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

1,433

Joined

1 yr. ago

Either your argument is that morality is somehow “god given” through religion, in which case I have to ask, which god? Which religion? There’s a lot of those around or no longer around, with different nuances of morality, contradicting that idea.

That supports my idea. It doesn't contradict it.

All evidence we have demonstrates spirituality has existed in our species as long as we have existed in groups. This leads me to believe that spirituality was a catalyst to a unified morality that took a very long time to agree on, and we still don't agree on it.

Or each civilization developed religion and incorporated their respectove ideas about morality, but then morality necessarily precedes religiosity.

Spirituality predates recorded civilization. It is also observable in other animals.

Either way, doesn’t make sense.

Probably because you are assuming I am religious, when I am simply referring to our historical evidence.

Besides, the idea that a fear of god is necessary to make people “moral” is ridiculous. If you would commit immoral atrocities if you didn’t believe in god, then I’m sorry, that makes you a bad person; but don’t project that unto other people.

Who taught you your morals?

I also agree with you, but we are speaking about precivilization humans so do not be offended for them. They didn't know any better and it was either believe the rock brings a good hunt or starve in the wilderness alone.

Empathy is sufficient for morality, while god, arguably, is an amoral monster.

Empathy is not inherent, or it wouldn't need to be taught.

God cannot exist based on all evidence we have on the subject.

Cheers, a moral atheist

Thank your Religious ancestors and ancient humans for debating all of these ideas over thousands of years so you can quickly come to the conclusion that God cannot possibly exist.

Cheers, someone who thinks atheists are as annoying as theists, and just as prone to being human.

When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?

How many people do you know, or have known, who disagree that violence is wrong?

We require our "morality" to be taught. You didn't come to your idea of morality alone, and all evidence suggests that humans have had spiritual beliefs throughout our species existence, and unified spiritual belief seems to be a requirement for a stable, spreadable, and consistent "moral code" that can be taught to everyone.

Even our relatives that we can observe have "premoral behaviours", which we would have needed to form our "morality", yet they do not have a consistent "moral" code across the entire species.

beyond that you cannot prove any interaction of religious entity.

My statement does not argue for a religious entity existing. I do not believe in a "God" because all evidence we have suggests there isn't one.

My point is that all the evidence we have suggests that humans, including pre-civilization humans, had distinct spiritual practices including burial. Without evidence suggesting otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that spirituality was a required catalyst in order for a unified moral code to exist and human group populations to grow.

I would bet good money on it being only a matter of time before they vandalize the cameras watching cameras.

The idea that things are inherently "Right" or "Wrong", "Good" or "Bad".

Some came from religious teaching, but mostly I got my moral code from my peers and personal experience. I very much start with treating others as I’d be happy/like to be treated. If you follow that principal to start with then most other morals fall into place.

My point is your peers, the books you have read, your parents, grand parents, etc have all been influenced in some way by Religious moral codes. One does not require it in modern times, but there was a point where it was necessary to define "morality" and unify the population under an exact moral code, and spirituality and Religion were necessary to spread and encode that morality in the greater population.

This is why all Evidence we have suggests humans have always been inclined to be spiritual or Religious through out history.

Not sure what you’re getting at about how far back you have to go but perhaps I can head off that discussion by saying that most morals can exist in the absence of religion and spirituality.

Morals can now exist in the absence of Religion and spirituality, my point is that wasn't always the case, and all evidence we have suggests spiritual practices are a driving factor in our ability to form larger groups because all the information we have suggests spiritual belief in those populations.

Religion or spirituality of some form or another has existed for as long as we have any detailed information on any societies. The main problem with this discussion is that spiritual, religious and plain moral beliefs long predate any written language system so we can’t refer to any solid evidence.

The verbal histories we have intact also demonstrate longstanding spiritual beliefs. If all evidence suggests that some form of spirituality was required for our species to agree on "morality" and form larger groups than I see no point arguing about things we don't have evidence for.

If you start with “I don’t like that” as a simplistic moral, then that predates any language as well and therefore spirtuality or religion.

"Like" is subjective, and if I cannot communicate with you whether or not I like something we have no way of moving forward. When we can communicate, and we disagree, then what?

Morality is subjective at the end of the day. Not everyone believes the same things are wrong that you do. If this is the case now, imagine what "debate" was like before communication and what would be required to instill consistency in the morality of the population.

Thank you for the reading material.

Much of it already informs my idea, and supports it.

Assuming that we evolved to what we are now at one point we would need to exhibit "Pre-moral behaviors" like the other animals, including our closest relatives, before developing "morality". This means that we need something to bring that from "behavior" to "believes to be morally right".

Spirituality is documented in our species as far back as we can go with recorded history, and the pictures remaining from the earliest humans as far as I know. This implies to me that it was required for a widespread and unified "moral code" needed in order to bring more than a few dozens humans together at a time.

The need for a consistent moral code that is enforceable through fear of God instead of fear of force.

I am not saying that you require either in modern times. I am saying that without both Spirituality and Religion in our civilizations history we wouldn't have the moral codes that exist within our species.

Where did you learn your moral code from and how far back in your history do I have to go to find a religious believer?

Do you have an example of a documented civilization that did not have some form of Religious or spiritual belief structure that guided their moral codes?

One that precedes and indicates, suggests, or announces someone or something to come.

I am open to hearing your point of view, and answering questions about mine.

Seems to me it’s just a bunch of serial killers working together.

I wish it was taken as seriously as this, because I too see it this way. You may not be pulling the trigger, but you most certainly killed that person by stoking their suicidal ideation.

You were going 17 over the posted limit, as per your story, and weren’t aware enough to know about it.

Reading comprehension ain’t your strong suit, eh bud?

Thanks for another one. Keep it going DJ Khaled.

I still remember when a friend of mine was 5 years into his transition the first time he was called "A cis white normy breeder!" at pride, and I think about that when I hear stories like this.

57-50=17? Did you attend school in America, or something? ChatGPT spit that answer out for you?

The speed limit was 40, as per the story.

It is really funny to me that you insult my level of education while failing at solving a word problem though, so thank you for that.

That is because technology, not because people are better than they were 2000 years ago.

Who are "our handlers"?

I agree. My point is the problem is bad drivers are bad drivers so roundabouts, etc are a waste and won't do anything to solve the issue.

There are more design choices than just roundabouts…

Do I have to list every single one for you to get the point?

Even when I lived in rural areas, the zones were 30kph where I am from. Parks, and playgrounds, are also generally included.