Memes or God - where do you get philosophy for living

CDfm

Its easy for me as a Catholic to point to stuff which has informed me on my values and what I believe and my philosophy for life. Whoa -why ask in the atheist forum. Well not everyone has a God belief and live fairly good and moral lives-some posters in A+A are in occupations where ethics is part and parcel of life & they think deeply on matters but without a belief in God and from what I see would be fairly conservative.

Some societies formed similar religous beliefs seperately- but I think we should limit this to Christianity as a religion .I dont think we should debate extremes of belief as where beliefs come from is the issue.

Some like that good for nothing Charlatan - Richard Dawkins( he is not popular in Catholic circles) has borrowed the term memes to describe this Phenomenon. God, religion, philosophy,culture, genes,memes or whatever -where do these come from if you are not someone with a structured religious belief?.

Dave!

F*CKIN PIECE OF F*CKIN SH*T!!!!!!!!!!

I WROTE UP A F*CKIN REPLY AND THEN TRIED TO CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT TAB BUT ENDED UP CLICKING ON A DIFFERENT SITE!!!!!!

F*CKKKKKKKKKKKKKK



I'm done.

Dades

That's gotta hurt. :pac:

AtomicHorror

Isn't this just the same conversation we always have with you CD? I mean, in the end you're just going to say you don't understand where atheist morals come from again and around we go.

Genghiz Cohen

I don't need the threat of hell to be a decient person, what I do/don't do to people I expect in return.

I don't need some up-his-own-arse bishop/priest/pope to tell me not to steal, not to kill, not to harm others, I do it because it seems fair.

You don't need them either.

Ickle Magoo

Well, just because I have no religious belief does not mean mankind has never had them. Surely they have historically come from the same place as if I were theist? All these things have evolved (if you are talking about local Christianity) through socio-cultural development that, in the main, does/did believe in a God and the Bible.

In that respect many of the social norms and the social conscience I carry were borne of religion & religious people. That said, there is a long standing tradition of atheism & agnosticism in my family & not a debauched jailbird amongst them. :pac:

Do you mean why the minute I realised I was an atheist didn't I throw off the shackles of the law, parental expectation & societal norm & start wreaking havoc? I don't know...why do religious people steal, cheat, lie, rape children or join anti-Semitic youth movements? Morals & religion are clearly not mutually exclusive.

Overblood

Is this another "where do morals come from" thread?

that good for nothing Charlatan - Richard Dawkins

Oh yes, 100% charlatan. Up there with Jesus and the magic wine trick.

Zillah

My morality comes from 50% evolutionarily derived behavourial disposition, 50% peer pressure.

Humourously enough, so does yours.



(Percentages may vary)

AtomicHorror

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't need the threat of hell to be a decient person, what I do/don't do to people I expect in return.

I don't need some up-his-own-arse bishop/priest/pope to tell me not to steal, not to kill, not to harm others, I do it because it seems fair.

You don't need them either.

That's the spirit. Round and round and round.

I agree, by the way- I'm not taking a shot at you.

Zillah

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58022208&postcount=103

Karlusss

I get mine from Nietzsche and Derrida. It's depressing.

Calibos

Needless to say CDFM will say that his morals come from the Bible and also straight from the good lord himself.

Heres the thing CDFM. You used some of the morals the Lord gave you to decide which morals from the bible to follow and which to disregard.

In effect, God gave you the morals to find some of his morals written in his holy bible book of morals....immoral

Bit of a conundrum there CDFM isn't it:D

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't this just the same conversation we always have with you CD? I mean, in the end you're just going to say you don't understand where atheist morals come from again and around we go.

No AH. Our discussions were on religion and assumed a religous belief and God.

Some morals and ethics are cultural( say doctors dont sleep with their patients) but some are instinctive/biological (we are not cannibals) so where do these come from.

I am willing to put religion to one side and group religion under cultural if that helps.

Its the essence thats important and how do we get them.

CDfm

Karlusss wrote: »

I get mine from Nietzsche and Derrida. It's depressing.

It must be hard being a social construct -so much to live up to and take in all the time. Ya poor pet.

Húrin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't this just the same conversation we always have with you CD? I mean, in the end you're just going to say you don't understand where atheist morals come from again and around we go.

Indeed, there is a sad note of determination to it all. The posts below yours are good examples of how even innocent questions like CDfm's are taken to be accusations that atheists have no morals, and are thus defended vehemently.

CDfm

Calibos wrote: »

Needless to say CDFM will say that his morals come from the Bible and also straight from the good lord himself.

Heres the thing CDFM. You used some of the morals the Lord gave you to decide which morals from the bible to follow and which to disregard.

In effect, God gave you the morals to find some of his morals written in his holy bible book of morals....immoral

Bit of a conundrum there CDFM isn't it:D

Not really - it shouldnt matter if some issues are biological - because if you take it to its natural conclusion ,whether or not there is a God as a creator, these should be neutral whether a person is atheist or not is of no consequence.

So which parts form these.

A proper discussion then would define these and then try to account for the others. The bible you might file under cultural or philosophy to be consistant. But its still the same thing- what is the mechanism and why are beliefs so homogenous.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

Its the essence thats important and how do we get them.

Have we not always had them to greater or lesser extent? Is that not the difference between us & other less evolved animals? We have better social cohesion & do better as a whole because we live within these universal rules & boundaries that have evolved to allow us to work together as a group, for the good of the group...

Ickle Magoo

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, there is a sad note of determination to it all. The posts below yours are good examples of how even innocent questions like CDfm's are taken to be accusations that atheists have no morals, and are thus defended vehemently.

Not at all - I don't feel any need to defend my status & nor did I feel that CDfm was accusing me of having no morals. I just meant to turn the question around from my point of view there seems to be an alarming number of religious people with far dicier morals than I would expect, if morality is indeed, God given.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, there is a sad note of determination to it all. The posts below yours are good examples of how even innocent questions like CDfm's are taken to be accusations that atheists have no morals, and are thus defended vehemently.

Its hard to drop a stereotype but I'm a bit out of my comfortzone here and there is no hidden agenda just to see is there a general model that trancends religion and atheism etc without the usual rhetoric.

Im optiimistic.

Húrin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not at all - I don't feel any need to defend my status & nor did I feel that CDfm was accusing me of having no morals.

So why then did you feel the need to refute a claim he didn't make?

Do you mean why the minute I realised I was an atheist didn't I throw off the shackles of the law, parental expectation & societal norm & start wreaking havoc? I don't know...why do religious people steal, cheat, lie, rape children or join anti-Semitic youth movements? Morals & religion are clearly not mutually exclusive.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

Well not everyone has a God belief and live fairly good and moral lives-

Who's refuting, if anything I was in complete agreement ^ ^

What seems to be the issue with turning the question around to where some theists get their memes which are at odds with what they should be? Is that not the other side to the question of why atheists live "fairly good & moral lives"? Atheists not the only only ones fast to jump on the auld defensive wagon, clearly...

ChocolateSauce

Long story short (really long, really short), I derive mine from an innate feeling, and build them up with rigorous logic.

I could go into it more CDfm, but I'd just be either saying things I've said in the past or echoing what other's have said in this thread.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, just because I have no religious belief does not mean mankind has never had them. Surely they have historically come from the same place as if I were theist? All these things have evolved (if you are talking about local Christianity) through socio-cultural development that, in the main, does/did believe in a God and the Bible.

In that respect many of the social norms and the social conscience I carry were borne of religion & religious people. That said, there is a long standing tradition of atheism & agnosticism in my family & not a debauched jailbird amongst them. :pac:

Do you mean why the minute I realised I was an atheist didn't I throw off the shackles of the law, parental expectation & societal norm & start wreaking havoc? I don't know...why do religious people steal, cheat, lie, rape children or join anti-Semitic youth movements? Morals & religion are clearly not mutually exclusive.

This is exactly what I meant " Morals & religion are clearly not mutually
exclusive"

So how do we come to have them?

The Greeks and Romans had them.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

So why then did you feel the need to refute a claim he didn't make?

Say some morals are part of our make up - evolution or creation - are they not still part of our biology. What are these?

The jesuits used to say "give me a child for his first 7 years and I will give you the man" so what are these values or rather cathegory of value?

Have they been absorbed into our society?

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Long story short (really long, really short), I derive mine from an innate feeling, and build them up with rigorous logic.

I could go into it more CDfm, but I'd just be either saying things I've said in the past or echoing what other's have said in this thread.

But your views are equally valid -anyway.

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't need the threat of hell to be a decient person

A lot of religious people do, even by their own admission. Weird.

Calibos

Appologies, I think I spend too much time on the US Jref forums where a much higher percentage of religious posters are more fundy in nature and more often than not, reasonable sounding posts and questions turn out to be them just setting up a strawman rather than a qenuine question etc.

I sometimes forget that while there are a few characters like that on the Christianity forum here, more often than not, those that post in the boards.ie A&A forum are genuinely seeking a dialogue and/or asking genuine questions.

This would apply to a lot of my recent posts in other threads too. Being way too defensive and turning a lot of my replies into 'attacks' a little too quickly before giving myself time to discern what kind of religious poster I am dealing with.

I'd liken it to coming back from the war (JREF) and taking the soldiers mindset to civvie street (boards)

JC 2K3

It's just evolution. Tendencies towards particular behaviours which helped us to survive as a species.

What's so hard to understand?

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It's just evolution. Tendencies towards particular behaviours which helped us to survive as a species.

What's so hard to understand?

OK smartarse; monogamy :biological,adaptive behavior or a social construct?

CDfm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I don't need the threat of hell to be a decient person, what I do/don't do to people I expect in return.

I don't need some up-his-own-arse bishop/priest/pope to tell me not to steal, not to kill, not to harm others, I do it because it seems fair.

You don't need them either.

So thats why we have criminals and criminal and civil justice systems is it?

You do get told by someone and at some level its fear based.

Zillah wrote: »

My morality comes from 50% evolutionarily derived behavourial disposition, 50% peer pressure.

Humourously enough, so does yours.



(Percentages may vary)

So you have free will.

Karlusss wrote: »

I get mine from Nietzsche and Derrida. It's depressing.

Really - interesting that you mention Nietzche but then he was a bit of a hack and wrote loads of stuff. Something for everyone there. His fans would have said a new paradigm at the time,if the phrase was kicking around' whereas his detractors would have said bible subtitute and derivative from the Greeks -Aristotle and Plato perhaps?

But you havent answered why or where?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Long story short (really long, really short), I derive mine from an innate feeling, and build them up with rigorous logic.

Inate sence of good or fear of getting caught.

Do you get guilt? Ever cheat on a girlfriend and what stops you doing it?

robindch wrote: »

A lot of religious people do, even by their own admission. Weird.

So religous people are not perfect and bend or break their own rules. Free will & sin being part of the deal. Admission/confession or reflection on right or wrong. Atheists and agnostics reflect on ethics and in A+A I have read many threads whose simplicity and goodness meant a lot of thought or instinct about the welfare of others was part of the deal.

Atheists may not have sin - but can be altruistic, feel regret and guilt. Why?

tech77

Zillah wrote: »

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58022208&postcount=103

Yeah, of course empathy/co-operativity are evolutionarily fitting.
But (and i started a thread about this before) is run-of-the-mill empathy enough?
What are the limits to this evolutionary compassion.

Is it absolute, allowing for the survival of all forms of life in your society above.

CDfm

tech77 wrote: »

Yeah, of course empathy/co-operativity are evolutionarily fitting.
But (and i started a thread about this before) is run-of-the-mill empathy enough?
What are the limits to this evolutionary compassion.

Is it absolute, allowing for the survival of all forms of life in your society above.

But thats abstract -what about real situations - the romans killed handicapped babies and we dont? (Abortion isnt the topic)

What are these norms and origans -is it because we are altruistic or do we have more resourses.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

But thats abstract -what about real situations - the romans killed handicapped babies and we dont? (Abortion isnt the topic)

What or these norms and origans -is it because we are altruistic or do we have more resourses.

It's cute that you think we now have it right. Maybe the Romans would think you're being unforgiveably cruel allowing handicapped babies to struggle through long fruitless lives. Kind of selfish of you to allow your short sighted sympathies to condemn another sentience to decades of suffering.

So you have free will.

I have the appearance thereof. For all intents and purposes I may as well have, but I'll still contend that the very word "free will" is nonesense. We'd need a new thread for that though.

tech77 wrote: »

Yeah, of course empathy/co-operativity are evolutionarily fitting.
But (and i started a thread about this before) is run-of-the-mill empathy enough?
What are the limits to this evolutionary compassion.

Is it absolute, allowing for the survival of all forms of life in your society above.

Could you ask the question again, except much better this time? For example, what is run of the mill empathy and what alternatives are there to it? As for limits of compassion...er, look around you. We see them everyday. The very fact that you use the term "evolutionary compassion" as opposed to just the word 'compassion' sets off warning bells. Is there a variety of compassion that is not an evolutionary trait?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

It's cute that you think we now have it right. Maybe the Romans would think you're being unforgiveably cruel allowing handicapped babies to struggle through long fruitless lives. Kind of selfish of you to allow your short sighted sympathies to condemn another sentience to decades of suffering.

is this a christian influence or did other non christan societies practice it to.

Zillah

Er...no, I'm pretty sure Christendom was not the first culture to not kill defective children.

[Kind of off topic]

That's not to imply, of course, that Christendom didn't kill plenty of defective children, it's just that being Muslim*, Incan** or a witch is what they'd consider worthy of death.

*Sacking of Jerusalem
** Extermination of said culture, including dashing out baby brains on rocks.

[/OT]

bnt

I like the Confucian version of the Golden Rule, which is (paraphrased) "If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else". This pre-dates the Christian version by about 500 years, and suits me better, since it implies "first do no harm".

Apart from that, much of my personal philosophy comes from watching other people screw up, and resolving not to screw up that way. This started at a very young age, with my incompetent parents, and continues to this day. Smoking, religion, excessive drinking, abusive relationships: all things I've seen and know not to do. It sounds like my life is defined by the things I don't do - which, now I think about it, is not a bad place to start from. :cool:

pH

CDfm wrote: »

is this a christian influence or did other non christan societies practice it to.

Hang on here, in Rwanda a country that is 95% Christian (55% Catholic), and therefore one of the most Christian societies on the planet, these morals that Christianity teaches, or this so called Christian influence seemed not to be present in 1994.

I'm not saying that there weren't a few priests and pastors who did try and save people (though on the other side of they coin there were others who actively participated in the genocide), what I'm looking at here is the behaviour of the general population, the vast majority of which were church going Christians, all of whom have been taught Christian morals all their lives.

We're not talking about minor moral failures here, impoliteness, not giving a few euro to charity or swearing, we're talking about participating in the mass murder of millions of men women and children, or at the very least standing aside and letting it happen.

I'm not sure how you or anyone can argue that Christian morals even exist, if you can be brought up a Christian and participate in the mass murder by machete of your neighbours, then as far as I'm concerned 'morals' is the wrong word to be using here.

CDfm

bnt wrote: »

I like the Confucian version of the Golden Rule, which is (paraphrased) "If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else". This pre-dates the Christian version by about 500 years, and suits me better, since it implies "first do no harm".

It sounds like my life is defined by the things I don't do - which, now I think about it, is not a bad place to start from. :cool:

Quite a cool philosophy :cool:

So we have built it up over time.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

That's not to imply, of course, that Christendom didn't kill plenty of defective children, it's just that being Muslim*, Incan** or a witch is what they'd consider worthy of death.

[/OT]

A very valid point.It strikes me that religious morality is optional and obedience is now personal and not enforced thru a powerful structure.History does inform us.

pH wrote: »

Hang on here, in Rwanda a country that is 95% Christian (55% Catholic), and therefore one of the most Christian societies on the planet, these morals that Christianity teaches, or this so called Christian influence seemed not to be present in 1994.

I'm not saying that there weren't a few priests and pastors who did try and save people (though on the other side of they coin there were others who actively participated in the genocide), what I'm looking at here is the behaviour of the general population, the vast majority of which were church going Christians, all of whom have been taught Christian morals all their lives.

I'm not sure how you or anyone can argue that Christian morals even exist, if you can be brought up a Christian and participate in the mass murder by machete of your neighbours, then as far as I'm concerned 'morals' is the wrong word to be using here.

Christian morals have free will. Unlikely as it may seem your view is shared by many Catholics including Pope Ben who has postulated on occasions that the numbers of Catholics worldwide is inflated because the attraction is not based on faith but access to education,charity, medical care and housing programmes.

In Rwanda the issues were tribal and political and were no less disturbing because some church officials participated. So you have a moral Christian and philosophy that didnt take hold.

There is always debate on a commandment on whether its "thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder" . The Catholic Church has never been totally against executions when they are for the general good and there is no real alternative.

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

OK smartarse; monogamy :biological,adaptive behavior or a social construct?

Fundamentally, biology. What makes sense to me is that we would seem to have a genetic trait that makes us very susceptible to influence at an early age, and that those species which tended to practice monogamy were better equipped for survival than those who did not. So children growing up in households with monogamous parents would be more likely to practice monogamous behaviour as adults.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Fundamentally, biology. What makes sense to me is that we would seem to have a genetic trait that makes us very susceptible to influence at an early age, and that those species which tended to practice monogamy were better equipped for survival than those who did not. So children growing up in households with monogamous parents would be more likely to practice monogamous behaviour as adults.

It makes sence to me from a personal point of view.resourses and exclusivity. i dont want to be feeding a woman and buying her drink and someone else doing the business. That could cause trouble in the cave.

How can you know non monogamous species died out?

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

pH

CDfm wrote: »

In Rwanda the issues were tribal and political and were no less disturbing because some church officials participated. So you have a moral Christian and philosophy that didnt take hold.

It's always fun to listen to Catholics talking about "Rwanda's tribal issues"

In the colonial era, under German and then Belgian rule, Roman Catholic missionaries, inspired by the overtly racist theories of 19th century Europe, concocted a destructive ideology of ethnic cleavage and racial ranking that attributed superior qualities to the country’s Tutsi minority. These 15 per cent were approaching, however gradually, the exalted level of white people, as contrasted with the declared brutishness and innate inferiority of the "Bantu" (Hutu) majority. Since the missionaries ran the colonial-era schools, these pernicious values were systematically transmitted to several generations of Rwandans, along with more conventional Catholic teachings.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/OCHA-64DEEY?OpenDocument

There is always debate on a commandment on whether its "thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder" . The Catholic Church has never been totally against executions when they are for the general good and there is no real alternative.

You're very quick to attribute not killing small kids to "Christian morals" and yet not the Rwandan genocide, I wonder how can you tell which aspects of the behaviour of a society are attributed to Christian morals and which are not?

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

Mainly because of religions pulling us back.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

Some behaviours quite possibly arose via the path of religion. I'm not denying that, but it's got nothing to do with anything supernatural.

A biological tendency towards religious belief, monogamy/other values and susceptibility to influence could explain how such behaviours arose.

gramlab

CDfm wrote: »

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

Because essentially we are still animals when it comes down to it. A lot of our behaviours are instinctive e.g. fear, anger etc. , so why not morals in some way.

Our parents, the society we are in, the amount of exposure to other cultures will to a large extent determine our moral outlook, but in the end its individualistic. We take it all in and adapt the "normal social morals" to suit our own outlook.

One way to judge would be to put two amnesiacs on separate islands, give one of them a bible/other religious text and come back in a few years and have a look. Would make a good reality show.

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote:

Inate sence of good or fear of getting caught.

Do you get guilt? Ever cheat on a girlfriend and what stops you doing it?

I would certainly say innate. Fear of getting caught is a sad reason to not do bad things. I often see opportunities where I could gain immorally without being caught, but I never take them. And yes, I did once cheat on a girlfriend (of course, back then kissing another girl seemed a lot worse than it really was). I felt bad about it and told her the next day, and we survived for a whole year after that. Now that I've made that mistake I'm in a good position not to make it again.

Goduznt Xzst

I'm curious CDfm, as a believer, where do you stand in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma concerning morality?

CDfm wrote: »

How can you know non monogamous species died out?

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

I asked this question before in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055365207

From further reading on the subject I've reached a point where I've realized polygamy can't work with the current ratios of men to women. I don't believe this has anything to do with morals, but more to do with avoiding civil unrest. Where we to see a situation where some disease were to wipe out a very large percentage of the male or female population, I could see polygamy becoming an accepted norm as the ratios of men to women would be considerably disproportionate.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Fear of getting caught is a sad reason to not do bad things.

Aside from personal morals though, you do accept that this is one of the main reasons why a lot of humans in general do not do bad things? There have been numerous studies, and numerous real world examples, where when the consequences where lifted from individuals, they had no issue with doing immoral things to others. The Milgram Experiment comes to mind. There is also mob mentality during supposed moral panics which leads to the likes of pogroms/witch-hunts or rioting and looting during blackouts.

The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out. - Baron Thomas Babington Macauley

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out. - Baron Thomas Babington Macauley

Good quote

If you listen to most of the Christian arguments on Boards.ie of what they think atheist morality must be like, they would go on a raping murdering rampage if they didn't believe their god existed. Which is sort of scary.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm curious CDfm, as a believer, where do you stand in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma concerning morality?


Aside from personal morals though, you do accept that this is one of the main reasons why a lot of humans in general do not do bad things? There have been numerous studies, and numerous real world examples, where when the consequences where lifted from individuals, they had no issue with doing immoral things to others.

Euthyphro is very difficult and I have difficulty with it. Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? I am inclined towards the former probably because I think that God wouldn't want you to do something unethical and the rightness of the outcome is important.

Life isnt always black and white and an example of its application also comes up in legal cases in contitutional law as to the diference between the spirit of the law and letter of the law. Judges give weight to Dail Debates in the Supreme Court when arriving at their decisions.

In Dickens book "Hard Times" there is an exchange between a character Stephen Blackpool and his better Mr Bounderby. Stephens junkie wife turned up after years and his plans to marry the lovely and pious Rachel were twarted so they have the folowing exchange on his inability to get rid of
her

"If I do her any hurt, sir, there's a law to punish me"
"Of course there is."
"If I flee from her, there's a law to punish me?"
"Of course there is." "If I marry t'oother dear lass, there's a law to punish me?"
"Of course there is."
"If I was to live wi' her an not marry her? there?s a law to punish me, in every innocent child belonging to me?" "Of course there is."
"Now a' God's name show me the law to help me!"

That really nails it for me -as moral laws in themselves by being absolute can lead to an unjust outcome.

I totally agree with you that people behave differently when there are no percievable consequences to their actions. To be moral and ethical -you kinda have to either be coerced or willing to be.Nazi prison guards acted like they did as they believed there were no consequences and for huge numbers there werent.Rwanda was the same.

mickeydevine

Memes or God?

Neither, I get my philosophy for living from television.:pac:

CDfm

pH wrote: »

It's always fun to listen to Catholics talking about "Rwanda's tribal issues"

You're very quick to attribute not killing small kids to "Christian morals" and yet not the Rwandan genocide, I wonder how can you tell which aspects of the behaviour of a society are attributed to Christian morals and which are not?

PH - that was of its time and I could give you a sophist argument about "render unto Caesar that which Caesars etc".To me what happened was unbelieveable and reminded me of Nazi Germany and you might ask why the Germans could elect Hitler but they did. The Jews were scapegoats and their extermination was thus justified.

I think its a bit off topic but it does illustrate how man by himself has a really messed up values.

The colonial legacy was one factor which contributed to the genocide but not on its own. We in Ireland have our own colonial legacy which was bad enough.

The Genocide in Rwanda was truly evil. Would I hang those responsible -probably-if there were priests involved most definately.

On an aside, the first Nazi exterminations were of the mentally handicapped which had to be signed of by 3 doctors independently. So how could this be?

In Vichy France during World War II certain Bishops supported the regime while others didnt- one Bishop issued a letter to be read in Churches condemning the treatment of Jews and if I find a link I will post it.But essentially the treatment of Jews was a Vichy Nazi Gig and not a church sponsored one.

By definition- you dont mention the caste system in India.

Man left to his own devises is not very nice.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Good quote

If you listen to most of the Christian arguments on Boards.ie of what they think atheist morality must be like, they would go on a raping murdering rampage if they didn't believe their god existed. Which is sort of scary.

Here is a book review link on Vichy France and Christian Complicity but really while it is fashionable to blame church inaction - really -it is individuals who act and the treatment of Jews was a Nazi-Vichy Policy and not a church policy.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsh26.htm

Given that this is so - while Christian morality cant always swing populations -I cant see any arguments for morality from other sources working.

The very fact that religion is organised will mean a structure that can be politiced by the affiliations of its members.

Didnt the Dalai Llamas late brother also a Buddhist leader favour the use of physical force against the Chinese?

No atheist has come out yet and said humanity is nasty and blamed a faulty gene or meme yet?