Asklemmy

42609 readers

1316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

293

Atheists, is there anything religious that sticks with you to this day? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

285 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am Ganesh, an Indian atheist and I don't eat beef. It's not like that I have a religious reason to do that, but after all those years seeing cows as peaceful animals and playing and growing up with them in a village, I doubt if I ever will be able to eat beef. I wasn't raised very religious, I didn't go to temple everyday and read Gita every evening unlike most muslims who are somewhat serious about their religion, my family has this watered down religion (which has it's advantages).

But yeah, not eating beef is a moral issue I deal with. I mean, I don't care that I don't eat beef, but the fact that I eat pork and chicken but not beef seems to me to be weird. So, is there any religious practice that you guys follow to this day?

edit: I like religious music, religious temples (Churches, Gurudwara's, Temples & Mosques in Iran), religious paintings and art sometimes. I know for a fact that the only art you could produce is those days was indeed religious and the greatest artists needed to make something religious to be funded, that we will never know what those artists would have produced in the absence of religion, but yeah, religious art is good nonetheless.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You make a lot of assumptions there though, don't you? You're assuming that you would be motivated to "return the favor," but where does that motivation come from? Humans reciprocal acts are learned traits. There's nothing they get in return for that act alone. The return only comes from the potential impact on the community, which is a social function, not biological.

I used lions as a contrast specifically because they're behavior is different. They are baser creatures who's community does come directly from biology and it's drastically different. I also also gave canines as an example because they are specifically social animals and those behaviors that are similar to ours are derived from the social aspect, not biological since it's community specific, not species.

Sociology studies how humans behave as groups in relation to each other. It's specifically about the things you're describing. Evolution drives us to pass our genes on. That's it. What you're saying can be just as easily used to trace literally everything humans do back to evolution. The argument could just as easily be made that religion is a result of evolution. Humans are curious because looking for answers gave us a cognitive advantage over competition. That trait leads us to searching for answers. If none are available, we find one. And now we have gods. But religion is organized and requires groups, which brings us back to sociology again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I'm sorry for misunderstanding the thing with the lions. Thank you for helping me understand it, it makes much more sense now.

As I said, living in groups is desirable to humans on a very basic level. It's what makes us survive and allows us to pass along our genes which is why staying in groups gives humans an evolutionary advantage.

I also said that what I described is how it used to work most of the time until the Neolithic Revolution happened. This enormous change also changed the way humans interact and behave. Stuff like greed and jealousy became much more common.

Despite that it is still baked into human biology that kindness and gratitude are advantageous to us. It explains the positive emotions that emerge when being kind and grateful.

I am also not doubting what you're saying about sociology because how could I? It's not wrong.

I think that our opinions don't differ that greatly. The only point I am making is that behaving in a social manner is indeed evolutionary advantageous because it undeniably is.

species that form groups through social interaction will result in a group of individuals that gain an evolutionary advantage, such as increased protection against predators, access to potential mates, increased foraging efficiency and the access to social information.

Is what Wikipedia says about group living.

You're assuming that you would be motivated to "return the favor," but where does that motivation come from?

It would come from gratitude. Being grateful is simply a tool that emerged to motivate animals, including humans, to live in groups. The behaviour I mentioned earlier can also be seen in chimps and other primates, whose behavioral patterns are pretty similar to ours.

TL;DR

Living in groups does have evolutionary advantages thus staying part of one's group is desirable which makes social behavior necessary. However, the Neolithic Revolution messed with human behavior and today's society being much larger than human groups used to be thousands of years ago complicates things further. Gratefulness is simply a tool that emerged in many species, including humans, to further the goal of staying part of the group. It is still baked into human biology although not as much as it used to be.