Areligious people aren’t inherently immoral and it was the foundation of some societies because it was used to control people while at the same time pass blame to an intangible entity
I’m genuinely not trying to argue and just trying to understand your train of thought. Do you truly believe that humans were incapable of empathy prior to religion?
Empathy and morals and laws are different. And no empathy is luxury, when your dream is not to get eaten by a predator or not to go to sleep hungry - there is no place for empathy.
Monkeys and even apes eat their own kind.
Historically speaking yes. Religion - the fear of lightning strike / fire, hope for a successful hunt and the big spirits of the darknese - were the foundation for more organized societies.
They did those cave paintings for a reason. And those paintings were already advanced technology compared to very early human development.
How would animals have morals if that was the case? Why would they have a sense of fairness baked into them if it came from a religion they couldn’t possibly comprehend?
The reality is that morality as we perceive it, is mostly just the natural rules that let us work together. This little known scientific concept called ‘apes strong together’, meant that the people who possessed a basic sense of morality could work with others and accomplish more, then those without it, and those without it, died off.
That’s all morality is. It has nothing do with any magical creature.
You can’t have food, and in result act egocentrically, disadvantaging others and still feel bad about it. Having empathy does not necessitate acting on it.
No you won’t have empathy towards your enemies when you don’t have the luxury to do so.
How many conflicts are going on right now where religion and local society is killing ‘others’ without any mercy?
Do you think those brain washed massses can waste to feel emphatic towards the enemy that is ‘evil’, ‘bad’ or ‘unclean’ and deserved to be killed?
If they would - they freaking would stop all these friggin wars. Morality wins - and morality still not a good thing.
No you won’t have empathy towards your enemies when you don’t have the luxury to do so.
I don’t see how ‘luxury to do so’ should disprove my point.
Regarding the rest:
While I agree with the underlying sentiment, I wouldn’t go so far as to generalize entire population groups and claim they do not feel empathy, even if they kill others.
Also: This is drifting a bit beyond what I wanted to point out, therefore I won’t go into more detail.
It is. But it is also a common moral code and the foundation of a society.
Areligious people aren’t inherently immoral and it was the foundation of some societies because it was used to control people while at the same time pass blame to an intangible entity
Historically speaking all of morals were established by religion. Good or bad but everything is based on it.
I’m genuinely not trying to argue and just trying to understand your train of thought. Do you truly believe that humans were incapable of empathy prior to religion?
Empathy and morals and laws are different. And no empathy is luxury, when your dream is not to get eaten by a predator or not to go to sleep hungry - there is no place for empathy.
Monkeys and even apes eat their own kind.
So you don’t believe that humans are tribal by nature?
Tribal by default means shared morals. And organized from the top - by religion and shared anxiety
The conclusion I’m coming to is that you believe religion came before society, or do you mean something else?
Historically speaking yes. Religion - the fear of lightning strike / fire, hope for a successful hunt and the big spirits of the darknese - were the foundation for more organized societies.
They did those cave paintings for a reason. And those paintings were already advanced technology compared to very early human development.
Objectively false my friend.
How would animals have morals if that was the case? Why would they have a sense of fairness baked into them if it came from a religion they couldn’t possibly comprehend?
The reality is that morality as we perceive it, is mostly just the natural rules that let us work together. This little known scientific concept called ‘apes strong together’, meant that the people who possessed a basic sense of morality could work with others and accomplish more, then those without it, and those without it, died off.
That’s all morality is. It has nothing do with any magical creature.
Empathy is luxury. If you don’t have food you will not care. Morals is the thing that stops you.
You can’t have food, and in result act egocentrically, disadvantaging others and still feel bad about it. Having empathy does not necessitate acting on it.
No you won’t have empathy towards your enemies when you don’t have the luxury to do so.
How many conflicts are going on right now where religion and local society is killing ‘others’ without any mercy?
Do you think those brain washed massses can waste to feel emphatic towards the enemy that is ‘evil’, ‘bad’ or ‘unclean’ and deserved to be killed?
If they would - they freaking would stop all these friggin wars. Morality wins - and morality still not a good thing.
I don’t see how ‘luxury to do so’ should disprove my point.
Regarding the rest:
While I agree with the underlying sentiment, I wouldn’t go so far as to generalize entire population groups and claim they do not feel empathy, even if they kill others. Also: This is drifting a bit beyond what I wanted to point out, therefore I won’t go into more detail.
If someone needs religion to be moral, it says quite a bit about them.