Arkouda

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.