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.
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
Removed by mod