EDL (English Defence League)

[Webbo]

I heard Noah was a beastophile

F@ck that for a lark.

[Raw Dykes]

(1) The story of Noah is mentioned in all three major scriptures so there will probably be about 3-4 billion people in the world who believe in its story

(2) You have to understand that in religion the messengers were usually granted a special favour or miracle. Noahs was the flood, Jesus could heal the sick, Moses could part the red Sea, Solomon could communicate with animals... etc.

(3) And contrary to what you said, Noahs Wife and one of his sons were not on the ship with him, they did not believe in his message so they were of the people who drowned. But there were people who did believe his message on the ship so they were not the only Humans onboard.

(1) I believe there could be that many people who actually believe the story. What I'm saying is that really is a sad state of affairs when we know for a fact that it could not have happened. It is impossible.

(2) Are you saying that Noah was granted a favour from god, and what Noah really wanted was the extermination of every living thing on the planet, save for a few people and just 2 of each species of animal? If that's so, Noah was a sick bastard, and for god to choose him says a lot about god, really. If not, then god himself makes Hitler look like a saint.

(3) Does the bible or quran mention other people apart from Noah being on the ark?

I've just thought - what happened to all the flora? There's no mention of plants being on the ark, is there?

[Houdini Logic]

(1) I believe there could be that many people who actually believe the story. What I'm saying is that really is a sad state of affairs when we know for a fact that it could not have happened. It is impossible.

(2) Are you saying that Noah was granted a favour from god, and what Noah really wanted was the extermination of every living thing on the planet, save for a few people and just 2 of each species of animal? If that's so, Noah was a sick bastard, and for god to choose him says a lot about god, really. If not, then god himself makes Hitler look like a saint.

(3) Does the bible or quran mention other people apart from Noah being on the ark?

I've just thought - what happened to all the flora? There's no mention of plants being on the ark, is there?

There's one fundamental flaw with your argument - you're using logic with a religious person

[Rincewind]

Well the Bible is usually defended by using quotes from the Bible. (or similar)

[panky and our gang]

He didn't need Flora he had his own Utterly Buttery .

[zubi]

(1) I believe there could be that many people who actually believe the story. What I'm saying is that really is a sad state of affairs when we know for a fact that it could not have happened. It is impossible.

(2) Are you saying that Noah was granted a favour from god, and what Noah really wanted was the extermination of every living thing on the planet, save for a few people and just 2 of each species of animal? If that's so, Noah was a sick bastard, and for god to choose him says a lot about god, really. If not, then god himself makes Hitler look like a saint.

(3) Does the bible or quran mention other people apart from Noah being on the ark?

I've just thought - what happened to all the flora? There's no mention of plants being on the ark, is there?

(1) There are probably 3-4 Billion people who believe in the story of Noah, and the rest are Aethists or polytheist religions who may disregard the messengers mentioned in the holy books. You may think it's a sad state of affairs that so many people believe, but then that's probably how people who do believe in the story feel about people who don't. But you can't really say everyone who believed in the story is a loon, the same way I can't go around saying all atheists are loons for believing we evolved from apes. There are extremly intellectual people on both sides

(2) The whole point wasn't to kill off as many humans as possible, the whole point was to kill off the corruption and sin of man. Both the Quran and Bible comment on this

Bible

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

(Genesis 6-11:17)

Quran

He said: ‘O my Lord! Verily, I have called my people night and day (secretly and openly to accept the doctrine of Monotheism), but all my calling added nothing but to their flight from the truth. Verily! Every time I called unto them that You might forgive them, they thrust their fingers into their ears, covered themselves up with their garments, and persisted (in their refusal), and magnified themselves in pride.”

(Quran 71:5-7)

My Lord! Leave not one of the disbelievers on the earth. If you leave them, they will mislead Your slaves and they will beget none but wicked disbelievers.

(Quran 71:27)

(3) Yes the Bible and Quran do mention humans other than Noah on the ark.

“Until when Our Command came and the lowlands gushed forth, overflowing, We said: ‘Load it with two of each kind of animal (male and female), and embark your family, except against whom the Word has already gone forth, and those who believe.’ And none believed him except a few.”

(Quran 11:40)

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

(Genesis 6-18)

(4) You mentioned what happened to the flora? If God can flood such a great amount of land it really isn't going to be hard for him to restore the land back to it's original state so that Noah and the others will be able to live on as they did before

And it is He Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before his mercy (Rain); and We send down pure water from the sky. That We may give life thereby to the dead land, and We gave to drink thereof Many of the Men and Cattle who We created.

(Quran 25:47-48)

Again hope that helps with the points you made

[zubi]

He didn't need Flora he had his own Utterly Buttery .

Olivio > Flora + Utterly Butterly

[Rincewind]

Still a bit drastic though doing a mass genocide. It's a lot worse now. I cannot subscribe to a God that does that sort of thing.

So there was a big flood and God's taking the credit for it because he didn't like what people were doing. I don't like what a lot of people do but I won't go and kill them all. What gives God the right to decide who lives and dies?

No I'm happy not being at the becking call of a egotistic homocidal maniac who exists only to answer questions the followers have no answer for about life the universe and everything.

[Raw Dykes]

(1) There are probably 3-4 Billion people who believe in the story of Noah, and the rest are Aethists or polytheist religions who may disregard the messengers mentioned in the holy books. You may think it's a sad state of affairs that so many people believe, but then that's probably how people who do believe in the story feel about people who don't. But you can't really say everyone who believed in the story is a loon, the same way I can't go around saying all atheists are loons for believing we evolved from apes. There are extremly intellectual people on both sides

(2) The whole point wasn't to kill off as many humans as possible, the whole point was to kill off the corruption and sin of man. Both the Quran and Bible comment on this

(3) Yes the Bible and Quran do mention humans other than Noah on the ark.

“Until when Our Command came and the lowlands gushed forth, overflowing, We said: ‘Load it with two of each kind of animal (male and female), and embark your family, except against whom the Word has already gone forth, and those who believe.’ And none believed him except a few.”

(Quran 11:40)

But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

(Genesis 6-18)

(4) You mentioned what happened to the flora? If God can flood such a great amount of land it really isn't going to be hard for him to restore the land back to it's original state so that Noah and the others will be able to live on as they did before

And it is He Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before his mercy (Rain); and We send down pure water from the sky. That We may give life thereby to the dead land, and We gave to drink thereof Many of the Men and Cattle who We created.

(Quran 25:47-48)

Again hope that helps with the points you made

Thanks for the reply.

(1) The number of people who believe the story has no bearing on its validity. There was a time when everyone believed the world was flat, but that was never true. 3-4 billion people CAN be wrong, and since facts prove that the flood did not happen, 3-4 billion people are wrong about this. You may call people loons for accepting science, but you'd be wrong, because it's perfectly rational and logical to trust the field that demonstrably provides evidence that it succeeds. Science is the right way to learn and discover. Look around you. Your telly is a product of science, your computer, the internet, your house. Transport, telecommunications and space exploration are all examples of what is possible by using logic and rational thinking. Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to show for itself. Even though it's far older than science. Can you think of one positive thing that religion has offered the world? Faith is a backwards and dangerous way of thinking.

(2) That's absolutely mental. Are you seriously saying that genocide is a-ok, as long as you say it's the sin, and not the actual person, that you want to kill. "It's alright, Judge - I was just ending the sin in that bloke I battered with a hammer." "Oh, really? Oh, I do apologise. Not guilty!"

(3) That really doesn't affect the point I was making - it's still an extremely shallow gene pool to start the world's entire population from only about 6000 years ago, isn't it?

(4) So, basically, god is magic and can do anything? Most plants would have been killed off by being submerged in saltwater for 40 days and 40 nights - pouring some water on the dead ground is not going to fix that.

[ozleicester]

Johnny Rotten selling Margarine... now thats a SIN!!

You bastard Johnny..... you utter..utter..utter bastard!

[Dr The Singh]

Thanks for the reply.

(1) The number of people who believe the story has no bearing on its validity. There was a time when everyone believed the world was flat, but that was never true. 3-4 billion people CAN be wrong, and since facts prove that the flood did not happen, 3-4 billion people are wrong about this. You may call people loons for accepting science, but you'd be wrong, because it's perfectly rational and logical to trust the field that demonstrably provides evidence that it succeeds. Science is the right way to learn and discover. Look around you. Your telly is a product of science, your computer, the internet, your house. Transport, telecommunications and space exploration are all examples of what is possible by using logic and rational thinking. Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to show for itself. Even though it's far older than science. Can you think of one positive thing that religion has offered the world? Faith is a backwards and dangerous way of thinking.

(2) That's absolutely mental. Are you seriously saying that genocide is a-ok, as long as you say it's the sin, and not the actual person, that you want to kill. "It's alright, Judge - I was just ending the sin in that bloke I battered with a hammer." "Oh, really? Oh, I do apologise. Not guilty!"

(3) That really doesn't affect the point I was making - it's still an extremely shallow gene pool to start the world's entire population from only about 6000 years ago, isn't it?

(4) So, basically, god is magic and can do anything? Most plants would have been killed off by being submerged in saltwater for 40 days and 40 nights - pouring some water on the dead ground is not going to fix that.

I agree with everything you have said except for that statement, not all religions are the same, some religion at times has instilled the best characteristics of mankind against all adversity. Not all faiths instill backward thinking and not all can be deducted as dangerous!!

[zubi]

Thanks for the reply.

(1) The number of people who believe the story has no bearing on its validity. There was a time when everyone believed the world was flat, but that was never true. 3-4 billion people CAN be wrong, and since facts prove that the flood did not happen, 3-4 billion people are wrong about this. You may call people loons for accepting science, but you'd be wrong, because it's perfectly rational and logical to trust the field that demonstrably provides evidence that it succeeds. Science is the right way to learn and discover. Look around you. Your telly is a product of science, your computer, the internet, your house. Transport, telecommunications and space exploration are all examples of what is possible by using logic and rational thinking. Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to show for itself. Even though it's far older than science. Can you think of one positive thing that religion has offered the world? Faith is a backwards and dangerous way of thinking.

(2) That's absolutely mental. Are you seriously saying that genocide is a-ok, as long as you say it's the sin, and not the actual person, that you want to kill. "It's alright, Judge - I was just ending the sin in that bloke I battered with a hammer." "Oh, really? Oh, I do apologise. Not guilty!"

(3) That really doesn't affect the point I was making - it's still an extremely shallow gene pool to start the world's entire population from only about 6000 years ago, isn't it?

(4) So, basically, god is magic and can do anything? Most plants would have been killed off by being submerged in saltwater for 40 days and 40 nights - pouring some water on the dead ground is not going to fix that.

(1) If you have facts that suggest the flooding did not occur please share them with me, I'm surprised you haven't done so sooner

I never dismissed science or called people loons for accepting it. I've been trying to mention verses in the Qu'ran linked to science but people are too busy trying to debunk me and El Empty rather than understand whats being said. Although you would be a fool to think science hasn't evolved through religion, or religious people. Check this video out, it's quite interesting... It's got Ben Kingsley in it aswell so it might actually motivate you to watch it

You should also read up on the science and knowledge which flourished when Spain was ruled by the Muslims, that was an extremely interesting timeline in history, bet you didn't know that it was a Muslim geographers maps which led Christopher Columbus to venture out into the region where he later discovered America

You seem to think that religion is some sort of source of evil. If you only knew about the characters of the Messengers like Jesus and Mohammed you would change your mind about that. They were messengers who preached people to do good, to take care of the ill and poor, to spread good and shun hatred. Religion teaches people good values, it's a shame that people don't follow their values and commit bad crimes which leaves such a bad impression on you and others who don't believe in god.

(2) Noah was sent to preach monotheism, when God told him he was going to send a flood he wasn't exactly going to just leave the people to die, He did warn the people of the punishment of God, but they were arrogant and chose to defy Noah. According the Genesis, his people were given 120 years to repent

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

(Genesis 6:3)

Through out the history of monotheistic religion, god has always punished people for their wrong doings, the people of Lot, Pharoah, The Pagan Egyptions etc. But the prophets and messengers have always warned the people about the punishment of God

(3) You weren't making a point you asked a question and I gave you an answer.

Anyway doesn't science prove that the vast majority of land was uninhabitable 10000 or so years ago? The only really populated area was North Africa and Central Asia, which is why they are reffered to as the cradle of civilisation. So it's not like 6 billion people had to be repopulated.

And a quick question for the aetheists out there on this topic. I was just wondering, to my knowledge, as Nightgaurd mentioned, Humans evolved from amoebas, which became fish, which became monkeys, which became apes, which evolved into Humans (Is my timeline correct?). So how did the human race populate itself?... I always assumed (from an aetheists point of view) that man evolved one at a time, but then this would give less of a chance to populate. Or did a whole tribe of people evolve together?

[Rincewind]

Angelina Jolie Voigh @AngelinaVJolie is now following you

[The Doctor]

And a quick question for the atheists out there on this topic. I was just wondering, to my knowledge, as Nightgaurd mentioned, Humans evolved from amoebas, which became fish, which became monkeys, which became apes, which evolved into Humans (Is my timeline correct?). So how did the human race populate itself?... I always assumed (from an atheists point of view) that man evolved one at a time, but then this would give less of a chance to populate. Or did a whole tribe of people evolve together?

Single celled organisms became increasingly complex, to fishes, amphibians, small rodent like-mammals, monkeys, apes, humans (although there are hundreds of stages missing there).

Evolution didn't occur one man at a time, there were once large societies of the same "missing link" if you like, however small groups either moved on or were forcibly separated by nature. In these small groups random mutations occurred which gave the individual a selective advantage over others, be it an increased tolerance to drought, greater ability to gather food or even just greater sexual appeal.

These individuals were therefore more likely to mate, and so passed on the new trait to their offspring, who then past it on to their offspring ad infinitum changing the distribution of the gene-pool greatly and creating a new species, unable to successfully reproduce with other individuals of the original society, pre-separation. Hence they had evolved towards modern man.

So to summarise, if evolution is indeed correct, then yes whole tribes evolved together.

[Rincewind]

And a quick question for the aetheists out there on this topic. I was just wondering, to my knowledge, as Nightgaurd mentioned, Humans evolved from amoebas, which became fish, which became monkeys, which became apes, which evolved into Humans (Is my timeline correct?). So how did the human race populate itself?... I always assumed (from an aetheists point of view) that man evolved one at a time, but then this would give less of a chance to populate. Or did a whole tribe of people evolve together?

Good question and the best answer I have is that it did not happen overnight or with the wave of a hand. The evolvement was gradual with only the fittest surviving. You only need two to of a species. Its known as natual selection. Take birds some lay four or five eggs. Two may fall out the nest and there may just be two healthy ones. If they do not fly when they should the weakest gets left behind to be eaten by predators. Stick insects come in different colours but not always. They used to be seen and caught so over the centries their colours changed to match the background. Not every creature did this and so became extinct.

Sorry but I don't need a god telling me I've been good or bad. I can decide for myself. I don't know many people that live to be 120 so having that much warning would not be of much use I've no doubt Jesus and the other prophets did preach good but shouldn't that be a norm religion or no religion.

Like I said in another post, find me something that doesn't involve some opient being waving a hand and creating everything praying, miracles people living till ridiculous ages imaculate conception, coming back to life and just leave the caring and respecting all people then it will be close to what I would except. Plus it would need evolution and natual selection.

[themotivator]

And a quick question for the aetheists out there on this topic. I was just wondering, to my knowledge, as Nightgaurd mentioned, Humans evolved from amoebas, which became fish, which became monkeys, which became apes, which evolved into Humans (Is my timeline correct?). So how did the human race populate itself?... I always assumed (from an aetheists point of view) that man evolved one at a time, but then this would give less of a chance to populate. Or did a whole tribe of people evolve together?

maybe because the world is much much much older than 6,000 years.

at man evolving one at a time.

sorry, the disrespect i have shown was not meant to be malicious. I also apologise for not reading the rest of this thread, but the fact that it is supposed to be about the EDL and is now a discussion on wether the Noah's arc story was real or not is absolutely classic.

if you think that the Noah's arc story happened. i am worried about how you would cope in the real world. people could make up whatever they liked in them days, when there was not much of an education system and people had no idea that dinosaurs had ever existed.

[Houdini Logic]

And a quick question for the aetheists out there on this topic. I was just wondering, to my knowledge, as Nightgaurd mentioned, Humans evolved from amoebas, which became fish, which became monkeys, which became apes, which evolved into Humans (Is my timeline correct?). So how did the human race populate itself?... I always assumed (from an aetheists point of view) that man evolved one at a time, but then this would give less of a chance to populate. Or did a whole tribe of people evolve together?

Now I don't claim to know the ins and outs of every religion, but I certainly have a grasp of the fundamental principles.

I'll leave it at that - I can't be fluffed to argue

[LilMissFox]

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

lol lol lol lol

Woah chill out

[21st Century Fox]

Single celled organisms became increasingly complex, to fishes, amphibians, small rodent like-mammals, monkeys, apes, humans (although there are hundreds of stages missing there).

Evolution didn't occur one man at a time, there were once large societies of the same "missing link" if you like, however small groups either moved on or were forcibly separated by nature. In these small groups random mutations occurred which gave the individual a selective advantage over others, be it an increased tolerance to drought, greater ability to gather food or even just greater sexual appeal.

These individuals were therefore more likely to mate, and so passed on the new trait to their offspring, who then past it on to their offspring ad infinitum changing the distribution of the gene-pool greatly and creating a new species, unable to successfully reproduce with other individuals of the original society, pre-separation. Hence they had evolved towards modern man.

So to summarise, if evolution is indeed correct, then yes whole tribes evolved together.

Yep bang on.

With each new tribe/species that evolved it got closer to what we now regard as Homo-sapien. The closer it got to 'us' the weaker previous genus would die out or be bred out. Neanderthals were incredibly stronger than Homo-sapien but lacked the cognitive capacity and their hands we angled differently (palms facing behind them) which meant they were unable to utilise hunting tools such as spears and were only really able to use such things as rock as weapons, so again the stronger prevailed.

Don't forget also that we say we are derived from monkeys and apes, that isn't to say we're derived from modern monkeys and apes, there was no stage in our evolutionary lineage that 'we' ever looked or acted anything like them because they are as evolved as we are. There was a common ancestor that we share that lead the modern monkey onto its own lineage of evolution.

So yes we evolved in groups/tribes/species rather than individually as with each incarnation the stronger would prevail, flourish and breed.

LargeAl said it better though.

[Rincewind]

There was a programme on TV about this not so long ago. One type of man fast and able to hide and another that preferred to fight at close range. The other made spears which enabled them to attack from a distance. One of these species died out the other passed their skills onto by way of genes.

[themotivator]

There was a programme on TV about this not so long ago. One type of man fast and able to hide and another that preferred to fight at close range. The other made spears which enabled them to attack from a distance. One of these species died out the other passed their skills onto by way of genes.

are you talking about that one about all how they think homo sapian (probably wrong spelling) won out over all the other species of early man? that was hilarious. it was good to have the whole business explained quite well but i was laughing at how over dramatic it was.

basically we evolved bigger brains and murked all the others who were stronger than us. go us.

[Rincewind]

Yes that was the one Maybe dramatic but informative too using what has been found out using scientic methods.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Well the Bible is usually defended by using quotes from the Bible. (or similar)

Oh yes, that is so true.

I am not knocking the Bible, though.

[Raw Dykes]

I can’t quite believe that I have to explain how the story of Noah’s Ark isn’t factual – a story that I’m not sure was ever intended as anything other than fiction. For starters, there isn’t enough water on the planet to flood all the land, completely covering mountains, and even if there was, these floods couldn’t subside – where would the water go? We would not see anything like the variation of animal and plant life we do today if, only a few thousand years ago, all life was contained on one boat (meant to be huge, [and built by one man, before the Black & Decker Workmate or the Dremel Multi!] but smaller than the Italian liner Eturia built in 1884). We wouldn’t have people of different races if all mankind originated from a handful of people on one boat only a few thousand years ago. How would the passengers survive for 40 days and 40 nights on a boat on a planet with nothing but saltwater covering it? A lot of the animals are carnivorous. The others would need certain plants. There’s no fridge!

“I never dismissed science or called people loons for accepting it.”

You’re right, but you were saying that believing the story and not are equally valid positions because there are intelligent people on both sides. This doesn’t wash. There are clever people who believe the story, but they are demonstrably wrong on this particular topic.

“Although you would be a fool to think science hasn't evolved through religion, or religious people”

I can understand why you would say this – a lot of the most famous scientists throughout history were religious. This is misleading however, because they lived in a time when everyone was. Whether they were really believers or not would not affect their answer if asked – they were in real danger of becoming outcasts from society, or even death, if they had admitted to being an infidel. The picture is very different today. In the USA, which is very much a religious country, 96% of the members of the American Academy of Science (the top scientists in the country) do not believe in god.

“You should also read up on the science and knowledge which flourished when Spain was ruled by the Muslims, that was an extremely interesting timeline in history”

I do know a bit about the Islamic Golden Age (c.750 CE - c.1258 CE), and we can certainly be thankful to Muslims of this era for preserving a lot of Greek philosophy, and adding their own inventions. You appear to agree that science is a good thing, but I doubt anyone could argue that religion promotes science.

You say Islam and Christianity teach people good values, and they do, but the Bible and the Quran also contain some truly disgusting advice. There are lots of examples, but I wouldn’t consider forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, stoning an unruly child to death or slavery “good values”. Religious people often claim they get their moral values from their holy book, but they have to cherry pick the parts they consider nice. Doing this demonstrates that they themselves can judge right from wrong better than the writers of their holy books, and therefore the books cannot have been the source of their morals. Moral values are inbuilt in us. We evolved as a communal species. Religion has tried to make morals its own, even though morals are older than religion. Look at any communal species of animal – they live together in harmony, and have no superstitious beliefs.

“He did warn the people of the punishment of God, but they were arrogant and chose to defy Noah.”

They had no good reason to believe him. To them, he was just a loon. You called them arrogant, but I’m sure you don’t believe in every god ever invented. Are you being arrogant if you don’t believe me when I say Zeus is the real god?

“Anyway doesn't science prove that the vast majority of land was uninhabitable 10000 or so years ago? The only really populated area was North Africa and Central Asia, which is why they are reffered to as the cradle of civilisation. So it's not like 6 billion people had to be repopulated.”

No. The Out of Africa hypothesis that you could be referring to states that Homo Sapiens migrated from Africa into Europe and Asia between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, but there had been Homo erectus living in Africa, Asia and Europe, and Neanderthals living in Europe and Asia for millions of years prior to this, so I don’t know where you got that from. Why would the vast majority of land have been uninhabitable? I think you missed my point, anyway. It wasn’t the numbers of the population, but the variation of, and variation within, species that would be a problem.

[21st Century Fox]

I cannot +1 that enough!!

On the moral issue, religion often lays claim to charity (or particularly 'Christian charity') as a cornerstone or 'invention' of religion. Evolutionary theory however dictates that charity as we know it today is an evolutionary misfiring, as we developed the ability to show empathy and altruism through living in small communities and tribes. We'd help others in our tribes in times of need because it was easily able to be reciprocated back to us at some point in time as we would come across these people eveyday for the rest of our lives. As we grew as a species and our population spread out we no longer had such small communities but we had developed the sense of empathy (to put ourselves in someone else's shoes) so charity was non-reciprocal. So to a certain extent morals are hardwired into us and not something we learn from holy books or teachings.