More Religious Nuts

I dont think anyone needs a religious background to know that it is undesirable to lie, cheat, steal and kill etc.

I think it helps more to be educated, including a wide ranging study of history, philosophy, psychology, morality and religion.

In an interesting conundrum, in many parts of the world, it is considered necessary to kill someone if they slight you sufficiently, including parts of Ethiopia, as just one example

ktrianta said:

...
If however, as many on this thread believe, we are nothing more than the result of a cosmic accident, then all morality is relative. Why is you morality more right than the muslim who chooses to blow up innocent people?
Was the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot any more wrong than these Muslims?

..."

Click to expand...

Very impressive post, but going back 700 or 500 or even 300 years, your religion have had few lapses of mercy too.

I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.

Happy said:

I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.

Click to expand...

Hardly squeaky clean.

In this day and age of modern, complex, televised, audited, democratic legal systems, religion still manages to sneak through the gaps to be tyrannical.

See the 'Religion Gone Crazy' thread.

ktrianta said:

Obviously no one has been able to answer the question I have posed about what is right and wrong. Reason I asked this is that this thread is I would assume made of athiests who revel in the excesses and abuses of religion whilst ignoring predominantly the evils perpetrated by those with an athiestic world view and ignoring the good that is done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.

I have already answered the question, but few failed to pick up on it, when I said that morals without reference to absolutes is meaningless. Simply put unless you appeal to a creator God who is the creator of all and to whom we all owe our existence, then how can you say anything is wrong.
If God created us, and has said it is wrong to murder, then yes it is wrong and that is indeed my position.

If however, as many on this thread believe, we are nothing more than the result of a cosmic accident, then all morality is relative. Why is you morality more right than the muslim who chooses to blow up innocent people?
Was the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot any more wrong than these Muslims?

The simple and awkward fact for people on this thread and why no-one answered the question i posed was that it is exceptionally difficult to define right, wrong, wicked, pure evil etc. without reference to some transcendent moral authority of good or evil. As Mao said, " Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others... Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are there only for me...People like me only have a duty to ourselves, we have no duty to other people."

Click to expand...

No, you didn't answer the question at all....all you did was demand an explanation of what defines right and wrong, good and evil.
All we wanted was to know was whether you agree or disagree that it's wrong to murder innocent people in the name of religion.
Your answer to that question will depend on your definition of good and evil - not on my definition, not on Darkside's definition, on your definition. We're not really interested on how or why you arrive at your definition, we just wanted to know if, by your definition, evil is committed when lunatics use religion as an excuse to bomb innocent people.

You have some queer ideas about what atheists believe. Atheists don't necessarily hold any opinion about how the world and the human race came into existence, except that God had nothing to do with it, since God doesn't exist and never has.

As for your claim that atheists ignore the good that's done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.....
Who are you to make such a claim about atheists? On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you so foolish as to draw this conclusion simply because on this thread you don't see atheists praising good deeds done by religious people and religious organisations!
Given the title of this thread - 'More Religious Nuts' - I suggest to you that it's hardly surprising that on here you don't see praise for good deeds that are done in the name of religion or for any other reason.
If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, then I suggest you take a look at the thread titled 'The Beauty of Religion'. Read that thread, and you might just open your eyes far enough to see that some atheists do indeed acknowledge and praise good things that are done by churches and religious people.

This thread was set up for people to talk about the bad things that happen in the name of religion.
Your posts are way off topic. If you want to discuss all that other stuff you've been going on with, then start a new thread.

Sounds like "TELL IT LIKE IT IS" Monday is working fine to me !

bunyip said:

This thread was set up for people to talk about the bad things that happen in the name of religion.
Your posts are way off topic. If you want to discuss all that other stuff you've been going on with, then start a new thread.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless.
Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.

I will attempt to explain right from wrong for you without using religious connotations:- I am right and you are wrong for instance.

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality. No religious monkey or ape to pollute the psyche of the troop.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously. Fight or Fright? Split second decision made. Right from wrong. The brain is already hard wired for it.

Now this is only a theory and not a proven fact. Habits are learned from the society we live in. Parents, situations, experiences all assist you in making the RIGHT decision. This theory implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

So, there you have it folks. Monkey see, monkey do.

bunyip said:

No, you didn't answer the question at all....all you did was demand an explanation of what defines right and wrong, good and evil.
All we wanted was to know was whether you agree or disagree that it's wrong to murder innocent people in the name of religion.
Your answer to that question will depend on your definition of good and evil - not on my definition, not on Darkside's definition, on your definition. We're not really interested on how or why you arrive at your definition, we just wanted to know if, by your definition, evil is committed when lunatics use religion as an excuse to bomb innocent people.

You have some queer ideas about what atheists believe. Atheists don't necessarily hold any opinion about how the world and the human race came into existence, except that God had nothing to do with it, since God doesn't exist and never has.

As for your claim that atheists ignore the good that's done by religious people and organisations aligned to religion.....
Who are you to make such a claim about atheists? On what basis do you make such a claim? Are you so foolish as to draw this conclusion simply because on this thread you don't see atheists praising good deeds done by religious people and religious organisations!
Given the title of this thread - 'More Religious Nuts' - I suggest to you that it's hardly surprising that on here you don't see praise for good deeds that are done in the name of religion or for any other reason.
If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, then I suggest you take a look at the thread titled 'The Beauty of Religion'. Read that thread, and you might just open your eyes far enough to see that some atheists do indeed acknowledge and praise good things that are done by churches and religious people.

This thread was set up for people to talk about the bad things that happen in the name of religion.
Your posts are way off topic. If you want to discuss all that other stuff you've been going on with, then start a new thread.

Click to expand...

Well said Bunyip, now i feel even worse about what i said about you, hope all is forgiven.
It is certainly good to see wise and intelligent posts from quite a numer of members keeping threads on topic, must make Joe feel all warm and cuddly.

trainspotter said:

I will attempt to explain right from wrong for you without using religious connotations:- I am right and you are wrong for instance.

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality. No religious monkey or ape to pollute the psyche of the troop.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously. Fight or Fright? Split second decision made. Right from wrong. The brain is already hard wired for it.

Now this is only a theory and not a proven fact. Habits are learned from the society we live in. Parents, situations, experiences all assist you in making the RIGHT decision. This theory implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.

So, there you have it folks. Monkey see, monkey do.

Click to expand...

Thanks for at least trying. Nice theory as you say.
Not sure that it addresses the question posed though. 1 and 1 = 2 and if you say 3 then I am right and you are wrong. No argument there.

Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion. This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view.

I do agree that it is innate behaviour that there is a sense of right and wrong and that it is hard wired because that is exactly what you would expect if we we are created in the image of God.

Yes i agree with the posters who have said that religion and by implication christianity has fallen short, but that is a theological question and not for discussion on this board as it is further away from where we are haeding on this thread.

To the person who asked if I am a catholic priest, hate to disappoint you but i am not even catholic.

darkside said:

Well said Bunyip, now i feel even worse about what i said about you, hope all is forgiven.
It is certainly good to see wise and intelligent posts from quite a numer of members keeping threads on topic, must make Joe feel all warm and cuddly.

Click to expand...

Weelll.....at least you now believe in bunyips!

ktrianta said:

Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless.
Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.

Click to expand...

We're not asking you for apologies - we simply asked you for a straight answer to a straight question.
If your neighbour asked you if you'd had a good day, you wouldn't demand that he define 'good' so that you can then answer his question.
You'd simply respond to a simple question with a simple answer by telling him that you've had a good day (by your definition of good) or a bad day (by your definition of bad) or an OK day (by your definition of OK). But I'm damn sure you wouldn't make a fool of yourself by asking him to define 'good', before you answered his question.

Well then, don't make a fool of yourself on this forum by going on with mindless prattle when you're asked a simple question. Either you think that Muslims killing innocent people is wrong (according to your definition of right and wrong), or you think it's OK. But your answer and your views should have nothing whatever to do with my or Darkside's or anyone else's definition of right and wrong.'

Now - why don't you take yourself over to the 'The Beauty In Religion' thread and see if you can put a sensible post or two on there to show some of the good that comes from religion and religious people. And while you're at it, try making some balanced comment by acknowledging that good things are also done by people who are not religious.....yes, even by atheists!

ktrianta said:

Thanks for at least trying. Nice theory as you say.
Not sure that it addresses the question posed though. 1 and 1 = 2 and if you say 3 then I am right and you are wrong. No argument there.

Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion. This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view.

I do agree that it is innate behaviour that there is a sense of right and wrong and that it is hard wired because that is exactly what you would expect if we we are created in the image of God.

Yes i agree with the posters who have said that religion and by implication christianity has fallen short, but that is a theological question and not for discussion on this board as it is further away from where we are haeding on this thread.

To the person who asked if I am a catholic priest, hate to disappoint you but i am not even catholic.

Click to expand...

You have answered your own question by your response. Forget the simple math. I am right and you are wrong. Number 3 is not an answer. Unless you are picking door number 3 and leaving the show with the cash and prizes.

To argue that it is OK for Muslims to kill in the name of religion is one of the more poignant stances of transcendental thought process's I have read in a long time. Now please do not take this the wrong way. I am writing explicitly to you and the words that you have purveyed here for all to see. To reference to a deity that ensures this behaviour is somehow socially acceptable whether or not the atheists are in the big river in Egypt (De Nial) is open to conjecture at best. To argue that right and wrong is somehow a commodity that can be transferred from person to person depending on whether or not they roll out a rug and prey to mecca or choose to give money to the Salvos has my nickers in a twist. To liken my view/theory as to explain what is innately right or wrong on it's lowest primeval level as to human nature has somehow gone beyond your grasp of deep psychosis. Agreeing that it is a Muslim right to kill in the name of their beliefs/religion has no place in the society that I live in due to me not choosing to participate in this madness. Go back to your heart and ask yourself the same question. Are you comfortable for innocents to be blown up because you have 72 virgins waiting for you?? UNEDUCATED FOOLS DO THIS. Not rational human beings.

You have thrown God onto the funeral pyre you have created for yourself as we agreed NOT to bring religion/false idols into the debate (your words and not mine) Image of God aside, I wonder what He would look like if he had not created Adam and Eve. Some misty cloud like being that is omniscient perhaps?

Christianity was the opiate for the masses in the late 1700's. King and Church to keep the peasants in fear and paying taxes. We have the leftovers of a very bad experience. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the word that will fix this for you. LOOK IT UP AND LEARN.

I would prefer it if you were a catholic priest. I would be able to have a theological debate that would make your head spin !! Pfffffffftttttt !!

Bu wait there is more. Just like the DEMTEL man I have a set of steak knives to give to you for FREE!

You wrote: "Question posed to me had to do with morality and whether it is right or wrong for Muslims to kill in the name of their religion. This then becomes a relative question because in the abscence of reference to absolute authority belonging to some diety, which athiests by definition deny, then you have to accept that what can be right to one person may be wrong to another and your view is no more valid than the oppossing view."

A relative question to whom I ask? Morality that religion allows Muslims to kill in the name of their religion because a diety condones such practices? Last time I tried this as a defence the judge threw me into Ward 4 of Graylands (Mental institute in WA) Killing in the name of? place diety's name here please.

What is right to one person CAN be wrong to another. Like having 3 wives or marrying your cousin (bloody Mormons) or putting your left hand in the food bowl in certain countries is frowned on. How about wearing shoes inside someones house for example. Socially unacceptable practices. AT NO STAGE is strapping a bomb to yourself and commiting acts of atrocities to your fellow man (BLOW UP THE INFIDELS) an acceptable practice.

For you to opine this view has me very worried that you are not only believing this presupposition but are actually espousing this point of view to other feeble minded followers who actually resemble homosapiens in their true form. I am assuming you do have opposable thumbs (got a grip) and you are in full control of your faculties on this subject matter at hand?

Now as I live in a Westernised modern country and have a very small IQ please go easy on me in your reply. After all, I would not want to be blown up in the name of religion by some Muslim fanatacist.

Happy said:

Very impressive post, but going back 700 or 500 or even 300 years, your religion have had few lapses of mercy too.

I know it is all almost squeaky clean now, but it was not always that way.

Click to expand...

Happy.....I must disagree with you on two points.

First, I don't think his or her post was at all impressive. I would have thought that 'mindless, irrelevant prattle' was a more apt description.

The second point on which I disagree is that religion is 'almost squeaky clean'.
I could give you many examples that show the opposite is true.

You don't have to leave this thread long for it to take off without you...

Although there is a lot I *could* have said when the topic was brought up, seems like a lot has been debated and been inconclusive already, so adding input might be just pouring another cup of water into the ocean.

Perhaps some things about good and evil that could be brought into it. By a Christian definition, all people, regardless of their belief, have been created with a desire to do good, that has been corrupted. So straight Christian theology should accept that good deeds done by atheists are good. However, straight Christian theology also accepts that "good corrupted by sin" is still not acceptable to God. One analogy I've heard, is like the kind doctor, who looks after the sick, heals the injured, feeds the starving - while on a pirate ship, and looking after pirates. While his individual actions are good, he's already on the wrong side of the law, and no amount of good work is going to save him from hanging when he's caught.

From the Christian perspective, the Muslim who kills 3000 by flying a plane into a building, is no worse off* than an Atheist who works at the RSPCA and donates blood every month. According to Christian theology, both ignored God and both will get what they desire - eternity without God. While that sounds pretty good to someone who never wanted to know him or acknowledge he exists, you need to remember in the Christian theology, this means without any of his gifts either - which means nobody will have any good left in them. This means you, and everyone else's capability to be good will be taken from you before you're cast away from God.

With regards to charitable works done by atheists though, here's a challenge anyone can take up. List all the non-Christian charities you can, and I bet you over 90% of them are more like "special interest groups", rather than true charities - Greenpeace, WSPCA, WWF, Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia, <list medical condition here>. List all the Christian charities, and see where their interest lies - Salvation Army, Anglicare, Red Cross (no longer officially Christian, but look up its roots).

At the foundation of all Christian charity, is that all people, not animals, not rainforests - are created in the image of God, and this takes priority over other things that might be good, such as animal welfare or conservation. I find it hard to call anyone "good" who will give $1000 for a ship to ram a whaling vessel, when that $1000 could feed 2 children for a year, or restore sight to 50 people, or provide a "seeding fund" for an entire village.

* Quick edit before I'm accused of anything. Notice I said no worse off, not simply, no worse. Of course, the bible has a very strong stance against murder, but the final judgement is the same, hence no worse off. There's a verse somewhere in the bible that says paraphrased: "Don't bother to pray for the sins of someone who has committed the ultimate sin (of rejecting God), pray he accepts God first, then address his sinful behaviour". On that principle, if both murderer and atheist is going to hell, neither is worse off than the other.

ktrianta said:

Fair enough, but my initial post on this thread was to point out that using the term pure evil was really borrowing from religious terminology. This was then toned down to the "right thing" with a demand that I answer if this is right to which I responded you need to define what is right and wrong and the basis on which you came to this conclusion. Not surprisingly no-one answered this and after constant requests and indeed personel attacks I outlined my belief on what is right and wrong and that moriality without reference to absolutes is meaningless.
Quite simple really, but if people ask me questions, then where it leads is where it leads and I make no apologies for that.

Click to expand...

I am perplexed with the above bold statement? Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless. And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? So according to this delusional statement I can get away with anything I like because I do not have a Godlike being to refer to if it is OK or not? If it is OK with Allah/Buddah/Jehovah whoever then I can wander this earth and do as I please guilt free? Pauline Hanson once said "Please explain?" I beseech you , NAY I implore you to try and justify this sick and saddend position you have found yourself in.

Killing in the name of religion has run it's course. For people to cohabitat this planet we require TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE not HATE because some raghead decides a Jihad or Fatwa for no good cause. I can remember when John Saffron (ABC minor celebrity & John Saffron vs God) in 2003 tricked Sheikh Omar Bakri into placing a fatwa on Safran's colleague Rove McManus by showing him falsified evidence seeming to indicate that McManus had been making fun of Islam. Not a bad thing some might say now?

Is it right or wrong? You have got to be joking me !! How would you like it if some random person (no religious bias) came to your house and decided YOU were not fit to be part of the human race because of YOUR beliefs. Shrug your shoulders and say "Ahhhh it's OK cause he has no morals without references to absolutes" as he detonates the C4 strapped to his body?

To pollute this thread with malarky of an absolutely incomprehensible drivel has certainly caused me to think far lesser of humanity in it's current form. Education is the key to stamp out this kind of perspective that IS NOT part of a common belief or understanding amongst grown ups.

trainspotter said:

I am perplexed with the above bold statement? Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless. And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? So according to this delusional statement I can get away with anything I like because I do not have a Godlike being to refer to if it is OK or not? If it is OK with Allah/Buddah/Jehovah whoever then I can wander this earth and do as I please guilt free? Pauline Hanson once said "Please explain?" I beseech you , NAY I implore you to try and justify this sick and saddend position you have found yourself in.

Click to expand...

Morality needs frame of reference. Everyone thinks murder is wrong, correct? Yet, why do some religions who have strayed from the one true God think honour killings are a good thing?

Think paedophillia is universally reviled? Think again. It was a commonly accepted normal practice in ancient Greece. More frightening, a convicted paedophile made the comment when being sentence something along the lines of "You think of me as a monster. I'm simply before my time". I imagine a homosexual in the early 20th century could have plausibly said something similar.

Without God, morality changes to suit the majority.

ivant said:

It is always more difficult to prove a negative. Saying that something doesn't exist is one sure way to never win an argument. How do you know?

Some examples:
1. I don't believe in the holocaust.
2. I don't believe the world is round.
3. I don't believe there are aliens.
4. I don't believe in God.
5. I believe that technical analysis doesn't work.
6. No such thing as black swans.
I can go on.

The point is, believe or not believe, those things above are hard to disprove. How can you know God doesn't exist?

Click to expand...

The onus is the person claiming "something exists" to prove that it is so! If I don't believe god exists it is not up to me to prove god does not exist. This would be like me trying to disprove the existence of a purple unicorn flying around in the outmost regions of the galaxy. Simply impossible. The person who claims god exists must prove so.

trainspotter said:

Now as I live in a Westernised modern country and have a very small IQ.

Click to expand...

At least we have found something that we both agree on.

trainspotter said:

I am perplexed with the above bold statement? Morality without reference to absolutes is meaningless. And repeated here in italics as well. So are you saying that if I do not have a reference point to a fixed perspective that I have no morals? :

Click to expand...

I have repeated myself so many times and you don't seem to get it. No I did not say that you do not have no morals. What I have been saying consistently is that without reference to absolutes, morality then is relative. What is right for one may be wrong to another but you have no basis to say your morals are better than someone else's.

Really quite simple I would have thought.