Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Tisme]

Which laws?

Can you name some?




All sorts of crazy things are part of our history, you keep the good and get rid of the bad.

I mean the catholic church used to burn people alive for simply not believing in the same god, do you still want this to be done? I hope not, no doubt you are happy to drop that.



He didn't hate god, he hated the Jews, which was a hang up from the catholic teachings over the centuries, Hitler was raised in your club, not mine.



Why do you want laws anyway? what good are they?

Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).

You must be too young to remember the truth.

 

[luutzu]

Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).

You must be too young to remember the truth.

Running out of Bex, O'Grady?

I'm staying the heck out of this one.... but where's the fun in that right?


Though to be fair, from the little that I know about Western societies back then (Aus, Europe, US)... Christians don't much like Jews as VC said. Henry Ford admired the heck out of Hitler - got a top medal from the Nazi for it too I remember, and the dude wrote some manifesto against Jews that Ford Corp. like to quickly forget.

The US were already making plans for co-existence with the Third Reich ruling over Europe and Russia while they tend to their neck of the Western Hemisphere.


A lot of Christian states turn away Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution too.

Yes, you'd be right that they didn't know what the crazy bastard and his henchmen have in mind by turning back the boats, as some of us like to say; turned back more for economic reasons - it being the Great Depression and no social security or welfare and stuff (ahem, some of us somehow think it's a good idea to cut that too).

So it's true that Christians then don't like the Jews, and probably not the Muslims either; the Muslims don't like the Christians or the Jews; the Jews don't like both of them but weren't really powerful enough to do much about it since the Roman kinda burn down their Temple and spread their people all over the empire (they'd recently got some big brother and firepower to play with and... ahem).

But yes, would have gone to far, and I think wrong, to say Christians would want that on the Jews - that the dude didn't say that, just it could be read that way. Anyway, we're all sure even the German people who love Hitler back then wouldn't want it to happen - lots of shiet happens without people knowing or could do anything about it. Such as drones in our day, or endless war and the current masters playing chess with human lives and maybe the entire human race in Eastern Europe, the ME, Africa and soon SEAsia...

 

[Value Collector]

Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).

You must be too young to remember the truth.

i am not saying Hitler was godly, just that Germany was a very Catholic country, and the Catholic Church preached a lot of hate against Jews, Hitlers mistrust and hatred of the Jews, and the relative ease at which he was able to convince good people to do nasty things against the Jews is largely due to the anti Semitic catholic teachings.

 

[bellenuit]

i am not saying Hitler was godly, just that Germany was a very Catholic country, and the Catholic Church preached a lot of hate against Jews, Hitlers mistrust and hatred of the Jews, and the relative ease at which he was able to convince good people to do nasty things against the Jews is largely due to the anti Semitic catholic teachings.

Yes, it is interesting how often the argument Hitler was an atheist is brought up, even though their is no basis for saying that. In fact Nazi propaganda is full of Christian symbolism and the Nazis were predominantly Christians and celebrated many of the Christian traditions and ceremonies that many here associate with the "good guys" only.

http://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/NaziCrosses.html

But what cannot be ignored is that whatever Hitler's personal beliefs were, he did not act alone and it is safe to say that a majority of the German people supported him. The German people were predominantly Christian and the Christian Churches, in particular the Catholic Church, cannot abrogate the part that its followers played in the Holocaust. One man didn't kill 6 millions Jews or cause the destruction of most of Europe and Western Russia. It was Hitler supported by a majority of God fearing Christians that caused the deaths and destructions. Blaming it on atheism is just ridiculous, particularly as the main opposition to Nazism within Germany was from the Left, who were more likely, though not exclusively, to have atheists among their ranks. Lest not also forget that Hitler's main allies in Europe were the staunchly Catholic Mussolini of Italy and Franco of Spain.

 

[Tink]

From the Christmas thread..
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=15&p=895075&viewfull=1#post895075


So how do you know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil?
Where did it come from?

What is truth?

Going by your moral relativism, nothing is wrong.
There is no judgement.

As I have said, without our Judeo-Christian worldview, the West would not exist as we know it.

Without God, atheism would not exist.
Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.
A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
Absolute truth.

 

[qldfrog]

As I have said, without our Judeo-Christian worldview, the West would not exist as we know it.

Agree on that
but beg to differ on

Without God, atheism would not exist.
Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.
A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
Absolute truth.

I am atheist if there is such a club, but could not care less about a God,
I would probably challenge that God created our judeo christian heritage, more the need to adopt a code of rules by powers in place who relied on knowledge/absence of knowledge to trick aka dominate the masses.
And I am a bit scared when you write"absolute truth" yet in general i am a black vs white person aiming to absolute.
Anyway, won't make you change your mind.
Believe if it helps you as long as you do not interfere with my own freedom.That is my view and valid for all crazy radical islamists, christians, hindus, etc etc etc

 

[Tink]

Political Correctness, Moral Relativism etc, are freedoms?

The loopy left are doing more damage to this country than you can see, in my view.

While we still have freedom of speech, I will use it.

 

[Value Collector]

So how do you know the difference between right and wrong,.

By a rational and thought out weighing up of the consequences of my actions and the actions of others, helped by learned moral principles which have been built up by our society through trial and error and also some which are built into us as social animals though natural selection, eg the antisocial individuals were ejected from tribes and survived at lower rates.

good and evil?
Where did it come from?

Good and evil (Evil in particular) are some what religious terms used to describe actions which are either beneficial or harmful, the words were made up by humans.

I have heard a religious person say condoms are evil and using them is spitting in gods face, I would say telling people in aids ridden countries that condoms are evil is evil, which one of us are correct?

Our modern secular morality is superior to any ancient texts moral teachings. Religions are some of our first attempts at moral systems and because of that they are also our worst.

What is truth?

a word used as a description of something which is true.

Let me ask you, What's the best way to find out what is true?

Going by your moral relativism, nothing is wrong.

Nope, that's just your strawman you have built, I have said that objective morality is a real thing, in any situation there is an action which is the most moral action, what that action is can be very hard to figure out, but it exists and the best way to find out what it is is not by reading a bible, but making a rational decisions based on evidence.

there is no judgement.

offcourse there is judgement, social animals such as humans are the most judgmental animals, we are constantly judged by our actions, and contently receiving the consequences.

Without God, atheism would not exist.
Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.

that's just a fallacy, if you were trying to bring Unicorn teachings into schools, we would oppose that, and call ourselves Aunicornists, that doesn't mean Unicorns exist.

Atheists exist because pushy theists exists, not because the god claims are true.

A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
Absolute truth

if the laws are absolute, why have even Christian morals changed so much over the years?

 

[Value Collector]

While we still have freedom of speech, I will use it.

I think you need to learn what free speech is.

Free speech doesn't mean you are free of any consequences from anyone, just that the government would jail you, if you let your opinions known in public, the public are free to say you're a dick, and avoid you.

 

[SirRumpole]

By a rational and thought out weighing up of the consequences of my actions and the actions of others, helped by learned moral principles which have been built up by our society through trial and error and also some which are built into us as social animals though natural selection, eg the antisocial individuals were ejected from tribes and survived at lower rates.

It's a fact that a lot of those "moral principles" you rely on have been injected into society by religious laws eg the Ten Commandments which we have discussed already many times.

There is actually no reason not to kill anyone if you look at it from a survival situation. There is no need to care for the elderly or the sick because they simply slow the rest of us down. This is the way it happens in the animal world, the elderly or sick are killed and eaten for the good of the rest of the tribe. The animal world is a true moral-less society.

Trying to say that man would have developed morals if there had been no religion is meaningless. Religion existed and it had an influence, both good and bad and you can't deny the influence it has had on your ancestors and on society in general and therefore on the development of your own moral principles.

 

[Value Collector]

It's a fact that a lot of those "moral principles" you rely on have been injected into society by religious laws eg the Ten Commandments which we have discussed already many times.

.

Morals existed long before the ten commandments, even social animals such as chimps, wolves etc have rules about not killing each other, and how food is distributed etc, social species wouldn't exist if certain fundamental moral codes hadn't evolved with the group.

There is actually no reason not to kill anyone if you look at it from a survival situation.

Offcourse there is, social species survive better as a group, if you killed off your social group/tribe, you will suffer and not thrive and not be as successful passing on your genes.

There is no need to care for the elderly or the sick because they simply slow the rest of us down.

Not true, older people would add a lot to a tribe survival, passing on knowledge would be extremely important, plus lots of other tasks, caring for the young etc.

The animal world is a true moral-less society

.

not true, certain social species show signs of many early moral systems.

Trying to say that man would have developed morals if there had been no religion is meaningless. Religion existed and it had an influence, both good and bad and you can't deny the influence it has had on your ancestors and on society in general and therefore on your own development of your moral principles

Man invested religion, so either way they come from man, But the best moral rules are across many societies, so you can't give one religion credit, and the reasons you like the rules are secular, so why bother having the religion.

 

[SirRumpole]

Offcourse there is, social species survive better as a group, if you killed off your social group/tribe, you will suffer and not thrive and not be as successful passing on your genes.

Sure, but there are rivalries within groups. If it was not for moral principles our political parties would be assassinating each other rather than bothering with silly things like Parliament. North Korea for example, what religion is the current despot there ?

so why bother having the religion.

Yes we can say that now, but religion was the source of moral principles, the "fear of God" etc.

So keep the principles but ditch religion, but remember where those principles came from because it's a fact despite your own prejudices.

 

[Value Collector]

Sure, but there are rivalries within groups. If it was not for moral principles our political parties would be assassinating each other rather than bothering with silly things like Parliament. North Korea for example, what religion is the current despot there ?

Firstly, Do you think the religious over the years have been shy of killing those against them, Do you think the religious among us have any moral edge? I don't believe they do, in some situations though they do have verses to quote that allow them to do the horrible immoral things.

the political parties are still part of the same tribe, we all see ourselves as "Aussies" and we generally live and work together as a huge modern tribe, So there is a taboo when it comes to killing each other, modern society has even progressed so far that we see the other nations eg USA, NZ, UK, France and Canada as being defacto tribe members.

There is much less Taboo, when it comes to killing people outside our tribes. In the Army we call assassinating enemy leaders "Counter leadership" missions, which were a part of the Australian special forces mission in Afghanistan.

.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes we can say that now, but religion was the source of moral principles,.

Can you name a moral principle which religion was the original source?

 

[SirRumpole]

Can you name a moral principle which religion was the original source?

Again I refer you to the Ten Commandments although I bet you will say they were plagarised from the ancient Zulus or whatever.

 

[Tink]

Still the same baloney, VC....

Going by moral relativism, what Hitler did was acceptable as it is his view as right and wrong.

No judgements allowed.

That is how it is.

So are we going to move down to that thinking, where there is no right and wrong.
What sort of society will it become?

VC, we are not animals, we are humans.

 

[Value Collector]

Again I refer you to the Ten Commandments although I bet you will say they were plagarised from the ancient Zulus or whatever.

Which ten commandment principle are you referring to most of them are rubbish? (Killing and stealing I guess you are reffering too, which aren't even at the top of the list)

The commandments were written about 4000 years ago, However Both killing and stealing are taboo in cultures from all over the world and in cultures that never saw the ten commandments and that predate the ten commandments, eg aboriginals, American Indians etc all had social taboos around killing tribesmen.

I find it hard to believe that the author of the ten commandments (who ever that was, most likely egyption) was the first person to realise that not killing each other was a good idea.

Humans have been living in social groups for at least 100 thousand years, its very hard to imagine that any social group could form where it was not considered taboo to kill each other or steal from each other.

I mean the idea that for 100 thousand years no group had made an agreement no to kill each other or to steal from each other seems silly to me, As I pointed out, even chimps, wolves, meerkats etc etc all have social rules they live by, this is the origin of what we call morals.

 

[SirRumpole]

I mean the idea that for 100 thousand years no group had made an agreement no to kill each other or to steal from each other seems silly to me, As I pointed out, even chimps, wolves, meerkats etc etc all have social rules they live by, this is the origin of what we call morals.

Animals live together when it suits them but they still kill or drive out love rivals to prove they are the dominant alpha male and they desert the ill when it suits them. Spiders kill their mates, some species eat their own young.

The alpha males will mate with as many females as they can so there is no concept of faithfulness, it's all about primal lust with some survival of the species built in. If you try to attribute morality to most animals I think you are on a losing argument.

 

[Value Collector]

Animals live together when it suits them but they still kill or drive out love rivals to prove they are the dominant alpha male . .

Aren't humans exactly the same, Try sneaking in and hopping in bed with your neighbors wife tonight and see what happens, or even just try going for an uninvited swim in his pool, Humans are a very territorial species.

Spiders kill their mates, some species eat their own young

.

Yep, but I am talking about higher social species.

The alpha males will mate with as many females as they can so there is no concept of faithfulness, it's all about primal lust with some survival of the species built in. If you try to attribute morality to most animals I think you are on a losing argument

I am saying our moral system is a very advanced moral system that has been built up and created for secular and evolutionary reasons.

I am not saying animals are the pinnacle of morals, I am using them as an example of some very early moral codes of conduct to show where they started.

You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.

In fact can you name a culture where it was considered to a good idea to go around killing your social group? I don't think you can, its pretty much every culture invented by humans have rules against killing each other.

 

[SirRumpole]

Aren't humans exactly the same, Try sneaking in and hopping in bed with your neighbors wife tonight and see what happens, or even just try going for an uninvited swim in his pool, Humans are a very territorial species.

Yes that happens but between people with no moral scruples but it's frowned on in polite society.

Do you think you can determine what the general consensus of apes is towards adultery ?

You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.

I question whether there is a "taboo" on murder within chimps and wolves groups. It's your opinion that there is but on what evidence do you base this ? Chimp law courts ?