You may want to answer my question “When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?” again considering you were a baby without definable consciousness.
People rarely learn stuff all at once but gradually and in stages.
You are free to provide examples if you want me to agree with you.
I guess I won’t provide any examples then.
I read that wrong, I apologise for the snark.
You’re human, you know examples.
Which means that spiritual and religious belief structures would have been required for us to advance to where we are today, which was my entire point, based on your idea of “inherent”. Even though again, nothing is “inherent” regarding moral belief.
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.
I have given an alternative explanation for the existence of morality which is in line with current science, such as our understanding of evolution. This, at the very least, disproves your notion that there is no other explanation for morality than religion and spirituality. It may not prove that religion and spirituality ISN’T the explanation, if that makes you happy. I refuse to go into broader topics such as the entirety of human behaviour.
People rarely learn stuff all at once but gradually and in stages.
I guess I won’t provide any examples then.I read that wrong, I apologise for the snark.
You’re human, you know examples.
That does not follow from what I said.
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise go away if you aren’t going to engage in good faith discussion.
I have made my point, you just don’t want to accept it.
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.
I have given an alternative explanation for the existence of morality which is in line with current science, such as our understanding of evolution. This, at the very least, disproves your notion that there is no other explanation for morality than religion and spirituality. It may not prove that religion and spirituality ISN’T the explanation, if that makes you happy. I refuse to go into broader topics such as the entirety of human behaviour.
Empathy isn’t inherent, and that is not current science.
Take care.
Yes it is, on both accounts
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638311000506
Whatever you say bud.
Did you read the study? You said you’re here to learn.
Or was I right in my comment earlier?
https://lemmy.ca/post/47437481/17601176