Arkouda @ Arkouda @lemmy.ca

No one could ever hate me more than I hate myself, so save your self some t

---

Read more

Posts

23

Comments

1,429

Joined

1 yr. ago

Thank you for listening and engaging! Also, Happy Cake day!

I know what they are, that doesn't change my point.

How do you define morality?

That is what I meant in the context I am using it in. When you say words you assume the person listening understands the definition of the word in order to understand the over all statement in context.

That is how words work.

Now do you have a point to make about my very clear statement, or do you want to go start a fight elsewhere?

Does an Elephant have morals?

Empathy isn't inherent, and that is not current science.

Take care.

I justified my thought without using a single specific religion. I referenced historical evidence, and using that have a pretty sound argument for my theory.

What I got in return was ignorant and intolerant people who think Religion and those who follow it are stupid, refused to hear my points even though I am not religious and have stated that, and continued to argue even when I have made it clear we agree.

That absolutely is intolerance of spirituality and religion because I literally said "Without the precursor of Spirituality and Religion, there can be no morality." without citing the "bad ones".

Which is bigotry by the way.

I agree, morality is a social construct. It is a product of large groups of humans needing a unified set of common rules to get along.

Historically, 100% of the time according to the evidence we have available on all documented groups of humans, this was done with spirituality and religion up until modern times.

Is that clear enough for you?

You haven't made a single point. You have argued for "inherent" morality, which is bunk.

When I have tried to clarify, you refuse to answer questions.

So again, state your point in full below or jog on because I don't even think you understand the point I have made quite clear and which you refuse to acknowledge by dodging my questions and points.

No problem!

I don't believe we don't have a compassion and altruism towards other members of our species. We most certainly aren't the only species with those traits either, which is amazing and they do not need spirituality to exist. Those are "premoral behaviors", as described in other animals, and that to me assumes they cannot be "morality" if we aren't willing to call other animals "moral" who present them.

The problem with those traits is they must still be nurtured and taught, and we can barely get 2 people to agree on how to raise a child let alone a whole community or country, which is why I believe the solution was forming a morality through spirituality using those basic traits as a starting point.

I just don't calls those traits "morality", but they are what make us capable of being "moral" or defining what is "moral". I honestly laugh at the idea of "Cause rock say" was likely the easiest thing to communicate for early humans to explain why you shouldn't do something before we had super advance language, and it snowballed from there. haha

I sincerely do not think you understand my point if you are only willing to think as far back as Classical Greece, while also demonstrating a pretty ignorant understanding of Greek, Roman, or Norse culture. I would highly recommend reading up on the history of all those people before trying to use their belief structures in argument.

My point is 100% of all documented groups of people had spirituality and religious practices in their history, and a unified idea of "morality" cannot exist without those precursors.

You are operating under the impression that humans 10,000 years ago had access to even a fraction of the education and time to reflect and think you have.

I sincerely do not believe you understand English well enough to understand what I am saying, and I do not have the ability to explain it any better than I already have.

If you are hung up on the whole "God" thing, know it isn't about that.

If that were true, why has no documented civilization or precivilization existed without an element of spirituality or religion in their history?

The point is Spirituality came first, and based on evidence, was needed for humans to form groups larger than a small family unit as a way to unify "morals".

"What if we had science instead" is a moot point because we have Science now and proved early humans wrong.

My argument is that a "unified morality" can only be the result of a Spiritual or Religious belief structure due to the subjective nature of morality, the need for it to be easily communicated and enforced, and the need for a "bigger than me" idea to connect the species to in order to follow.

I support this by the fact that the evidence we have of Human civilization, and precivilization humans, demonstrates a spiritual belief structure in all documented groups.

This is not to say that morality in the modern age requires either Spirituality or Religion, because it doesn't due to the thousands of years of "debate", but that the formation of these things were necessary to bring our species together into larger groups because there is no inherent moral code in humans, and we are simply animals who need to be taught everything to survive by our elders and peers.

I do not believe in a "God" and I am not arguing that one is required for morality to exist, but I am saying that spirituality is the precursor to the idea of "morality" and required for "morality" to form in the first place.

Quite possibly, I’m a devout athiest so don’t even begin to think in any religious or spiritual terms (could you tell?!)

I don't believe in Spiritual things. I know they are made up, and I know there is no argument or evidence to support the belief that any "God" exists. If something "Supernatural" exists (It doesn't, but Gorillas were once a "cryptid" like big foot until we finally got one. haha), it is just a natural event we can now explain. So I would say we agree. haha

Other than the "Atheist" thing only because I don't want to label myself something that theists came up with, even if by definition one could argue I am one. haha

But yes, I certainly agree with that statement without argument. Thanks for the discussion :)

Awesome! Thanks for the great discussion! :)

If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise go away if you aren't going to engage in good faith discussion.

Glad you took the time to read this.

I live to learn. haha

The paragraph “Religion likely evolved by building on morality, introducing supernatural agents to encourage cooperation and restrain selfishness, which enhanced group survival. Additionally, emotions like disgust play a key evolutionary role in moral judgments by helping to avoid threats to health, reproduction, and social cohesion.”

What I don't like about this argument is it must separate Humans from animals in order to make "Morality" and "Premoral behavior" different things, when it is clearly the same and we don't call other species exhibiting those traits "moral". It seems disingenuous when discussing precivilization humans living in small groups to not compare them to other animals in the same situation today and call what we had "premoral behavior" instead of calling it "morality".

We are just a species of animal at the end of the day, and should study ourselves with that lens.

You say that it’s required to bring together larger populations, but plant cultivation - the beginnings of farming will be far more significant.

This is also very important, but without the ability to maintain larger groups, plant cultivation is a hard skill to maintain an oral history for.

As a slightly sideways thought, take a look at e.g. African tribal social structures - relatively small population groups (villages) may exists with low/intermittent positive interaction (not fighting over resources), but can still share similar or near identical spiritual beliefs and moral codes. I.e. one does not automatically determine the other. They can develop side by side or independently.

They do not exist in isolation, and do interact with one another peacefully as you said.

I would argue the shared beliefs result in that lasting peace between tribes, and likely was negotiated in blood before it was in language.

I know you aren't. Yet you are still dying ignorantly on this hill. Again, thanks for the laugh sweetums. I won't waste further time with you, have a good one snookiepoo.

We are in a time now where morality does not require spirituality or religion. My point is that it was required to get our species to the point we are at now by unifying a "moral code", and all evidence we have supports that idea.

I am not arguing for religion or spirituality in the modern age, I am saying it served a purpose.

Then I don't see why you are wasting your time and mine.