(August 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But genocide promotes your own survival by eradicating competition for limited resources.

So how did genocide become evil?

Have you read anything about serial strategies in game play?

It became evil when we turned to agriculture and city states, realising that if genocide were acceptable then one might well find oneself the genocidee rather than the genocider.

Optimal strategy in the longer term for ourselves and our descendants is not to kill, nor to engage in genocide, but to co-operate in managing resources and access to them on a relatively equitable basis. Genocide was the tribal religious practice celebrated still by people like W L Craig (Those poor soldiers, feeling bad about killing everyone on god's command. Have a bit of sympathy!)

(August 31, 2012 at 8:35 pm)padraic Wrote: Christian 'morality' is innately im-moral,also based on self interest


Carrot and stick motivation. The carrot is the reward of heaven. The stick is guilt and fear of hell. The moral man does what is right for its own and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

EG The Catholic 'act of contrition' (short version) said in confession and in extremis:

Quote:O MY GOD, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

Most of the Christians I know rarely talk about or think about hell or heaven. I know there are those who do and that is where the TV and movie stereotypes come from. Doing things wanting to avoid hell isn't a proper motivation. That's what I would call "being into works", and its pretty futile. In that regard I think we agree completely. A good person strives to be good because it is the right thing to do, not to get something.

(August 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm)Polaris Wrote: They get their base morality from religion, but have learned to evolve that morality as they have been exposed to more liberal and humanist ideas and ways of thinking.

If "getting their ideas from religion" (implicitly, christian) were remotely true then there would be no morality outside early christianity while christians and their antecedents would be moral exemplars compared with other peoples of the time.

Sure.

If you wish to say any religion and not only christianity, then religion is otiose.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Atom Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 8:35 pm)padraic Wrote: Christian 'morality' is innately im-moral,also based on self interest


Carrot and stick motivation. The carrot is the reward of heaven. The stick is guilt and fear of hell. The moral man does what is right for its own and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

EG The Catholic 'act of contrition' (short version) said in confession and in extremis:

Most of the Christians I know rarely talk about or think about hell or heaven. I know there are those who do and that is where the TV and movie stereotypes come from. Doing things wanting to avoid hell isn't a proper motivation. That's what I would call "being into works", and its pretty futile. In that regard I think we agree completely. A good person strives to be good because it is the right thing to do, not to get something.

Agreed. I almost don't even believe in the afterlife for how little I focus on it in my religious life.

On the rewards, I already have them and will not lose them. When I was studying Sufism, a great thinker (it's been years since I was in college so I forgot his name), stated that if he only believed to avoid Hell, he should be sent to Hell because the only reason to believe in God was to believe in God....that's how I view my faith.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm)Boccaccio Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm)Polaris Wrote: They get their base morality from religion, but have learned to evolve that morality as they have been exposed to more liberal and humanist ideas and ways of thinking.

If "getting their ideas from religion" (implicitly, christian) were remotely true then there would be no morality outside early christianity while christians and their antecedents would be moral exemplars compared with other peoples of the time.

Sure.

If you wish to say any religion and not only christianity, then religion is otiose.

Implicitly Gilgamesh.

Religion, according to one thinker (also don't remember his name...I don't pay much attention during Church sermons), stated that religion was key to the formation of societies by giving a common authority and means of accountability necessary for primitive humans to form city-states.

@Polaris: then you consider all religions to be expressions of belief in a common god? I am new in terms of posts here and unfamiliar with your views. If you do not so believe, then you have not answered my implied queries.

I expect it would only be in a sermon that you would hear that religion was key to the formation of societies by giving common authority and accountability. Consider a bunch of apes. They seem to have authority and accountability unaided by evident religion but by power dominance. In humans capable of more complex ideation, religion was a handy reinforcement of authority. Associated or a component of civilisation therefore, because it was what people were doing in their lives but not initiating nor the principal force.


I recollect as a teenager realising that the only way to believe in god was to believe in god, that faith was necessary for faith. No wonder I abandoned it.

Religion does not even have to be about gods. Take Buddhism for example....in the traditional views, there are no gods. Religion is simply about setting doctrine to faith.

We would not be where we are today without religion, but now secular principles have replaced that crutch.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm)Boccaccio Wrote: If "getting their ideas from religion" (implicitly, christian) were remotely true then there would be no morality outside early christianity while christians and their antecedents would be moral exemplars compared with other peoples of the time.

It isn't good form to quote scripture on this forum, but I think the reasoning for this occasion will be not be disagreeable. What you are saying isn't true is because being Christian doesn't make a person's moral conduct automatically better. Here is what Paul said about himself in Romans 7:19.

For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing

You can quote all the scripture you want, if an argument warrants it. Just don't go around trying to sell it to everyone.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:44 pm)Atom Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 9:07 pm)Boccaccio Wrote: If "getting their ideas from religion" (implicitly, christian) were remotely true then there would be no morality outside early christianity while christians and their antecedents would be moral exemplars compared with other peoples of the time.

It isn't good form to quote scripture on this forum, but I think the reasoning for this occasion will be not be disagreeable. What you are saying isn't true is because being Christian doesn't make a person's moral conduct automatically better. Here is what Paul said about himself in Romans 7:19.

For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing

I read from this that you agree that it is of no use. If there is no difference in performance, then I take it you are in it for the salvation. Good luck with that.

(August 31, 2012 at 7:13 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote: Morality is innate in all of us. To say that we didn't know right from wrong before the "burning bush" is ridiculous. I doubt very much we would have made this far if we didn't.

If that was the true,moral rules would be universal,absolute and unchanging,but that is no the case. Morality is based on self interest.IE survival.

PS at least some of the 613 commandments were lifted from Hammurabi's code.

Isn't that what I said, essentially?