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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I understand your premises ivstill disagree its spiritual. More a case of you catch more honey with flies. If we agree to certain behaviours we both benefit. This system grew up to become what we call morals and then laws
I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring “morality” through agreeing on certain behaviors being “good” or “bad”. Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been “spiritual”, e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.
You can disagree, but that doesn’t change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Morality is nothing more than a social construct. For a society to exist there needs to be common rules
Spirituality haz nothing to do with that
Is that clear enough for you
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?
I understand your premises ivstill disagree its spiritual. More a case of you catch more honey with flies. If we agree to certain behaviours we both benefit. This system grew up to become what we call morals and then laws
I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring “morality” through agreeing on certain behaviors being “good” or “bad”. Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been “spiritual”, e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.
You can disagree, but that doesn’t change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.