• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hitchen's Challange

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes, just as people still do.

That is absolutely preposterous.

Now we have elaborate legal systems to establish and enforce those ideals. Then we did not.

Even the most primitive rules of social conduct includes basic rules about murder and theft and alike.
Religions themselves were thought of by people. This is why they reflect the ethical standards of the times and cultures they were born in.


So we really needed religions and their taboos and superstitions to do that for us. You think because there are other mechanisms, now, that religions were never necessary in this regard, but that's quite untrue.

No, what is always necessary are basic rules of conduct. Societies that don't have such, won't last very long.
Religion was, at best, another incarnation of such.

Not that religion didn't serve a purpose - obviously it did.
But religion is not the origin of these things.


And it still is. Because even today, we can do significant harm to each other without breaking any laws, or incurring the wrath of our legal system. Something religions can still do.

How exactly do religions do that?

I also note that you have quite the authoritarian mindset. You seem to think that ethical behavior and standards are only possible when a feared authority commands them to be upheld.

That's not moral behavior though. That's just obedience.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Do you really think that early homo sapiens expanding their nomadic tribes into cooperative settlements required a god to tell them that murder, theft etc are not beneficial for the settlement and quite detrimental instead?
It's also hard to imagine any being, more indiscriminately murderous then the biblical deity.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That is absolutely preposterous.



Even the most primitive rules of social conduct includes basic rules about murder and theft and alike.
Religions themselves were thought of by people. This is why they reflect the ethical standards of the times and cultures they were born in.
Spiritualism is as old as humanity itself. There was no time before religion where people "thought it up". It's been built into the way we humans perceive the world from our earliest perceptions of the world. We would beseech our prey to do it's part before the big hunt, and then we would thank it's spirit for forfeiting it's body to us, after. Because in giving up it's life it was giving us life. We would thank the sun for returning to us every morning to give us heat and light, again. And the river for bringing us fresh water to drink and for carrying away our waste. And so on. We lived in a world filled with spirits that we needed to get along with, to survive. There were things we believed we must do, and must not do, to maintain their allegiance and cooperation. This is how religions were developed. They were about learning the rules of a world infused with and controlled by spirits.That's where the "rules" came from.
Not that religion didn't serve a purpose - obviously it did.
But religion is not the origin of these things.
A combination of spiritualism and necessity were the origin of social constructs ethics, morality, and laws.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Spiritualism is as old as humanity itself.

Likely even older. At least, depending on what you mean by "spirituality".

There was no time before religion where people "thought it up"

Euh.... before a religion originated, it didn't exist.
Therefor it had to be thought up, which originated it. :rolleyes:


It's been built into the way we humans perceive the world from our earliest perceptions of the world.

Yes, humans have an instinctive tendency to be superstitious and engage in cognition errors. Not just humans actually, many animals have this tendency. It's a survival mechanism. Even pigeons are superstitious. So what?


We would beseech our prey to do it's part before the big hunt, and then we would thank it's spirit for forfeiting it's body to us, after. Because in giving up it's life it was giving us life. We would thank the sun for returning to us every morning to give us heat and light, again. And the river for bringing us fresh water to drink and for carrying away our waste. And so on.

Indeed. And this phenomenon is known as "infusing agency" in otherwise random and/or natural events.
It's the same underlying psychological trait that makes cats (and humans, and other animals) jump away when hearing a sound in the bushes. We assume it's a dangerous predator out to get us, while it might be just the wind. We infuse agency into the event. It helps survival.

If it IS a predator, those that immediately run might live to see another day. Those that stick around and "investigate", are lunch.

Again: nothing special and sufficiently explainable without having to resort to wild-a$$ assumptions about super beings.


We lived in a world filled with spirits that we needed to get along with, to survive.

No. We assumed we lived in a world filled with spirits.
People attributed tides and storms to Poseidon. But there's no such thing as Poseidon and tides and storms are simply natural occurrences.


There were things we believed we must do, and must not do, to maintain their allegiance and cooperation. This is how religions were developed. They were about learning the rules of a world infused with and controlled by spirits.That's where the "rules" came from.

Nope. The "rules" came from within ourselves. Just because ancient people tended to attribute everything and their mothers to these "spirits", doesn't mean there actually is such a thing as "spirits".

A combination of spiritualism and necessity were the origin of social constructs ethics, morality, and laws.

Just necessity is enough. Religion was, at best, just a vehicle.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nope. I am going to keep going about my life as though he doesn't exist. Until someone (including any extant god) presents adequate evidence that he does. This is my standard for everything.
You have to realize... if God shows He may expect more of you... you could be more depressed because of it.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
You have to realize... if God shows He may expect more of you... you could be more depressed because of it.
Actually. you've got it backwards. The Christian god, as depicted in the Jewish, Christian and Mormon bibles does not meet my minimum standard for morality. If I was a rollercoaster, he would have to wait for Asherah at the exit.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually. you've got it backwards. The Christian god, as depicted in the Jewish, Christian and Mormon bibles does not meet my minimum standard for morality. If I was a rollercoaster, he would have to wait for Asherah at the exit.
I hate to fight, but what's backwards is you assuming you are better than God.

Forget the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God for an instant.

Just think about if there's a God:

OK don't you think you should try to seek guidance from that God and not the other way around?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I hate to fight, but what's backwards is you assuming you are better than God.
I am more moral than the being depicted in any and all of those tomes.

Forget the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God for an instant.

Just think about if there's a God:

OK don't you think you should try to seek guidance from that God and not the other way around?

Ok. Assuming that there is a god that made this universe ,,, No. Why would I?

I might go to hear what they have to say, and to investigate their nature. But why would I go to a non-human for guidance? I would not go to an intelligent lion for guidance either. But if I had to choose between a super-smart god, and a smart lion, I would choose the smart lion every time.

Unless god is a member of a technologically-inclined social species that cares for its young in small family units. Then I might ask for notes.
 
Top