Poll of the Day > The concept of "sin" is regressive.

(+) Yeah! (+)

ScritchOwl posted...

So you would prefer taboo instead?

No incest is great

---

Unbridled9 posted...

For the people who say religion is not needed for morality.

It's not. Question answered, problem solved.

We know this to be objectively true, since rules of law that forbade murder, theft, etc. existed not only before Christianity, but in civilizations where their religion had no concept of sin, or no "commandments" that specifically condoned <insert sin here>.

It's entirely based on empathy and common sense, because society literally wouldn't be possible with wanton murder, rape, theft, and destruction. Humans would have been wiped out long ago. And even if it was, there's a good segment of the population that wouldn't participate, anyways. It's a known fact that some people just don't have the capacity to be amoral (in a grave, "sinful" way, I mean). If the Purge were a real thing, plenty of people simply wouldn't participate, for example.

And here's the final kicker: animal societies don't permit this shit, either. Virtually all animal societies ostracize their fellow beasts that violates social norms, steals food, etc. Beings with zero concept of gods don't tolerate reckless abandon, either, because again, it would lead to the collapse of said species.

This isn't up for debate. Religions co-oped moral codes because not only a natural thing, but because virtually all religions started off with the idea of ruling their societies. Might as well mix in moral codes and rules if you want said religion to be the law, instead of, you know, the law.

Had the Aztec religion survived and become the dominate world religion instead of Christianity I can practically guarantee you that something like murder would be seen as far less immoral than it is now.

See, this is really one of those situations where you really should know what you're talking about before spouting off. You clearly know nothing of Aztec society if you're going to equate sacrifice with simple murder, and amorality.

Murder was outlawed in Aztec society (no shit, it was outlawed in all societies). Sacrifice was rarely ever performed on a citizen, and instead was done to prisoners of war from other civilizations almost exclusively. And you seem to not know that pretty much all religions are totally OK with killing people (not the same as murder) if it's for <insert reason here>. Just like how plenty of Christians are OK with the death penalty. Or torture. Or war. Or dying from COVID, and getting a bunch of other people sick with COVID because they won't shutter their churches despite being ordered to. Or how the Lt. Gov. of Texas today literally said "some things are more important than living." Or hell, straight up murder, so long as the target was an undesirable, or it meant not having gun reform.

Crusades? Witch Trials? Inquisitions? Etc. upon etc.

As you can see, not only does religion not have the final say on morality, religion is almost uniquely gifted at finding ways to excuse and condone truly horrific, amoral acts. At least sacrifice was an act directly tied to Aztec society and religion.

---

Yellow posted...

Morality is a controllable yet restrictively biased by instinct impulse that operates by linking your levels of dopamine with other people's levels of dopamine.

Less capable of connecting = more sociopathic
More capable of connecting = less sociopathic
Less receptive to suffering = more sociopathic
More receptive to suffering = less sociopathic

More convincing culture = more control imposed
Less convincing culture = less control imposed

There is a dopamine incentive, the only thing you care about now, the only thing you have ever cared about, and the only thing you will ever care about. You will always choose what gives you more dopamine.

I can steal happiness from you by convincing you that you're doing the wrong thing, unless there's something wrong with your brain. If you don't believe me I can convince you that it's true and you'll have no choice.

Morality doesn't have a pattern .

Note : Some scientists go beyond of what they can understand and often it happens they just say things to look smart . How many times you've read in the news that some scientist discovered that something doesn't work the way other scientist came up with before ? I've heard it plenty.

Even if something looks like it works certain way it won't work that way all the time .


---

This thread has exceeded all expectations.

---

Indeed .

---