Group prayer on Skype on behalf of our Christian members

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

---

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.

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/

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

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

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.

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.

"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

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.