[Marsh.]

There's even a movie to go with it. Hmm, might give it a try.
Are there any sequels?

[arista]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

There's even a movie to go with it. Hmm, might give it a try.
Are there any sequels?

Yes there will be.



Keep On Keepin' On 08marsh

[Stu]

Yes, Repetetive Posting II : I Think This Is Going Nowhere.

Dawkins plays the Abrahamic God in it only he never appears on screen. His in the credits, though, and the dialogue makes numerous mention of him.

[arista]

I do not Need Proof.

Only You Do.

There Is No God.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

I do not Need Proof.

Only You Do.

There Is No God.

No Arista - my point is that you cannot present your own personal opinion as a fact without any actual proof - that makes your opinion as invalid as that of the very people you despise.

[arista]

Originally Posted by angus58

No Arista - my point is that you cannot present your own personal opinion as a fact without any actual proof - that makes your opinion as invalid as that of the very people you despise.

Only To You.

[Stu]

It's hillarious because in Genesis days were only created on the fourth 'day' anyway.

[Angus]

originally posted by BB Eye
"But morality is not common sense at all. There have been many cultures with moral codes and norms completely abbhorent to our Western, neo-Christian sensibilities. How did common sense elude the Greeks and Romans when they took slaves and gave them no rights whatsoever? What about Indian cultures that abided by a strict caste system and excluded those born into 'chandala' families from activities afforded to everybody else, including drinking water from anywhere other than puddles and swamps? And even today, we have the prevalence of muslim countries which afford few rights to women and persecute Christians and Jews. This was/is a normal way of life for these people. Genocide was morally acceptable for the Mongols, imperial Russia, the Ottoman Empire, imperial Japan, the Nazis, communists, etc. Human nature doesn't paint such a flattering picture. Morality as we know is not innate or intuitive. Universal notions of the rights of man and that everybody is equal are an invention of Christianity."




I completely agree that morality is neither innate or intuitive, it evolves over time and through experience. For me my morality is rooted in pragmatism - I have to function and live in a society with so many different people with often diametrically opposed beliefs, backgrounds, culture etc etc, whose ideas of morality I sometimes find abhorrent since they cause dissent, offence, oppression or harm to others. The tenet by which I live my life is commonsense to ME since it covers both my own instinctive desire not to cause harm, distress or offence to others, but it also sits well with societal demands that require the same restraints.

Irrespective of which philosophy or religion the notions of equality and compassion for others originated from, I cannot help but agree with them. After all, every act of evil and injustice in this world is committed by those who do not recognise the rights of others to live the one life they have without fear of oppression or harm.

However, just because I follow the golden rule does not make me a push over. The golden rule requires recipricocity. Treating others as you would be treated is a two way street - if a person chooses to cause harm to another, then they can only expect to be treated likewise. I don't subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy since that simply enables and validates abhorrent behaviour.