existent. Is there anyhing else that you just decided was right and wrong?

In a more general, historic sense, it isn't as easy as saying "so you just made up your own morals" - there are already morals in the world today that have, in one form or another, predated Christianity by thousands of years, and are in no way unique to it.

Because morals are more things of a grand, social nature. Rarely does a single person define the moral nature of all people. Now people can say Christianity has impacted largely on Western values and that is correct. But it has always been a balance of social and religious thought. We are raised socially in a moral climate of predefined rights and wrongs that have, themselves, developed over time in accordance with (as others have mentioned) altruism, empathy and the need for social order for stability and develoment.

If one is open to the idea that God/gods/whatever may not exist then the morals you draw from the Bible are human in origin, as I believe all morals to be anyway.

I don't make up my own morals - I am morally inspired by a moral code that has developed over countless years as a result of increasing human understanding and reason coupled with a desire and the ideal things should be good for as many people as possible for as much time as possible. And due to my own mind there are areas I can look at and think "that isn't right, we can do better" - and when enough people think like that for long enough morality changes over time.

Christ you're dense. I will try a different approach.


Ok, this is what you originally said: Thats exactly what I was thinking and why Queiro got attacked. It sounded like hey "The Bible tell me what to do, but athiests make up morality as you go along."
Quiero isn't saying that atheists walk around and suddenly decide this or that is immoral. In fact he hasn't made any allegations on how atheists get their moral codes, OK?



Yes... So?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.

I read through most of this, its been a fairly good discussion

I just wanted to sort of add 2cents here, since it is something I have seen a lot.

A often touted idea is that it was impossible to be an atheist prior to Darwin or geology or modern science, however (and like any good scholar I can't remember the reference, only that Hitchens talks about this case in his new book) there are times where even during the inquisition, regular uneducated people who were to be burned for heresy would say things like "I have been so made that I cannot believe".

I'm not arguing your point B, in fact I probably agree with it, I just wanted to point out that even though we do live in a modern world, the idea of disbelief is not an inherently modern one. It is actually really romantic of an idea to me, to think that smart, everyday working people throughout history may not have been as brainwashed as we think (if they were more oppressed for thinking).

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

I don't make up my own morals - I am morally inspired by a moral code that has developed over countless years as a result of increasing human understanding and reason coupled with a desire and the ideal things should be good for as many people as possible for as much time as possible. And due to my own mind there are areas I can look at and think "that isn't right, we can do better" - and when enough people think like that for long enough morality changes over time.

This is not to insult you but what is so complex about:

Originally posted by chithappens
Morals could damn near be summed up in stuff you just would not do to yourself.

Examples:

Would you ass rape yourself?

Would you kill yourself?

Steal from yourself?

So on and so on.

Morality becomes complex ONLY when trying to justifying these actions that you would never do to yourself.



Slave masters did not give a damn about dehumanizing a slave,but you never heard of any black man touching a railroad track. Know why? Cause slaves were worth too much money. That is not a moral thought, that is a business thought.

*This happens to be an example from American history but this could be applied in many eras of history and many locations

Should it have been wrong morally? Yes. Did they give a damn? Apparently not. Maybe slave masters happened to all be agnostic until right before they die, then they tell Jesus they are sorry and go to heaven.

A person should NOT put the reasoning of the masses as their #1 reason for certain morality (not saying Samura does that; just saying...). I don't give a damn what people thought and have "developed" because when the shit hits the fan, all that goes out the window, ALL OF IT.

I try my best to live as a man I will respect tomorrow. That is as complex as my morality goes.

The big problem with basing morality off of "Do unto others as you would see them do unto you" is when people start thinking "Well, if I was gay I'd certainly kill myself."

It doesn't work like that, a system of morals has to be based on something social, not personal.

And indeed a huge amount of phiosophical thought has gone into this area over time.

I don't really have much truck with this idea that all modern western thought is spun off from Christianity; that does not stand up to close examination.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The big problem with basing morality off of "Do unto others as you would see them do unto you" is when people start thinking "Well, if I was gay I'd certainly kill myself."


Touche, to an extent...

I don't know what most people assume with the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. I don't go off the assumption of changing traits and assuming I was white or tall or anything like that.

I am Chit, and I can only view it from Chit's point of view. What you are talking about it speaking in some sort of logical fallacy.

I agree though, I could see some people totally ****ing up the entire idea though.

Absolutely. And it would mess up like that. As I say, you cannot base a system of morality on everyone's personal point of view about what is acceptable to do to yourself- that makes a nonsense of it all.

No, a developed system of morality has to be social, as I say, not personal.

But certainly, I do not go about the masses and told them to perceives things as I would. It would mess up a lot of stuff.

How you get people on certain moral understandings has a lot to do with the government in place and what they allow, I believe.

Some people WOULD do that, though, and would justify it on the 'Do unto others' principle.

The Holocaust could justify itself with such a viewpoint. It simply doesn't work.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

I don't really have much truck with this idea that all modern western thought is spun off from Christianity; that does not stand up to close examination.

However, when compared to any other historical philosophical tradition, it was that of Europe and Christianity that came up with secularism and the freedoms we enjoy today.

Yes, the church opposed every major scientific and social advance ever, but the philosophy of western christianity contained the proper memes that eventually lead progressive thinkers to adopt modern values.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, a developed system of morality has to be social, as I say, not personal.

agreed

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Some people WOULD do that, though, and would justify it on the 'Do unto others' principle.

The Holocaust could justify itself with such a viewpoint. It simply doesn't work.

But I think that is twisting the entire point for gain.

It's not "If if were you, this is what I would do to me" idea. It is a "I am me, and I would not violate myself, so I won't violate you." It has nothing to do with "putting yourself in their shoes." You are you and it is not meant to be said any other way.

This is how I understand it.

The problem with that, inimalist, is that the Greeks were already working with such memes, and so much of the Renaissance was about the rediscovery of such approaches.

In fact, sources for such secularist advance are many and varied.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The problem with that, inimalist, is that the Greeks were already working with such memes, and so much of the Renaissance was about the rediscovery of such approaches.

In fact, sources for such secularist advance are many and varied.

No, I totally agree with that. I took a big chunk out of my post about the Greeks.

However, Christian society allowed for such a renaissance.

lol, we can get all chicken and egg, but I don't think I am disagreeing with you...

Wouldn't that have to be "Do unto others as you would see them do unto you if you were them"?

I fail to see a significant distinction.

Really? Well the distinction is quite clear. The person that thinks that he'd kill himself if he were gay would not kill the gay person if the law is "Treat others the way you like to be treated." but he would if the law was "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated if you were them." you understand?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Christ you're dense. I will try a different approach.
Ok, this is what you originally said: Thats exactly what I was thinking and why Queiro got attacked. It sounded like hey "The Bible tell me what to do, but athiests make up morality as you go along."
Quiero isn't saying that atheists walk around and suddenly decide this or that is immoral. In fact he hasn't made any allegations on how atheists get their moral codes, OK?


No, it doesnt change the fact that its not illogical to think that due to the reasons I gave, you didnt adress the reasons I gave you you just simply said in so many words "this is how I see it."

If you can explain to me why my reason were illogical then maybe we can get somewhere. You also said he made a jibe at Dawkins what was he making a jibe about? Dawkins hair colour or the fact that he created his own morality.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No, it doesnt change the fact that its not illogical to think that due to the reasons I gave, you didnt adress the reasons I gave you you just simply said in so many words "this is how I see it."
You are so inarticulate, it's honestly hard to understand what you are saying. Had you presented the argument to me in a more clear manner, I might have been able to make a response. Please reword and I will answer.


From what he (Quiero) read of Dawkins' book, all Dawkins said was that there was morality and strong moral codes among atheists but he didn't see Dawkins' reasoning of the origin of his moral standards. That's where the "jab" comes in. You follow me?

Originally posted by backdoorman
Really? Well the distinction is quite clear. The person that thinks that he'd kill himself if he were gay would not kill the gay person if the law is "Treat others the way you like to be treated." but he would if the law was "Treat others the way you'd like to be treated if you were them." you understand?

No, it's not clear at all, and your logic there is wrong. The person who would kill himself if he was gay would use that as a justification to kill others if they were gay, and would not be at all slowed by the 'do unto others' philosophy.

There's really no distinction at all. Really the words you add are superfluous.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, it's not clear at all, and your logic there is wrong. The person who would kill himself if he was gay would use that as a justification to kill others if they were gay, and would not be at all slowed by the 'do unto others' philosophy.

There's really no distinction at all. Really the words you add are superfluous. Well, there is though.

The one states you should do what you want to be done to yourself regardless of the situation (not be killed)

The other states that you should do what you want to be done to yourself if you were in their situation (be killed)

- B-bardock

Originally posted by backdoorman
You are so inarticulate, it's honestly hard to understand what you are saying. Had you presented the argument to me in a more clear manner, I might have been able to make a response. Please reword and I will answer.


You dont understand this?

Originally posted by Alfheim


Because the thread was aimed at athiests. Christians get their morality from the Bible, therefore its not illogical to assume that he thinks that athiests create their own morality. Is there an athiest bible, no.



Originally posted by backdoorman

From what he (Quiero) read of Dawkins' book, all Dawkins said was that there was morality and strong moral codes among atheists but he didn't see Dawkins' reasoning of the origin of his moral standards. That's where the "jab" comes in. You follow me?

Yes. He just wanted to know were they got their moral values from. I still dont see how it cant be seen as him veiwing that athiests create their own morality, it simply seems to be a matter of opinion but considering Christians seem to think they are morally superior that is not an illogical conclusion.

LOL, no one is paying attention to syntax, even after previous examples.

Originally posted by Sanctuary
Well, there is though.

The one states you should do what you want to be done to yourself regardless of the situation (not be killed)

The other states that you should do what you want to be done to yourself if you were in their situation (be killed)

- B-bardock

Err... no, that's just very simply not so.

I don't know where this confusion is coming from on a basic topic. Where is this 'regardless of situation' nonsense coming from?

The basis of the 'do unto others' philosophy is that it would proscribe things like murder on the idea that you would not like to be murdered yourself. But if you think that you should die if you are gay, you would apply that to others also.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err... no, that's just very simply not so.

I don't know where this confusion is coming from on a basic topic. Where is this 'regardless of situation' nonsense coming from?

The basis of the 'do unto others' philosophy is that it would proscribe things like murder on the idea that you would not like to be murdered yourself. But if you think that you should die if you are gay, you would apply that to others also. Wouldn't that come in conflict with "I don't want to be murdered" then?

No, because your reasoning for not being murdered would disappear if you were gay.

That's certainly the logic you would apply. "If I were gay I would deserve to die."

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.

West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not. While I agree that much of modern morality in the US is Christian based but with the influx of immigrants around the world I think that it is less so than 50 years ago. Even with Christian morality was influenced by the culture and people before its founding.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, because your reasoning for not being murdered would disappear if you were gay.

That's certainly the logic you would apply. "If I were gay I would deserve to die." Anyways, there is a distinction between doing what you want done to yourself and doing what you would want to be done to yourself if you were in the situation. You apparently think the "do unto others..." thing is the later, not everyone does, of course.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

...

As for attacks that atheists arbitrarily decide on a set of morals, to me (and many others) the moral standards of religions are equally as arbitrary. And you aren't automatically more "correct" because you have the backing of an organized body of people (neither is 'correct' or 'incorrect' in a strict sense).

It sounds a tad Materialistic, especially considering that our behavior is inherited by are parents after birth. Unless, he's talking about human instinct which is a bit far removed from morals.

Originally posted by backdoorman
From what he (Quiero) read of Dawkins' book, all Dawkins said was that there was morality and strong moral codes among atheists but he didn't see Dawkins' reasoning of the origin of his moral standards. That's where the "jab" comes in. You follow me?

That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.

And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
How many holy wars have been carried out by Atheists?


Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.

Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.

And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself.



Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.

Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals.....

Hitler was a Catholic.

He was raised Catholic.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's right, ey. And just like Alfheim said; there's no Atheist's Bible.

And if there was, it would likely be written by Dawkins himself.



Holy wars? None. But Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Polpot were all atheists.

Hitler and Stalin; two individuals, who combined, are responsible for tens of millions of human deaths, why? Because they arbitrarily made up their own morals..... It is still debatable if Hitler was but from his quotes and past beliefs I believe he was religious

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He was raised Catholic.

So, he wasn't a good Catholic, but he was baptised a Catholic.

You honestly believe that during the height of the death camps in the 40's, that he was a devout, practising, believing Catholic?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, he wasn't a good Catholic, but he was baptised a Catholic.

He was raised into religion just like Stalin. And just like Stalin, he abondoned his religion in his adulthood, for something he viewed as better.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You honestly believe that during the height of the death camps in the 40's, that he was a devout, practising, believing Catholic?

No, but he was not an atheist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He was raised into religion just like Stalin. And just like Stalin, he abondoned his religion in his adulthood, for something he viewed as better.

But I think Stalin was an atheist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, but he was not an atheist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He was raised into religion just like Stalin. And just like Stalin, he abondoned his religion in his adulthood, for something he viewed as better.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota


I bet he's (Hitler that is) in heaven with god

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I bet he's (Hitler that is) in heaven with god

I certainly hope not.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I certainly hope not.

Would you complane to god if he was there when you get there?

I'm certain he isn't there.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm certain he isn't there.

Why to dodge the question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why to dodge the question.

Ok then; yes, I would complain.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Stalin was a confirmed athiest and he's responsible for way more death than Hitler. His lack of belief in any god had a lot to do with his motivations.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok then; yes, I would complain.

Thank you for your honesty. I know how hard that question is, because you don't want to piss off god.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If. That's extremely doubtful anyways.

Stalin was a confirmed athiest and he's responsible for way more death than Hitler. His lack of belief in any god had a lot to do with his motivations. Even with Stalin it was more about the power of the church and the influence that it had over the people than it was about god, he wanted absolute control and religion interfered with that. As for Hitler you could say because of his actions he was not Catholic but by his words he would still believe twisted or not.

Also how was Stalin a "confirmed" Atheist?

Actually, it's not really a bad thing that churches wanted some influence in state policy. It only became a problem when the power went to the papacy's head.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Actually, it's not really a bad thing that churches wanted some influence in state policy. It only became a problem when the power went to the papacy's head. Wanting and having are two different things and which church should have power in the government?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Wanting and having are two different things and which church should have power in the government?

Re-read what I posted, I never mentioned that the church should have power. I'm talking about the early church's attempt at power.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I don't see what good the church could do know. Times have certainly change, and it's a bit outdated. Well in many ways the church or religion has major influence in government through its followers.

well im a non-practicing catholic...but my dad's a deacon...

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well in many ways the church or religion has major influence in government through its followers.

Because religion at certain times offers people things the state has not.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Because religion at certain times offers people things the state has not. so do drugs

Originally posted by Da Pittman
so do drugs

I know what your getting at; but that wasn't what I meant.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Because religion at certain times offers people things the state has not.

Religion is the opiate of the people.

opium for the masses

Edit: damn you beat me to it

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Religion is the opiate of the people.

Like Buddhism?

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Like Buddhism? I think that is pot

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think that is pot

Funny thing is that alot of forms of shamanism did you Psychedelic plants for rituals.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Like Buddhism?

I wasn't agreeing with it, I just know it was time for it. It was a prophecy...

It was a joke, mane.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
It was a joke, mane.

I wasn't upset.

Check out "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society," it's a book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman that explores the psychology of the act of killing and the military establishment's attempt to understand and deal with the consequences of killing.
It breaks down how soldiers barriers are broken down, so they'll kill in combat. His research showed that most men in a combat situation had a strong aversion to killing, and that they had an innate sense that it was wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Religion is the opiate of the people. A poppy much loved.

Though people are aways seeing. Why is that I wonder.

Originally posted by chithappens
Slave masters did not give a damn about dehumanizing a slave,but you never heard of any black man touching a railroad track. Know why? Cause slaves were worth too much money. That is not a moral thought, that is a business thought.

*This happens to be an example from American history but this could be applied in many eras of history and many locations

Should it have been wrong morally? Yes. Did they give a damn? Apparently not. Maybe slave masters happened to all be agnostic until right before they die, then they tell Jesus they are sorry and go to heaven.

A person should NOT put the reasoning of the masses as their #1 reason for certain morality (not saying Samura does that; just saying...). I don't give a damn what people thought and have "developed" because when the shit hits the fan, all that goes out the window, ALL OF IT.

I try my best to live as a man I will respect tomorrow. That is as complex as my morality goes.

Although history hasn't shown it to be nearly as black and white. Which is where the "growing human understanding and respect" - that is empathy and altruism - come into it.

Plenty of slave masters where religious people, plenty or religious people justified slavery and religious influence into other cultures as a duty of their's - to bring the heathen out of the darkness. "Blacks live in mud huts and wear little, we take them over here and they have homes and jobs and the chance to save their souls."

Hypocrisy? Certainly seems that way. Slavery became more and more of a moral issue as more and more people with empathy for slaves put their rights above economic interests and outdated religious concepts. Which is a complex interplay compared to say, Sparta, with its attitudes for slavery, or any ancient nation.

You can break morality down to something really simple but in practice it is a complex system being influenced by various aspects of society, by education, by perception of self and of others, by law, by tradition, by religion, by class divides.

And besides you forget that people can make moral issues about things that don't affect them directly - morality influencing decisions on stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, war, the place religion should have in society and so on. Do unto others is a fine place to start, but it is far to simple to deal with the extensive difference people may have when it comes to certain issues and opinions.



Hitler and his cronies where a mess of psuedo-history, mysticism, psuedo-religion and twisted evolutionary theory. To say Hitler is an Atheist isn't anymore accurate then saying he was a devout Christian. He toed an odd-line between the two. There has been an increasing amount of scholarism on that subject recently - The Master Plan by Heather Pringle is an interesting read as it shows the madness behind so many of the Nazi party theories on race and religion.



Actually his actions are more separate from religion/Atheism and are political in nature. He didn't go around saying "Bwaaahh! I am an Atheist, I kill you all because I am an Atheist!!!" it was more "Bwaaah! I perceive you as a threat, I kill you because you are all a threat".

Now you could say something like "well, maybe if he had been religious he wouldn't have done it" but I don't buy that. Once again - as history shows if a person wants to do something they will find a way to justify it with or without religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Religion is the opiate of the people.
Its opium of the masses


Ok my turn -

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although history hasn't shown it to be nearly as black and white. Which is where the "growing human understanding and respect" - that is empathy and altruism - come into it.

Plenty of slave masters where religious people, plenty or religious people justified slavery and religious influence into other cultures as a duty of their's - to bring the heathen out of the darkness. "Blacks live in mud huts and wear little, we take them over here and they have homes and jobs and the chance to save their souls."

Hypocrisy? Certainly seems that way. Slavery became more and more of a moral issue as more and more people with empathy for slaves put their rights above economic interests and outdated religious concepts. Which is a complex interplay compared to say, Sparta, with its attitudes for slavery, or any ancient nation.

You can break morality down to something really simple but in practice it is a complex system being influenced by various aspects of society, by education, by perception of self and of others, by law, by tradition, by religion, by class divides.

Hitler and his cronies where a mess of psuedo-history, mysticism, psuedo-religion and twisted evolutionary theory. To say Hitler is an Atheist isn't anymore accurate then saying he was a devout Christian. He toed an odd-line between the two. There has been an increasing amount of scholarism on that subject recently - The Master Plan by Heather Pringle is an interesting read as it shows the madness behind so many of the Nazi party theories on race and religion.

Actually his actions are more separate from religion/Atheism and are political in nature. He didn't go around saying "Bwaaahh! I am an Atheist, I kill you all because I am an Atheist!!!" it was more "Bwaaah! I perceive you as a threat, I kill you because you are all a threat".

Now you could say something like "well, maybe if he had been religious he wouldn't have done it" but I don't buy that. Once again - as history shows if a person wants to do something they will find a way to justify it with or without religion




Great post.

I still argue that if individuals took accountability for themselves that morality would work a lot better on a macro level. That is what is missing from the broad picture.

I am not optimistic enough to think that is possible for people, as a majority, to do so but I have always though the issue of politics was with the people, not the system. Even dictatorships would work DECENTLY if the ruler actually cared for his people.

*Oh and I like the sig Bitchiness

I still would like to know what people mean that Stalin was a confirmed Atheist

shrug, I didn't say it

Originally posted by chithappens
shrug, I didn't say it I have only heard of one quote by Stalin saying there wasn't a God "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense." - E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin

You would figure that if he was indeed leading a crusade against God and religion that he would have been quoted more often, now I just may not have found them and I'm not a history buff but if anyone has some more I would like to see them.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You honestly believe that during the height of the death camps in the 40's, that he was a devout, practising, believing Catholic?

Mohammed was a sincere muslim and he killed loads of people. People will always find some way to justify what evil they do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wasn't upset.

Well ok.... *punches Shaky* are you upset now?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Mohammed was a sincere muslim and he killed loads of people. People will always find some way to justify what evil they do.



Well ok.... *punches Shaky* are you upset now?

Sticks and stone will brake my bone but virtual punches will never hurt me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sticks and stone will brake my bone but virtual punches will never hurt me.

Ok I like this one "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words cause permanent pyschlogical damage."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sticks and stone will brake my bone but virtual punches will never hurt me.

What so I wasnt funny as well?

Originally posted by Alfheim
What so I wasnt funny as well? I got a chuckle out of yours but I liked Shaky's more. console

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I got a chuckle out of yours but I liked Shaky's more. console

It is refreshing to be able to switch from serious to facetious so quickly

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I still would like to know what people mean that Stalin was a confirmed Atheist

It means that it was known for a fact that he was. Unlike Hitler, there is no debate as to the religious views of Stalin.

Honestly, do you not know what "confirm" means?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Mohammed was a sincere muslim and he killed loads of people. People will always find some way to justify what evil they do.


Islam says to kill non-believers. But in the Bible; "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty straight forward. So Mohammed was obeying his religion, where as Hitler (if even was still Catholic) was not.

Bad comparison, homes.