Secularist Europeans will always overestimate the threats coming from Christianity, because the history textbooks in Europe armed them with a caricature of an inflated bogey man called Christianity. Let's see:

1. In the last century the atheist dogma called Communism/Marxism murdered over 100 million human beings.

2. In over fourteen centuries of jihad, another satanic ideology called Islam murdered over 270 million human beings.

They aren't terrified of socialism or Islam, but they sure get bent out of shape about a woman from Alaska who hews to a particular brand of the literalist branch of Christianity, that really has no chance of pushing aside the scientific project. Am I missing something?

GreyUhu wrote:

HunchBacked wrote:

But an extreme interpretation of religion has never been friend with enlightenment.

So has extreme atheisim and anti-religionism.

"extreme atheism", it's the communism of Stalin or Mao or the reds khmers in Cambodia, and it's not good either.
But there are atheists who are very tolerant, and very moral, often more than people who say themselves christians.

frederick wrote:

Secularist Europeans will always overestimate the threats coming from Christianity, because the history textbooks in Europe armed them with a caricature of an inflated bogey man called Christianity. Let's see:

1. In the last century the atheist dogma called Communism/Marxism murdered over 100 million human beings.

2. In over fourteen centuries of jihad, another satanic ideology called Islam murdered over 270 million human beings.

They aren't terrified of socialism or Islam, but they sure get bent out of shape about a woman from Alaska who hews to a particular brand of the literalist branch of Christianity, that really has no chance of pushing aside the scientific project. Am I missing something?

No, Frederick, I don't overestimate the threat; I don't find the christian fundamentalists dangerous (only funny), at least not like they once were.
It's Islam which is currently dangerous.
As for socialism, it has much receded, because of the excesses of communism.
I think there's still hope for a better world.

HunchBacked wrote:

But there are atheists who are very tolerant, and very moral...

I have met tolerant athiests but never one that was moral. They have no moral code to measure up to, except one that they choose for themselves. And we all know, choices change. When you can pick and choose your moral code on a day to day basis...it realy isn't one.

GreyUhu wrote:

HunchBacked wrote:

But there are atheists who are very tolerant, and very moral...

I have met tolerant athiests but never one that was moral. They have no moral code to measure up to, except one that they choose for themselves. And we all know, choices change. When you can pick and choose your moral code on a day to day basis...it realy isn't one.

You haven't met many atheists.
I have met atheists who really were very moral.
Being moral is to have an inbred sense of goodness and compassion.

Nozzle wrote:

Can you find someone who can tell me that they were there when humans first walked the earth and that there were no dinosaurs around at the time?

I like it when believers resort to that kind of rhetoric. Of course, they never met with Jesus in person, let alone the Holy Father. But guess what? Because they've read a very old book, and deeply felt the holy spirit within, in their worst moments of disarray, they know better than scientists, and well, better than pretty much anybody else, actually.

That's how it goes with those folks. And the funniest part is that they are intimately convinced they are not only right but also modest.

HunchBacked wrote:

Being moral is to have an inbred sense of goodness and compassion.

Morality is learned, not innate. Animals have no morals, nor do people unless they are taught and believe.

People and animals can be conditioned to behave in a way that one might consider or appears "moral", but to actually be moral, you have to believe in something. You have to govern your actions by a sense of "right or wrong", which is learned. Otherwise it's merely "what I can or can't get away with".

GreyUhu wrote:

HunchBacked wrote:

Being moral is to have an inbred sense of goodness and compassion.

Morality is learned, not innate. Animals have no morals, nor do people unless they are taught and believe.

So you compare yourself with an animal?
In fact an animal is not uselessly cruel.
There are men who have been uselessly cruel.
Now I think that there are men who have more an innate sense of goodness and compassion than others.
Before some events, I don't react the same as other people; that means I must have a sense they don't have.
Morality can be taught, but it can also be innate.

Morality is learned, not innate. Animals have no morals, nor do people unless they are taught and believe.

Are you sure?

Dare to debunk those articles? Good luck.

cat.inist.fr . . .

cat.inist.fr . . .

www.allacademic.com . . .

France has neither winter nor summer nor morals--apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.

- Mark Twain

And an atheist can find the message of the christ very beautiful and follow it without necessarily being religious.

HunchBacked wrote:

So you compare yourself with an animal?

No, athiests do. Without God, men are just another animal.

In fact an animal is not uselessly cruel.

Check again. That is a myth. Animals have been observed murdering others of their own species for sport. Sometimes even cannibalism..and not from starvation, but for social reasons. Animals have also been seen committing rape.

Morality can be taught, but it can also be innate.

I simply disagree with that. Observe human infants and children. Selfishness is innate.

French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.


In certain public indecencies the difference between a dog & a Frenchman is not perceptible.


There is nothing lower than the human race except the French.


Mark Twain




I hope this helps, Hunchback

simply disagree with that. Observe human infants and children. Selfishness is innate.

Let me guess. It's all white or black with you, right? Cannot both animals and human beings be selfish and generous? Are you aware you speak about living and intelligent creatures as if they were automatons? Can't you see that doing so, you're ultimately contradicting yourself? Or maybe Jesus and God are robots.

HunchBacked wrote:

And an atheist can find the message of the christ very beautiful and follow it without necessarily being religious.

Of course, as he could follow any philosophy he chose. More than likely though, he would pick and choose from the table, and not dine on everything. I fact, he may also choose, here and there among Buddhists, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, etc. Is he really moral though? Not unless he believes in something above himself.

Check again. That is a myth. Animals have been observed murdering others of their own species for sport. Sometimes even cannibalism..and not from starvation, but for social reasons. Animals have also been seen committing rape.

I stand to my point; what seems to be gratuitous cruelty responds to something; it seems cruel, but they are not cruel for a real sadistic need of being cruel; the lion who kills the cubs, it's because the lioness has lost interest in him, and not because he deliberately wants to be cruel with the cubs.
It's cruel, but it's not a gratuitous cruelty like it sometimes exists for the humans.

Morality can be taught, but it can also be innate.

I simply disagree with that. Observe human infants and children. Selfishness is innate.

You disagree because you want to believe that only religion can generate morality.
It's true that the children still don't have a high sense of morality, and can even be cruel, without being aware of it.
But as they go mature, they get a sense of morality which doesn't exclusively come from religion, unlike you think.
And there are christians who should have a high sense of morality, and in fact don't have any at all; for instance the drug trafficker who offers presents to the virgin mary and in the same time kills kids with his shit, is he moral? And yet he is extremely religious.

Not unless he believes in something above himself.

That's why you'll never acomplish yourself. Because you place either ideals, paradigms, or fictional characters above your self, like it was soemthing apart from whatever truth you seek. That's precisely what Nietzsche was loathing through his essays. But I bet you do not like him.

breizheals wrote:

Let me guess. It's all white or black with you, right?

In matters of morality there is no grey. It is either right or wrong, when it comes to moral decisions.

Cannot both animals and human beings be selfish and generous.

Animals cannot be generous. They do not give out of "love". Animals are guided by instinct and to a certain extant, learned behavior. Humans also have some instinctual traits, but socialized people are more guided by what is learned and what is expected from their social groups (primates are close, as well in behavior). Human behavior is far too complex to be debated here. But be careful not to anthromorphize animal behavior, and equate it with human.

Are you aware you speak about living and intelligent creatures as if they were automatons?

There is a HUGE difference between animals and humans. If you can't see that, I have nothing to discuss with you.

Not unless he believes in something above himself.

So what?
You have to believe that some divine entity will reward you if you behave, or some evil entity will punish you and you don't behave.
So you don't make the good just for the mere satisfaction of doing the good?
Finally atheists who do the good are more honest for they don't expect any reward for the good they are doing.

Humans also have some instinctual traits, but sociolized people are more guided by what is learned and what is expected from their social groups (primates are close, as well in behavior). Human behavior is far too complex to be debated here.

Have you clicked on the links I posted above? According to you love is a cultural notion. Once again you're contradicting yourself since through your own words, love becomes another habitus amongst others and consequently loses all its innate or transcendental sense.

And I fail to see why you're warning me about anthropocentrism. Don't you think primatologists and behavorists already are aware of that?

Tell me, how come there is a taboo on incest within primates' communities if they - as you say - unable of any morality?

There is a HUGE difference between animals and humans. If you can't see that, I have nothing to discuss with you.

If it's so HUGE, then it might be obvious. If it's obvious then it must be expressible. Cold you tell me in simple words how human beings and animals are intrinsequely different?

It's HUGE... must be easy for you to answer.

OldLyme wrote:

French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.


In certain public indecencies the difference between a dog & a Frenchman is not perceptible.


There is nothing lower than the human race except the French.


Mark Twain




I hope this helps, Hunchback

Yes, it helps a lot, thanks, LOL!

HunchBacked and breizheals,

First of all, lets get something straight: a religion is merely a philosophy with rituals. That's it. Some philosophies contain a devine element, some don't. The same with religions. I can point to "athiestic religions." The various Cults of Personality of certain despotic regimes come to mind.

The problem with you is, you are set into various paradigms and vocabulary that make discussion difficult. You seem to assume that I am some Bible-thumping wacko. I am not. Nor do I subscribe to the idea of The Divine Man, where the only god is within oneself. If you want to know the core of my belief system, it is as follows:

1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.

2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another.

More here: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org . . .

ADDED NOTE: There is a difference between acting ethically and morally. They are not the same thing.

Animals cannot be generous. They do not give out of "love". Animals are guided by instinct and to a certain extant, learned behavior. Humans also have some instinctual traits, but socialized people are more guided by what is learned and what is expected from their social groups (primates are close, as well in behavior). Human behavior is far too complex to be debated here. But be careful not to anthromorphize animal behavior, and equate it with human.

I disagree with the idea that animals are guided purely by instinct and some learned behavior. I've worked with animals for years. In the case of mammals they all share the same emotions. The higher the intellect of the species, the more sophisticated the emotions, but they certainly have them.

The problem with you is, you are set into various paradigms and vocabulary that make discussion difficult.

I beg to differ, Grey. You and Frederick are amongst the smartest members on FF and both of you are faniliar with that vocabulary. Proof is that you too use it. You're just trying to elude my last question whereas you did say there was a HUGE (and therefore OBVIOUS) difference between animals and humans. If it's so huge, can't you tell me how? Use whatever jargon you want, GreyUhu. And I'm not trying to bother you. I sincerely would like to understand your trail of thoughts, upon condition that you quit contradicting yourself.