Is morality dependent on religion?

[betazed]

What do you mean, "proof please"?

I mean if someone is going to say that there was an ancient society that was athiest in nature, then where is the archeological proof?

A link would be nice.

Reading the rest of my post and replying to that (instead of conviniently ignoring it) would also be nice, don't you think?

Also, what kind of archealogical proof would atheism leave behind that would satisfy you? The theists can create shrines. What can the atheists do?

 

[Masquerouge]

I mean if someone is going to say that there was an ancient society that was athiest in nature, then where is the archeological proof?

A link would be nice.

We don't need an archeological proof when there is a logical one, the one Betazed explained.
Unless you believe that what turned animals into humans was religion, but that's dubious.

 

[Corlindale]

Also, what kind of archealogical proof would atheism leave behind that would satisfy you? The theists can create shrines. What can the atheists do?

Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" carved in stone tablets?

Seriously, I don't think it is even possible to prove a negative claim like that. Not finding any shrines would not lead to the conclusion that there couldn't have been any.

 

[MobBoss]

Reading the rest of my post and replying to that (instead of conviniently ignoring it) would also be nice, don't you think?

Also, what kind of archealogical proof would atheism leave behind that would satisfy you? The theists can create shrines. What can the atheists do?

I give up...what can athiests do?

I sense a joke in there somewhere.

 

[Truronian]

I did provide proof. My proof is the fact that there is no record anywhere of any ancient society not basing its society almost totally on religion. Bottom line, you have no basis to hang your point on, and no proof what-so-ever to back up your argument.

But you lack proof of causation between morals and religion. Correlation is not enough, especially when we have no verifiable atheist societies on which to base our theories.

 

[Sidhe]

I mean if someone is going to say that there was an ancient society that was athiest in nature, then where is the archeological proof?

A link would be nice.



I did provide proof. My proof is the fact that there is no record anywhere of any ancient society not basing its society almost totally on religion. Bottom line, you have no basis to hang your point on, and no proof what-so-ever to back up your argument.

Uh no sorry you did not even prove that and again for the fourth time I will explain it, if no society as you maintain with no evidence(I might add) ever had no religion then how can you maintain they had no morals when no such state of existance ever occured? That is what you claimed and you still claim now, it's like claiming to have proof of pixies with only a brothers Grimm fairy tale book as evidence, you can't state opinion as prooved and as fact without actually doing it, and you can't argue with the logic that without a state having existed you cannot claim to know the morality of such a state, I'm afraid you have dug yourself into a very large and ilogical hole with that one.

I think or at least I hope he gets it now Trurionian but that would be the fifth time

 

[MobBoss]

Uh no sorry you did not even prove that and again for the fourth time I will explain it, if no society as you maintain with no evidence(I might add) ever had no religion then how can you maintain they had no morals when no such state of existance ever occured? That is what you claimed and you still claim now, it's like claiming to have proof of pixies with only a brothers Grimm fairy tale book as evidence, you can't state opinion as prooved and as fact without actually doing it, and you can't argue with the logic that without a state having existed you cannot claim to know the morality of such a state, I'm afraid you have dug yourself into a very large and ilogical hole with that one.

I think or at least I hope he gets it now Trurionian but that would be the fifth time

You are just babbling now. We have archeolgocial proof of ancient societies, unlike your "pixie" reference and such physical proof is always rife with religious symbolism and practice.

Unless of course you want to claim that such dig sites from all over the world just fantasy in the nature of a Brothers Grimm novel.

 

[betazed]

I give up...what can athiests do?

I sense a joke in there somewhere.

Attempted witticism is a rather pathetic rejoinder in a logical debate. Either agree that you have no more to add to the debate or debate my points.

 

[Sidhe]

You are just babbling now. We have archeolgocial proof of ancient societies, unlike your "pixie" reference and such physical proof is always rife with religious symbolism and practice.

Unless of course you want to claim that such dig sites from all over the world just fantasy in the nature of a Brothers Grimm novel.

Don't worry Mob Boss I wont hold it against you that you are wrong about your assertion of imorality? Never mind can't win 'em all. And no Mob Boss I'm afraid having no evidence of an ancient tribal group with no religion is far from being able to claim there has never been one, try that in scientific circles and they will laugh at you. I honestly wonder why your laughing perhaps I should explain the logic for the sixth time?

 

[Masquerouge]

But you lack proof of causation between morals and religion. Correlation is not enough, especially when we have no verifiable atheist societies on which to base our theories.

Well that's what I tried to tell him in the first pages of that debate, to no avail.

 

[Sidhe]

wrong thread, oops, the heat has gone to my head.

 

[ArneHD]

Well, since there is no way of finding out which came first, religion or morality, we will have to find something that has one, but not the other. Cro Magnon. They litteraly didn't have the brains to be able to think of the consept of god. Yet we have some archeological proof (teeth, to be presise. They found teeth that had been permanently damaged to the point where the original owner could not eat. Yet the owner had lived on for some time after having broken their teeth. Ergo, someone had chewed his food for him.) that the Cro Magnon were moral.

Edited for spelling

 

[Sidhe]

You mean Neanderthal I think, Cro Magnon are pre historic Homo sapiens, but I agree there is evidence of morality there, unfortunately there is also evidence of religion in Neanderthals, ochre painted corpses, stones and artefacts left in burial sites. So which came first here? Welcome to Off Topic btw.

EDIT: on second thoughts Neanderthals brains were larger than ours, could be homo erectus perhaps? They weren't much more advanced than the high order apes now. The higher apes show clear evidence of moral behaviour now, so your point is well made.

 

[VoodooAce]

MB, you seem pretty sure that religion would develope within a society before morals. I disagree. How could a society surive to the point where they would develop religion without some set of morals?

To quote my example from page three that you conveniently ignored:

They would almost certainly form up into however many 'groups', but within each group would exist some set of morals....or they wouldn't survive as a group. Who knows, it is possible that they would form religion at the same time...they would, eventually, that's for sure. Regardless, I think it only makes sense to say that their 'religion' would evolve around their set of morals.

You replied to my post about isolating a number of people never exposed to religion by referring to a movie. I replied with the above. Care to clarify? Please give me your opinion of how religion would form before 'society' or 'civilization', and how these people could survive as a group without morals long enough to invent religion.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, since there is no way of finding out which came first, religion or morality, we will have to find something that has one, but not the other. Cro Magnon. They litteraly didn't have the brains to be able to think of the consept of god. Yet we have some archeological proof (teeth, to be presise. They found teeth that had been permanently damaged to the point where the original owner could not eat. Yet the owner had lived on for some time after having broken their teeth. Ergo, someone had chewed his food for him.) that the Cro Magnon were moral.

Edited for spelling

Uh...this supposition is just beyond reason with so many holes in it to be unsupportable. Perhaps they just fattened him up prior to making soup out of him?

 

[Sidhe]

Could you point them out for us?

Correcting spelling is against the rules by the way, but knock yourself out on my posts, I wont complain.

 

[MobBoss]

You replied to my post about isolating a number of people never exposed to religion by referring to a movie.

Actually old bean, it was a novel way before it was a movie. You might check it out of the local library sometime - its a good read.

I replied with the above. Care to clarify? Please give me your opinion of how religion would form before 'society' or 'civilization', and how these people could survive as a group without morals long enough to invent religion.

Who says religion was invented?

Anyway, anyone can survive without morals...all you have to do is watch an episode of "Survivor" to realize that. If animals can survive without morals, surely man can as well. However, in my humble opinion, what raises man above the animal state is not only his thumbs and intelligence, but also religion. It has gone hand in hand with man down through untold millenia, and has done more to organize man along civilized lines than anything else.

 

[MobBoss]

Could you point them out for us?

Correcting spelling is against the rules by the way, but knock yourself out on my posts, I wont complain.

Err...where did I say anything about correcting your spelling?

Heh, put the pipe down and slowly back away....

 

[Sidhe]

Oh you know why I have a natural bias against people who correct spelling it's just a raw nerve, I apologise, the pipe is now firmly back in the Garage where it belongs

 

[GenMarshall]

I remember from a saying from a Catholic poster in another forum I frequent at. "Your religion defines your values, and it is those values that you vote with." and I pretty much agree with that statement.