-23
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 14 points 1 week ago

"'Without religion, how would you stop yourself from raping and killing all you want?' I already do all the raping and killing I want. That number is ZERO because I don't want to rape or kill!" - Penn Gillette.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

People who are only moral because they fear going to hell scare the piss out of me.

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago
[-] Fletcher@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I would argue that morality came before religion or spirituality, and therefore does not require either of them to exist.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Outwit1294@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

Even animals have some kind of morality

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Redfox8@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

I also disagree. All you need is to say "I don't want/like that" and to understand that something could be lost or suffered to yourself or others, given a particular scenario. That can then be used to create a system of morality where the majority are in agreement with each aspect.

Oh and empathy. That's pretty critical!

I'd say that spirituality and religion is then formed off the back of and alongside general or universal moral beliefs and that many aspects cannot exist without morals in the first place.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I'd say morality came first and people invented religion to justify the moral frameworks they already had. Cultures invented gods and ascribed their culture's shared moral views to their gods

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Ethical frameworks exist that don't rely on religion or spirituality. Utilitarianism, kantism, etc..

[-] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It doesn't serve us well to murder our own communities. It doesn't serve us well to cause conflict and strife among ourselves when external circumstances are tough enough.

Living on the steppe or on the savannah would have been extremely tough, and I believe that pragmatism would have naturally lead to a sort of morality -- don't steal from, harm, kill, antagonise other people in your group or you're putting the entire group at risk.

It doesn't have to be spiritual or religious!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I've heard this bullshit so many times...

What we call "morality" is simply put to words those behaviours that has made us a successful species. We are a communal species, one of our greatest strengths being the delegation and specialisation of tasks; all working together. Everything we've built, everything we've achieved, can be attributed to that feature of our species.

Now, imagine how far we'd get if every individual in our species acted "amorally".

Morality is a product of evolution.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Morality is inherent in mankind, even if many folks have the will to defy it or lack it altogether.

Religion emerged as a product of humanity’s profound drive for survival. The concept of death as a finite existence is inherently unacceptable to the brain’s survival mechanisms. Consequently, we developed religion and spirituality as coping mechanisms to address this existential dilemma.

[-] lath@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago
[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Redfox8@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Glad you took the time to read this. 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." Describes much of what I've discussed so far. Though my thoughts re disasters is omitted. I think that they are very significant if you look at e.g. Roman and Greek gods.

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

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.

[-] Fanghole@reddthat.com 0 points 1 week ago

I feel a lot of the people disagreeing here are making assumptions about your beliefs, missing the point, and then simply refuting you to refute you without providing explaination. I think this is a fair and interesting premise. I disagree with it and will ecplain why, though do note I am not invested enough to specifically look anything up so if I say something inaccurate, please evaluate if the logic falls apart or not.

I think the first part of your main justifications has been hard to refute. Most, if not all societies we have known have had religion or spirituality. However, I think your following conclusion, "those societies must have then used morality based on those religions", is where the flaw is. I think most societies had religion as a form of a "God of the gaps" and used it to explain phenomena they couldn't. I would say that is the main reason they did have it. However, that doesn't yet mean they didn't use it for morality. To see that, I'd ask you to look at Greek and Roman mythology, or as known to them, religion. Now I believe, Zeus turning into a swan and doing Zeus things doesn't have a moral (or not a useful one, it's mainly that Zeus is an asshole).. Likewise, Aphrodite turning Arachne into a spider didn't really inform some Greek moral of don't be too pretty, just showed Aphrodite is, for lack of a better word, a fucking jealous bitch. Let's similarly look at Norse mythology. Loki makes Fenrir and tries to kill other gods and generally does shenanigans. There's not really a moral attached to that, he kinda just does shit cus he's a hit of a dick.

My main point here is that while these religions existed, they did so to explain phenomena or were then essentially fanfic extensions of the reasons/personifications of those phenomena, and often were not the basis for morality of a culture (but very well likely were themselves molded by a cultures morality in a reversal of causation). Because Greece, Roman, and Norse cultures were more secular, they could therefore have stories without morals that just had assholery abound. Because the time around the formation of the Christian church was more tyrannical (now I'm guessing), the bible had much more heavy handed morals (ten commandments, 7 deadly sins etc).

I hope that was a better argument for disagreement. And, I don't think your premise was as outlandish as so many others are making it out to be, despite my disagreement.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago

I get where you're coming from. I used to think the same thing. I don't anymore and I would urge you to look more into subjective vs objective morality. Alex O'Connor has some really good thoughts on the matter.

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

I would urge you to look at the fact that every documented human group we have evidence from had a spiritual belief structure, and that it is safe to assume that a spiritual belief system was required for our species to form larger groups and bigger populations.

This does not argue the existence of God, just our species constant and persistent belief that something supernatural is behind that shit. Which also happens to be the driver of early scientific study.

If you assumed I was Religious based on my post I also urge you to check your bigotry.

[-] Z3k3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I think the issue here is horse before cart

Humans as a species have a need to explain the world around us. Unfortunately the thought process before the codified use of science was "i don't know there for god"

This means the spiritual system was in place was in place before morality.

This spiritually was bent around what was acceptable at the time. Slavery capital punishment polygamy etc. All of which are more or less moral based on nothing more than where you live

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

This sounds like you agree with me.

[-] Z3k3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Not really your arguing unless I'm misunderstanding you your basically arguing coronation = causation

We are now in a time where spirituality is not built in (terms and conditions apply) but morality still exist.

Hell I'd argue in this day and age societal spirituality is harmful to morality

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Z3k3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Again causality vs coronation

There is nothing to say if by some quirk of faight (yeh i know what I'm saying but roll with it) something akin to the scientific method was the norm in place of i dunno there for God. We would still come up with societal norms or morality.

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Z3k3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

First of your twisting my words i never said it were true

Humans are dumb as fuck. They see patterns where there is none and make up reasons just to make the world make sense. Like I keep repeating your arguing coronation equestrian causation this is simply not true.

While you seemed on the level you tipped your hand I guess were done here

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 0 points 1 week 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.

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

Either way, doesn't make sense.

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.

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

Cheers, a moral atheist

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week 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.

[-] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 week ago

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

See, it's the same when you swap them around. When both morality and spirituality exist throughout all of written history, how can you make any claim of causality? I think spirituality is a natural extension of morality, as people began to establish collective morals, spirituality and ritual can be used to spread and reinforce ideas.

And the idea that empathy isn't inherent is wildly ignorant. Mirror neurons are a fundamental part of our brains, suggesting empathy is taught is like claiming taste is. People are taught what to do with their empathy. Whether to embrace it or ignore it. Hell, look at any of the hundreds of examples of empathy in animals. It's not even exclusive to vertebrates, much less civilization.

[-] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Does an Elephant have morals?

[-] jacksilver@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Given they mourn their dead, I think there is evidence that they do. If they can value a life, then there must be some framework within which that value stems from.

If we're willing to agree on that, then the follow-up question would be, "do elephants have supernatural or religious beliefs?", as you claim that's required for morals.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
-23 points (7.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

35938 readers
586 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS