Topic: Atheism

[electricghost]

Maybe, but one idea in particular we owe to a religion. In western culture, the idea that every single person has dignity and moral worth, independently of their deeds, was a Christian idea.

What is the evidence for this ?

[Corkboy]

Maybe, but one idea in particular we owe to a religion. In western culture, the idea that every single person has dignity and moral worth, independently of their deeds, was a Christian idea. Before Christianity, we had the Greek idea that dignity belonged to the strong, the beautiful and the wise. Having dignity just for being a person was a revolutionary idea. Just open any essay of Cicero's and you'll see how he laments that the mob "those that lack dignitas" have to be appeased by the nobles "those that have dignitas". Of course today it is part of our fundamental beliefs that all persons have dignity, indeed the universal charter of human rights is considered a landmark document because it codifies what was once only a Christian idea.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Firstly, if human rights were a Christian idea, why did it take until the Enlightenment for anyone to consider them seriously, or the French Revolution for them to be put into practise? After all, Christians had their own organisation, a highly influential one, for most of the years between AD 33 and the 1700s. How come none of them thought to start doing something about their great idea?

Secondly, the history of religion is such that nearly all thinkers were Christian in areas where Christianity prevailed. It wasn't a case of people having uniquely religious ideas, more of normal people thinking new things which were then attributed to religion. Darwin was a Christian, until he made his breakthrough. Were his ideas Christian?

In any case, the idea of morality being solely attributable to religion is deeply flawed. In order to arrive at any modern idea of morality from religious teaching, you have to wade through a pile of highly immoral shit. For every God loves you, there's a God will torture you for eternity. For every turn the other cheek, there's a love me or you're not worthy of me (and yes, Jesus said that). For every act of charity, there's a kill the unbeliever. Even a broken clock....

[vagabond]

That's a bit of a stretch.

Firstly, if human rights were a Christian idea, why did it take until the Enlightenment for anyone to consider them seriously, or the French Revolution for them to be put into practise? After all, Christians had their own organisation, a highly influential one, for most of the years between AD 33 and the 1700s. How come none of them thought to start doing something about their great idea?

I'm not sure if this is a serious comment. You realise that Christians were persecuted up until the 5th century for preaching their religion right? And yes, the fact that all Christians were considered saved by the sacrifice of Christ is what lead to its popularity amongst slaves, women and other disenfranchised peoples of the ancient world. Christianity promised you heaven even if you weren't strong, brave, a noble or whatever other ideals the Greeks and Romans worshipped. In fact you could say the fact that Christianity didn't differentiate between rich and poor is probably the biggest factor in its early success. It exploded amongst the poor so much so that by the end it was just the rich and powerful who believed in the Roman gods, the rest all believed in the god that loved them no matter what their achievements, sins, station in life, the one that loved them just for being them. Now of course once Christianity became dominant it developed its own hierarchy and probably abandoned its foundational ideas and moral principles, such is power I guess.

Secondly, the history of religion is such that nearly all thinkers were Christian in areas where Christianity prevailed. It wasn't a case of people having uniquely religious ideas, more of normal people thinking new things which were then attributed to religion. Darwin was a Christian, until he made his breakthrough. Were his ideas Christian?

Nope, the idea that every person is saved by the sacrifice of Christ (and therefore we all are worthy of heaven and have equal dignity) is the fundamental idea of Christianity - it isn't just some idea that some Christian happened to have. It's the idea that made Christianity different to everything that came before.

In any case, the idea of morality being solely attributable to religion is deeply flawed. In order to arrive at any modern idea of morality from religious teaching, you have to wade through a pile of highly immoral shit. For every God loves you, there's a God will torture you for eternity. For every turn the other cheek, there's a love me or you're not worthy of me (and yes, Jesus said that). For every act of charity, there's a kill the unbeliever. Even a broken clock....

Nobody said morality is solely attributable to religion. I only claimed that this one idea (that all humans have dignity regardless of deeds) was an idea that was introduced by Christianity and is today seen as a fundamental moral principle.

[TepidT2O]

 Check out the Godless spell checker podcasts if anyone is interested I this sort of things..

Avoid taking the myth and go for the excellent interviews.

[Corkboy]

I'm not sure if this is a serious comment. You realise that Christians were persecuted up until the 5th century for preaching their religion right? And yes, the fact that all Christians were considered saved by the sacrifice of Christ is what lead to its popularity amongst slaves, women and other disenfranchised peoples of the ancient world. Christianity promised you heaven even if you weren't strong, brave, a noble or whatever other ideals the Greeks and Romans worshipped. In fact you could say the fact that Christianity didn't differentiate between rich and poor is probably the biggest factor in its early success. It exploded amongst the poor so much so that by the end it was just the rich and powerful who believed in the Roman gods, the rest all believed in the god that loved them no matter what their achievements, sins, station in life, the one that loved them just for being them. Now of course once Christianity became dominant it developed its own hierarchy and probably abandoned its foundational ideas and moral principles, such is power I guess.

Christianity was fab until history got written down properly? Wow. That's amazing, isn't it?

[vagabond]

Christianity was fab until history got written down properly? Wow. That's amazing, isn't it?

Who said it was amazing?

[So… Howard Philips]

Is this thread for evangelical atheists?

[Corkboy]

Who said it was amazing?

Me. I mean, you literally quoted me saying it.

[vagabond]

Me. I mean, you literally quoted me saying it.

Typed the wrong damn thing. I meant to ask, who said it was fab? It has many faults but like most else there are a couple of good things about it too. Why is that a surprise?

[Corkboy]

Typed the wrong damn thing. I meant to ask, who said it was fab? It has many faults but like most else there are a couple of good things about it too. Why is that a surprise?

I was being facetious. It's not but I reject the premise that there are good things about it or bad. There really isn't an "it". It's all just people. Religion is just people thinking things. Wrong things, mostly.

[vagabond]

What is the evidence for this ?

I already mentioned Cicero, you are also welcome to read Plato, Aristotle and other thinkers from before Christianity.

[TepidT2O]

What is the evidence for this ?

It's probably Thomas Aquinas if it's to do with Christian morality and all that

[vagabond]

I was being facetious. It's not but I reject the premise that there are good things about it or bad. There really isn't an "it". It's all just people. Religion is just people thinking things. Wrong things, mostly.

I agree, I find it mostly wrong too. But the consequences of the central idea of the founding peoples was good for us, even if neither of us buys the theology.

[Golden_Child]

Vagabond made an excellent post on the previous page which I thought made some excellent points. I disagree with some of his points since then but they are certainly worthy of discussion.

Ultimately, morality IMO is entirely subjective dependent upon a wide range of factors. Otherwise you wouldn't have terrorists, Sutcliffe's and any number of people believing that what they were doing is 'right'. Religion can skew your moral compass in a way that many years ago it was accepted. Nowadays we've moved past it mostly and hence it's viewed as wrong (ie. homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc) by 'most' rational thinking people.

[thelinnen]

Altruism is defined fully within genetics, we take moral or selfless actions for good of the species. There is no greater good, any selfless actions are taken for the progression of homo sapiens. People just chose to attribute that to a creator because they didn't have the resources to know any better.

If anything religion distorts that.

[thejbs]

Confucious had his ethics better nailed down by 500BC than early Christians had, without the need of a deity. When the Jesuits came back from China in the C17th and published his teachings, it's believed that many great thinkers of the time sought to incorporate his humanistic phillosophies into Christianity. Many also think it likely that early Christianity was influenced by Buddhism, given some of their philosophical similarities.

That Christianity gave parity to the poor and the oppressed and the downtrodden was because it originated with the poor and the oppressed and the downtrodden.  If you're going to invent a religion, you invent one that serves your needs.  I would disagree with the idea that you always forgive sins and that you love your enemy. Reciprocity is essential for a social animal to survive and flourish, but so is the rule of law and repercussions for your negative actions. The ideas of being born with sin and needing the grace of God to save is the most despicable and amoral invention, not to mention other hatred justified by the bible.

[Bob Sacamano]

Vagabond made an excellent post on the previous page which I thought made some excellent points. I disagree with some of his points since then but they are certainly worthy of discussion.

Ultimately, morality IMO is entirely subjective dependent upon a wide range of factors. Otherwise you wouldn't have terrorists, Sutcliffe's and any number of people believing that what they were doing is 'right'. Religion can skew your moral compass in a way that many years ago it was accepted. Nowadays we've moved past it mostly and hence it's viewed as wrong (ie. homosexuality, abortion, divorce etc) by 'most' rational thinking people.

Golden, if you're using subjectivity and relativism interchangeably, then this is a non-sequitur and I think you refute your own point. That different people have different moral beliefs (subjectivity) is not in dispute; the issue is whether these differing beliefs are equally valid (relativism). If morality is "entirely subjective" then radical Jihadists who believe it their moral duty to murder infidels are entirely moral people just by virtue of having that belief.

You (and just about everyone) recognize this simply cannot be true. You hint at that by putting "right" in quotations, and referencing "rational thinking people." In order to refute subjectivity and relativism, you have to introduce some objectivity, some standard or "given" reality that is either immanent to nature or transcendent of nature (or both).   

[Bob Sacamano]

Confucious had his ethics better nailed down by 500BC than early Christians had, without the need of a deity. When the Jesuits came back from China in the C17th and published his teachings, it's believed that many great thinkers of the time sought to incorporate his humanistic phillosophies into Christianity. Many also think it likely that early Christianity was influenced by Buddhism, given some of their philosophical similarities.

That Christianity gave parity to the poor and the oppressed and the downtrodden was because it originated with the poor and the oppressed and the downtrodden.  If you're going to invent a religion, you invent one that serves your needs.  I would disagree with the idea that you always forgive sins and that you love your enemy. Reciprocity is essential for a social animal to survive and flourish, but so is the rule of law and repercussions for your negative actions. The ideas of being born with sin and needing the grace of God to save is the most despicable and amoral invention, not to mention other hatred justified by the bible.

I don't want to open a can of worms here, but this is a bizarre comment. It can certainly be argued that the first Christians were gravely mistaken or completely deluded. But the notion that they "invented" a religion to suit their own needs strains credulity even more than the Christian story itself!

The leaders of the first "church"--James, Peter, and Paul--were all Jews. Condemning oppressors of the downtrodden was already a popular, well-worn motif in Jewish literature. They certainly had nothing to gain by publicly professing that a Nazarene peasant crucified by Rome was in fact king and God incarnate; to the contrary, it made them enemies of Rome (who didn't take kindly the idea that someone other than Ceasar was king) and enemies of fellow Jews (who thought an incarnate God was blasphemous).

Paul, arguably the most influential early Christian figure, especially had no incentive to "invent," and if anything had much to lose in doing so. He was a well-educated Roman citizen with impeccable Jewish credentials and an early persecutor of the church.

[Corkboy]

You (and just about everyone) recognize this simply cannot be true. You hint at that by putting "right" in quotations, and referencing "rational thinking people." In order to refute subjectivity and relativism, you have to introduce some objectivity, some standard or "given" reality that is either immanent to nature or transcendent of nature (or both).  

Nope.

There is an element of truth in what Golden said. The truth is that what we think of morality is more properly a latticework of things upon which we broadly agree. Such a complex series of agreements is mutable and variable. Let's take killing a human. Many societies still permit it in some form, in certain circumstances. The fact that the US does, for example, and the UK doesn't, demonstrates this. Both first world, highly developed nations with centuries of thought, whether secular or otherwise, and yet they can't agree on this fundamental thing.

Most people agree that the Islamic terrorist who kills innocent people is immoral. Most, but not all. Most people think that lynching people for being black and disrespectful is wrong, but that wasn't the case a mere 50 years ago. Pretty much everyone thinks serial killers are immoral, except presumably the serial killers themselves. There are degrees in every case of morality, and this seems to make people nervous. A "universal" morality would be much more comforting, a completely acknowledged authority, and so religious people plump for the easy, comforting answer, same as they do with death. The rest of us know it's just us, and we have to regulate ourselves. No absolutes, no black or white. Morality is mutable, and grown ups know that, which is why we govern our societies with laws. Laws are also mutable, as they must be.

[Bob Sacamano]

Nope.

There is an element of truth in what Golden said. The truth is that what we think of morality is more properly a latticework of things upon which we broadly agree. Such a complex series of agreements is mutable and variable. Let's take killing a human. Many societies still permit it in some form, in certain circumstances. The fact that the US does, for example, and the UK doesn't, demonstrates this. Both first world, highly developed nations with centuries of thought, whether secular or otherwise, and yet they can't agree on this fundamental thing.

This would be a matter of practicality (how we apply our principles) and epistemology (how we can know principles), but not a matter of the principle itself. In other words, while there can be a wide range of disagreement regarding moral issues, all of the parties arguing will nevertheless be appealing to something beyond mere subjective experience. We can't always know for sure who has the "best" argument, or which morality is the "true" one, but that doesn't mean morality is reduced to what we broadly agree upon. One does not have to look very far back into history to find examples of "broad agreement" among many people of actions which were completely immoral.

Most people agree that the Islamic terrorist who kills innocent people is immoral. Most, but not all. Most people think that lynching people for being black and disrespectful is wrong, but that wasn't the case a mere 50 years ago. Pretty much everyone thinks serial killers are immoral, except presumably the serial killers themselves. There are degrees in every case of morality, and this seems to make people nervous. A "universal" morality would be much more comforting, a completely acknowledged authority, and so religious people plump for the easy, comforting answer, same as they do with death. The rest of us know it's just us, and we have to regulate ourselves. No absolutes, no black or white. Morality is mutable, and grown ups know that, which is why we govern our societies with laws. Laws are also mutable, as they must be.

I'm not suggesting that morality is always easy or always black and white. Sometimes it is, but many times it's not. Even among religious people who share the same faith, there can be large disagreements concerning doctrine and praxis and so on.

But I am suggesting there is a fact of the matter as to whether (for example) killing someone in cold blood is immoral, and that fact in no way depends on how many people agree with it, nor does it depend on the utility it confers upon certain individuals or society; and that fact--the immorality of killing in cold blood--is not something which can be rationally deduced from nature if one defines nature as nothing but random mutations of matter subjected to environmental pressures; for nature so conceived admits of no Rationality or Goodness or Justice or Truth. It merely is.

[thejbs]

I don't want to open a can of worms here, but this is a bizarre comment. It can certainly be argued that the first Christians were gravely mistaken or completely deluded. But the notion that they "invented" a religion to suit their own needs strains credulity even more than the Christian story itself!

The leaders of the first "church"--James, Peter, and Paul--were all Jews. Condemning oppressors of the downtrodden was already a popular, well-worn motif in Jewish literature. They certainly had nothing to gain by publicly professing that a Nazarene peasant crucified by Rome was in fact king and God incarnate; to the contrary, it made them enemies of Rome (who didn't take kindly the idea that someone other than Ceasar was king) and enemies of fellow Jews (who thought an incarnate God was blasphemous).

Paul, arguably the most influential early Christian figure, especially had no incentive to "invent," and if anything had much to lose in doing so. He was a well-educated Roman citizen with impeccable Jewish credentials and an early persecutor of the church.

When the teachings of Christ weren't properly transcribed at the time, and what was then later transcribed is fantastical and supernatural, you can easily conclude that there's much in there that was 'invented by early Christians.  There's an argument on Jews immediately after Jesus' time being so keen to see the Messiah prophesy come true, that they were more susceptible to the fantasies conjured up by early Christians. With regard to Paul, you are assuming that everything attributed to him was written by him.  Through translation errors and forgeries, it's not irrational to presume that the letters of Paul aren't entirely of his own hand - many scholars dispute that up to half of the Pauline epistles are not his.  And what was the purpose of forgeries but to distort and invent?  Actually, is the historicity of St.Paul himself undoubted? 

Now, of course, you could say they were innocently mistaken or just deluded, but for me, the existence of fantastical and supernatural claims alone would suggest that there is certainly a large amount of invention there. Doesn't the bible claim that St.Paul had visions and had miraculous super powers that rivaled Jesus? 

Then there are the parallels in Christianity and the various Pagan religions of the time.  That Christianity lifted myths and celebrations from Roman and Greek beliefs and philosophies, shows us that a great amount of invention is involved during the birth of the religion. 

Post-Constantine, as the Church grew, there was abundant invention and reinvention of the religion - much of it plucked from sources other than the Bible such as elements of Greek philosophy.  Christians by the 5th century were doing their own fair share of persecution and (feeding into my argument) destroying historical political texts and banning any reproductions. This makes history when drawn from written sources of the time, unreliable.  All of this was done to bend the religion towards what adherants wanted it to be.  In effect, inventing it.

[Corkboy]

But I am suggesting there is a fact of the matter as to whether (for example) killing someone in cold blood is immoral, and that fact in no way depends on how many people agree with it, nor does it depend on the utility it confers upon certain individuals or society; and that fact--the immorality of killing in cold blood--is not something which can be rationally deduced from nature if one defines nature as nothing but random mutations of matter subjected to environmental pressures; for nature so conceived admits of no Rationality or Goodness or Justice or Truth. It merely is.

Correct. We impose those things on ourselves, and not always successfully.

[RedRabbit]

I'm not suggesting that morality is always easy or always black and white. Sometimes it is, but many times it's not. Even among religious people who share the same faith, there can be large disagreements concerning doctrine and praxis and so on.

But I am suggesting there is a fact of the matter as to whether (for example) killing someone in cold blood is immoral, and that fact in no way depends on how many people agree with it, nor does it depend on the utility it confers upon certain individuals or society; and that fact--the immorality of killing in cold blood--is not something which can be rationally deduced from nature if one defines nature as nothing but random mutations of matter subjected to environmental pressures; for nature so conceived admits of no Rationality or Goodness or Justice or Truth. It merely is.

What if you killed someone in cold blood and no one ever found out about it?

[Yorkykopite]

Couldn't think where else to put this, but I just read the Times obituary (paywall of course) for Brian Aldiss, who was an atheist. He didn't believe in the afterlife but had a theory that we came from dead stars. Lovely. Apparently he wanted (wants?) a church funeral "out of great respect for my local vicar who tolerates my atheism". I liked that.

Also he says everyone must come dressed as a skeleton.

[CornerFlag]

Couldn't think where else to put this, but I just read the Times obituary (paywall of course) for Brian Aldiss, who was an atheist. He didn't believe in the afterlife but had a theory that we came from dead stars. Lovely. Apparently he wanted (wants?) a church funeral "out of great respect for my local vicar who tolerates my atheism". I liked that.

Also he says everyone must come dressed as a skeleton.

Technically the theory of dead stars is a fact; the heavy elements within us (and the world around us) can only have been created within the matter that came from super-massive stars.

Or Jesus' dad.

[Yorkykopite]

Technically the theory of dead stars is a fact; the heavy elements within us (and the world around us) can only have been created within the matter that came from super-massive stars.

"We are stardust. We are golden. We are billion year old carbon".

[Andy @ Allerton!]

We'll have achieved some kind of brilliant world when everyone can think what they like without getting shite about it from someone else.

Can't see it ever happening. The Atheists seem as hell bent on intolerance as the Religious.

Maybe the future would be people that just get on with their own shit without worrying about everyone else.

That's like the Star Trek future. That's the one I'd like to live in

[Yorkykopite]

Can't see it ever happening. The Atheists seem as hell bent on intolerance as the Religious.

Aye that's true. Another preacher was murdered in Pakistan yesterday by the atheists. A load more people were mowed down by a truck driven by a freethinker. And now they want a law to prevent anyone drawing pictures of Darwin. They're just as bad.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Aye that's true. Another preacher was murdered in Pakistan yesterday by the atheists. A load more people were mowed down by a truck driven by a freethinker. And now they want a law to prevent anyone drawing pictures of Darwin. They're just as bad.

Not going to get into an argument, but it's a bit poor to compare someone that might think they're spiritual or go to church or help down the Scouts to a mass murdering shitbag.

There are plenty of murderers who have been atheist, but I wouldn't say it's a trait that if you don't believe in God then you're a murderer.

Not sure of the number of Muslims or Christians or Jews in the World at the moment, but I'd imagine that the number of those that believe in something AND have caused mass murder is fairly low.

[Yorkykopite]

Not going to get into an argument, but it's a bit poor to compare someone that might think they're spiritual or go to church or help down the Scouts to a mass murdering shitbag.

There are plenty of murderers who have been atheist, but I wouldn't say it's a trait that if you don't believe in God then you're a murderer.

Not sure of the number of Muslims or Christians or Jews in the World at the moment, but I'd imagine that the number of those that believe in something AND have caused mass murder is fairly low.

Oh it's tiny.

There again the number of governments who won't tolerate blasphemy and who persecute non-believers is a somewhat higher.

And I'm yet to hear of any organised atheist group that makes life hell for religious folk. Whereas the other way round......

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Oh it's tiny.

There again the number of governments who won't tolerate blasphemy and who persecute non-believers is a somewhat higher.

And I'm yet to hear of any organised atheist group that makes life hell for religious folk. Whereas the other way round......

So railing against those in charge would seem a better policy

[Yorkykopite]

So railing against those in charge would seem a better policy

We often have this 'discussion' and you're probably as bored by it as I am. I hope so anyway. Because it's not really a discussion at all.

When you refer to "atheist intolerance" what you mean is their occasional mockery of religious ideas, their sarcasm and laughter and - I'm afraid to say - their heavy duty research about things like the origins of the universe. What I call "religious intolerance" is none of these things. I'm absolutely happy for them to mock atheism and laugh at it. I really am. I feel sorry for them when they do it, but it doesn't bother me an iota and I certainly wouldn't call it "intolerance."

What I mean by religious intolerance are things like blasphemy laws, the murder of 'kaffirs' and 'infidels', the outlawing of non-belief, the replacement of representative government by theocracy and the operation of religious inquisitions.

I'm well aware of the fact that most victims of religious intolerance are believers who happen to believe in the 'wrong' religion, or the 'wrong' version of the 'right' religion. But that's why I would love to extend the joys of secular government to all of them. Then, under the benign and happy governance of atheists and secularists, they will be free to believe whatever they like with the only proviso that they won't force others, including their kids, to believe it too. 

But, naturally, I can't guarantee the laughter will stop. Only the gunfire of their fellow believers.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

We often have this 'discussion' and you're probably as bored by it as I am. I hope so anyway. Because it's not really a discussion at all.

When you refer to "atheist intolerance" what you mean is their occasional mockery of religious ideas, their sarcasm and laughter and - I'm afraid to say - their heavy duty research about things like the origins of the universe. What I call "religious intolerance" is none of these things. I'm absolutely happy for them to mock atheism and laugh at it. I really am. I feel sorry for them when they do it, but it doesn't bother me an iota and I certainly wouldn't call it "intolerance."

What I mean by religious intolerance are things like blasphemy laws, the murder of 'kaffirs' and 'infidels', the outlawing of non-belief, the replacement of representative government by theocracy and the operation of religious inquisitions.

I'm well aware of the fact that most victims of religious intolerance are believers who happen to believe in the 'wrong' religion, or the 'wrong' version of the 'right' religion. But that's why I would love to extend the joys of secular government to all of them. Then, under the benign and happy governance of atheists and secularists, they will be free to believe whatever they like with the only proviso that they won't force others, including their kids, to believe it too. 

But, naturally, I can't guarantee the laughter will stop. Only the gunfire of their fellow believers.

I personally think that Atheism may well rule the roost one day. I doubt it will bring peace or humility or freedom though.

Just those things blamed on religion or used by it will be blamed on other things and used by other things.

The future is probably Massive global corporations that will wield was much power as the churches once did.

And I doubt the war will ever end. It's always really been about power, commerce, resources and all the rest.

But yeah I agree (Why wouldn't anyone) that 'we' (And that's not just 'atheists') should resist intolerance, bigory and all the other shite  around the world that happens - whatever the 'justification' of it.

[Mutton Geoff]

I regard all religions as man made and therefore flawed. my only exception would be this one:

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:

(1) to lead a moral life,
(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and
(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

No offence to people who follow other religions just the way i see it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I regard all religions as man made and therefore flawed. my only exception would be this one:

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:

(1) to lead a moral life,
(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and
(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

No offence to people who follow other religions just the way i see it.

So other people can't do that? OK. I've not personally met everyone, but I'll take your word for it.

[Yorkykopite]

Those Buddhists in Burma know how to use a machine gun. Jeez.

[Mutton Geoff]

So other people can't do that? OK. I've not personally met everyone, but I'll take your word for it.

Not sure why this response  just the way i live my life, you can live yours as you please.

[Mutton Geoff]

Those Buddhists in Burma know how to use a machine gun. Jeez.

 i bet Christians from the old empire taught them.

[Yorkykopite]

i bet Christians from the old empire taught them.

No. They're religious fundamentalists. They are quite capable of arriving at zealotry and sectarian violence on their own.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Not sure why this response  just the way i live my life, you can live yours as you please.

Because of your idea that if someone else follows a different religion then they can't have any kind of 'philosophy of life'

Bizarre.

But as you said, you probably know better than me.