(May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 8:22 pm)Hammy Wrote: Just because he wouldn't say that they were a moral being doesn't mean that we can't look at the same evidence but conclude they are moral beings by simply defining morality differently.

I'm sure your no credential having self can conclude anything you want... Why does anyone have to take you seriously though?

Because people with real knowledge of science can evaluate whether he knows something of what he is talking about.

That is unlike you, who thinks Bible is adaquate substitute for real knowledge of, well, anything, and as a result struts about with an moronic attitude like a baffoon as if time wasted with your bible qualifies you to be a worthy participant in discussion about, well, anything.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 8:22 pm)Hammy Wrote: Just because he wouldn't say that they were a moral being doesn't mean that we can't look at the same evidence but conclude they are moral beings by simply defining morality differently.

I'm sure your no credential having self can conclude anything you want... Why does anyone have to take you seriously though?

I don't care at all how seriously anyone takes me I care entirely about what is accurate and correct. Who cares what an authority says, you should try thinking for yourself for once. I believe things that make logical sense to me. I don't delegate my brain to somebody else.

---

(May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *emphasis mine*

Really?

Then how do you explain the behavior of certain religious priests?

The ones who rape and molest you mean? They're awful.

I am aware that you are utterly terrible at logic... but the fact that many immoral people who are so immoral that they need to believe in hell to deter themselves from doing awful things doesn't mean that there aren't people who go ahead and do those things anyway.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:56 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'm sure your no credential having self can conclude anything you want... Why does anyone have to take you seriously though?

Because people with real knowledge of science can evaluate whether he knows something of what he is talking about.

That is unlike you, who thinks Bible is adaquate substitute for real knowledge of, well, anything, and as a result struts about with an moronic attitude like a baffoon as if time wasted with your bible qualifies you to be a worthy participant in discussion about, well, anything.

I just posted from a scientific source that stated animals aren't moral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores to what extent God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature. The role of religion is secondary.

*emphasis mine*

What's your response to that?

---

(May 21, 2018 at 8:59 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Really?

Then how do you explain the behavior of certain religious priests?

The ones who rape and molest you mean? They're awful.

I am aware that you are utterly terrible at logic... but the fact that many immoral people who are so immoral that they need to believe in hell to deter themselves from doing awful things doesn't mean that there aren't people who go ahead and do those things anyway.

Ok so you admit that hell isn't a deterrent...

(May 21, 2018 at 7:40 pm)Kit Wrote: hehe, hehe, hehe

I was going to bed but just before I did I thought I'd take this online 60 question Empathy Quotient test devised by the psychologist Simon Baron Cohen:

https://psychology-tools.com/empathy-quotient/

The result?



Autism and psychopathy are not the same thing. Compassion and empathy are not the same thing. Suck it motherfucker. Goodnight.

(May 21, 2018 at 9:20 pm)Hammy Wrote: Suck it motherfucker. Goodnight.

I've had better offers. Sweet dreams, Empathetic Prince.

(May 21, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Kit Wrote: Those who are truly non-empathetic have propensity toward killing; i.e., they are serial killers.  

Are you trying to inform us that you are a serial killer?

That's not actually true. And there is now evidence that serial killers and sadists do have a degree of empathy which allows them to understand the pain others are in but they're able to turn the empathy off.

The brain is an analogue system, not digital. It's never a case of neural functions being switched on or not but rather different parts of the brain increasing or decreasing in strength and competing with one another. Most of the time it's that people with an impairment have very little ability to function in a certain way.  The good news of course is that this means that if you do have an impairment you can if you want put the time and effort into trying to improve the situation to a limited extent.

---

(May 21, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, so now you show that your ignorance is willful...

OK I probably didn't see your response. I didn't post in that thread again except by accident where I edited out the post. There is no way I would have let you slide with that counter argument without pointing out how it is flawed.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You used Frans De Waal as a source on the same subject, and I thoroughly debunked the notion that he claimed animals we're moral beings in this post:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53848-p...pid1717332

From an article written by de Waal
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...thout-god/

Quote:At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

From an article written about de Waal
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/0...use-of-god

Quote:Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history. Since I have wearied of the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing, in which belief is equated with dim-wittedness, I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores to what extent God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature. The role of religion is secondary.

As usual the theist does not understand how science works. Just because De Waal claims something doesn't make it doctrine like in a religion. Science is not writing its own Bible. This is typical of the theist mentality of seeing everything from a religious view point.

There is the evidence. Then there is the interpretation of the evidence. So De Waal has produced some evidence and is inferring things from it. But another scientist can look at that same evidence and say that actually it means something else. This opens up an opportunity for new research to find out which scientist is correct. De Waal has been collecting evidence, but that doesn't mean to say that his interpretation is correct.

For one thing, it comes down to how he is defining morality. The very way he is defining it makes it a uniquely human experience, but morality has developed over time and his interpretation means that he is creating an arbitrary cut-off point where it starts and previous biological instincts that are required for human morality are not defined by him as morality. After all, in your last quote "the main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature". And this is my main point. Many of the same neural functions that give us humans morality also exist in other animals for similar purposes. There will never be a one to one equivalent because we are different species.

Quote:What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

What sets human morality apart. Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean to say that the other primates don't have their own less developed morality. It's the same error of thinking that leads people to argue that animals don't have emotions (and therefore souls) because they don't have human emotions.

Also the quote makes it look like he is stating that this is the purview of religion when it is not. It is what religion tries to control.

Quote:"There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

All this says is that their morality is less developed. In both cases, whether we are judging actions based on how it affects others or how it affects ourselves, it's based on a sense of fairness. Fairness is a moral concept. The difference is that most humans are able to apply it to others as well.

Besides, not all animals have been studied by De Waal. For example, dolphins.

OK so looking at your original quote again you say

(May 21, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Animals do not do not have any concept of right/wrong or good/evil or any system of justice (punishment for immoral behavior) for that matter, if you say they do then provide your source.

These are human concepts that we have created to function in a human society. But that doesn't mean to say some pack animals do not have their own equivalent which are less developed. Human society is more developed, much larger and more complex. This requires a more complex set of rules for it to exist. That doesn't mean to say that other pack animals do not have their own rules of acceptable behaviour in order to function as a pack. You can see this clearly with dogs.

Finding hard and fast definitions of psychopathy and sociopathy is difficult. It seems to vary according to the context as well as the writer.

My wife is reading a book in which a psychologist analyses school shooters, and he says that psycopaths lack empathy, but aren't necessarily sadists. It's when you get the combination of psycopathy and sadism that you have a really dangerous person on your hands.

However, the proportion of school shooters who are psycopaths is actually quite low. Virtually all of them have some kind of mental illness.

(May 22, 2018 at 2:17 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 21, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Kit Wrote: Those who are truly non-empathetic have propensity toward killing; i.e., they are serial killers.  

Are you trying to inform us that you are a serial killer?

That's not actually true. And there is now evidence that serial killers and sadists do have a degree of empathy which allows them to understand the pain others are in but they're able to turn the empathy off.

The brain is an analogue system, not digital. It's never a case of neural functions being switched on or not but rather different parts of the brain increasing or decreasing in strength and competing with one another. Most of the time it's that people with an impairment have very little ability to function in a certain way.  The good news of course is that this means that if you do have an impairment you can if you want put the time and effort into trying to improve the situation to a limited extent.

---

(May 21, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, so now you show that your ignorance is willful...

OK I probably didn't see your response. I didn't post in that thread again except by accident where I edited out the post. There is no way I would have let you slide with that counter argument without pointing out how it is flawed.

(May 21, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You used Frans De Waal as a source on the same subject, and I thoroughly debunked the notion that he claimed animals we're moral beings in this post:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53848-p...pid1717332

From an article written by de Waal
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...thout-god/
From an article written about de Waal
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/0...use-of-god

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

As usual the theist does not understand how science works. Just because De Waal claims something doesn't make it doctrine like in a religion. Science is not writing its own Bible. This is typical of the theist mentality of seeing everything from a religious view point.

There is the evidence. Then there is the interpretation of the evidence. So De Waal has produced some evidence and is inferring things from it. But another scientist can look at that same evidence and say that actually it means something else. This opens up an opportunity for new research to find out which scientist is correct. De Waal has been collecting evidence, but that doesn't mean to say that his interpretation is correct.

For one thing, it comes down to how he is defining morality. The very way he is defining it makes it a uniquely human experience, but morality has developed over time and his interpretation means that he is creating an arbitrary cut-off point where it starts and previous biological instincts that are required for human morality are not defined by him as morality. After all, in your last quote "the main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature". And this is my main point. Many of the same neural functions that give us humans morality also exist in other animals for similar purposes. There will never be a one to one equivalent because we are different species.

Quote:What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

What sets human morality apart. Sure, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean to say that the other primates don't have their own less developed morality. It's the same error of thinking that leads people to argue that animals don't have emotions (and therefore souls) because they don't have human emotions.

Also the quote makes it look like he is stating that this is the purview of religion when it is not. It is what religion tries to control.

Quote:"There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

All this says is that their morality is less developed. In both cases, whether we are judging actions based on how it affects others or how it affects ourselves, it's based on a sense of fairness. Fairness is a moral concept. The difference is that most humans are able to apply it to others as well.

Besides, not all animals have been studied by De Waal. For example, dolphins.

OK so looking at your original quote again you say

(May 21, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Animals do not do not have any concept of right/wrong or good/evil or any system of justice (punishment for immoral behavior) for that matter, if you say they do then provide your source.

These are human concepts that we have created to function in a human society. But that doesn't mean to say some pack animals do not have their own equivalent which are less developed. Human society is more developed, much larger and more complex. This requires a more complex set of rules for it to exist. That doesn't mean to say that other pack animals do not have their own rules of acceptable behaviour in order to function as a pack. You can see this clearly with dogs.

Do i need to point out that Huggies committing a naturalist fallacy .

Animals clearly do have concepts of right and wrong. They respond to each other depending on their behaviour in social groups. If one of them does something the others think is wrong, they will often "tell them off", or stop them by force, whatever is necessary. On the other hand, "good" behaviour is rewarded by reciprocation.

The fact that the animals can't talk about all this like us in such specific terms, can't write it down and don't attribute all this to the magic of some unseen being makes it no less real.

I think the problem some people have is explaining why humans care about each other. Instead of finding out (and we have very satisfactory answers), they insert "magic". This is pretty silly also because clearly each human crafts their own morality. This runs contrary to the idea of some sort of imbued standard.

Morality 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13819

A Christian being destroyed on morality
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13558