To be fair the servers messed up caching meant no I didn’t see you post.
Your use of the term “codified” is a strawman…but I just provided a cite where primates were starving themselves vs shock another monkey. That was a thoughtful action.
I don’t believe that self-sacrifice is a codified moral teaching in the military or the fact that it is codified is the reason men give their lives for their friends…can you please provide that cite first?
What do you think it means for an animal to “decide to be altruistic”? What are its cognitive processes?
Once again, I’m not claiming that there’s any kind of moral behavior that could only happen through religion.
More strawman and personal attacks. I was talking about non-humans.
This must be a response to Miller’s post, I think, though you don’t specify whom you’re replying to.
Yes, I know. And you appear to be very unscientifically conflating non-human and human cognitive processes to make it look as though non-human altruistic behaviors and human ideas of morality are essentially the same thing. This is not a valid argument.
Kimstu,
My point, if I could get you to argue points directly is that supernatural belief is most likely a side effect of “natural morality”
Humans empathy, altruism etc… is the animalistic trait and the the odd desire to attribute it to the supernatural is the unique trait.
That unless someone can provide an example. All of these behaviors, most likely, pre-dated language and tool building.
Hey…I’ve provided cites to scientific studies…all you have offered is to opine while making personal insults.
I don’t think you understand what a straw man is, but setting that aside, your cite doesn’t demonstrate thoughtful action. It demonstrates that the empathic response can be strong than hunger. Empathy is a good base for a moral system, but it is not a moral system in and of itself - nor is it a necessary component to a moral system, as history too often attests.
Since I have made neither of those claims, I’m not sure what sort of cite I can provide.
Heh. I’m an atheist, I don’t have to be reverent. 
And my point is that the amount of actual evidence you have for that supposition, or for any other supposition that human concepts of morality or moral principles pre-dated human supernatural belief, is absolutely nil zilch nada jack and shit.
And what those scientific studies actually say, as opposed to what you seem to think they say, is not something that I’m disputing at all.
In other words, I completely agree, and have been saying over and over again, that evolved empathetic/altruistic behaviors appear to be “animalistic” traits that are shared with many other animals and long pre-dated more cognitively complex human developments such as language and sophisticated tool use, etc.
But such evolved behaviors are not the same thing as human abstract concepts of morality. Your attempts to conflate the two are completely unconvincing.
And your evasion of answering any questions about what you think animals are thinking when they exhibit altruistic/empathetic behavior isn’t helping your case. (Not that answering such questions honestly would be likely to help your case either.)
In any case, I’ve made my point as many times as can be reasonably expected in one thread, and probably far more than anybody else cares to re-read it. You’ll figure it out or you won’t; at this point it’s not up to me.
I’d play confused too if I were you. Cite where my moral code is religious based, as you claimed.
Oh wait…so it has to be a moral system…so were humans not moral before we had chiefdoms or was it nation states?
So…if the self sacrifice is not “codified” where is this moral “system” that is unique to humans due to their belief in the supernatural codified?
But what is a “Moral system” can you even demonstrate that religious people act in a more moral faction than the non-religious?
What is it about this amorphis “moral system” which would change a human from one which would not jump on a grenade?
You are claiming something special from a belief in the supernatural. So far I don’t feel you have provided an example that demonstrates that.
I really don’t see the difference here between the rhesus monkeys being willing to starve vs cause pain in another and your random example. But I do agree that without language the Stanford Prison Experiment wouldn’t have happened.
So, once again I have provided cites. can you? or at least provide how this “system” really matters?
I’m sorry, but as one not well versed in the abstract, I feel your attempts to seperate the two is unconvincing.
What would you consider abstract concepts of morality and how are they not simply abstacations (and putting to language) of those “base” animal feelings?
Oh…damn has your entire argument been reduced to “belief in the supernatural isn’t religion so I win” level.
Can you even provide any cite for your position? or at least claifiy it vs. playing this game of the obtuse.
Once again, because I have fallen for a few red herring this is the original part I responded to.
And once again, the fact that these traits exist in many mammals and most higher primates which so far have not been shown to have belief in the supernatural IS prove that it evolved moral thought independently of our beliefs in the supernatural.
Unless someone can come back with examples on why it is not the same in a concrete way I think you should concede the point Kimstu.
To argue otherwise flies in the face whole concept of a common origin and evolution.
To be clear all of the evidence tends to a reality where humans DID evolve a moral thought independent of a belief in the supernatural.
You just asked if something is abstract, or if it’s abstract.
rat avatar, your characterizations of my (to say nothing of Kimstu’s) posts are so wildly off base, I’m not sure it’s worth responding to them. It does not appear that meaningful communication is possible between us.
Ah come on Millar…it isn’t like you to just back down…unless you have nothing to back up your claims. (not claiming that is normal behavior but I want you to actually debate vs just opine)
And I think it is quite fair to say you refuse to clarify. I am putting words in your mouth only after begging for clarification and justification.
Serious question: is English your first language?
So nothing but ad hominem responses? Are you still unwilling to concede that there is lots of evidence that human morality evolved separate from a belief in the supernatural?
Because you are questioning my reading skills and resorting to personal attacks let me quote this post again.
The “straw man” is due to the fact that we were talking about the EVOLUTION of morality and if it was related to the creation of religion etc…
You re-framed my argument as if it was all about some “moral system” to make it easier to attack while not addressing my issues with your argument.
And to answer you question, English is my first language but I do have dysgraphia…that is not relevant in this argument.
And it does nothing to bolster the point your are arguing if you are arguing against me. If you want to claim that there is any real diffrence between “altruistic behaviors and conscious moral principles” argue that point!!
Right now the only attempt to argue for that point has been via. ad hominem
It wasn’t an ad hominem, I was genuinely curious. Although judging by your response, I guess I’ve got my answer. I’ve rarely seen such a total and persistent disconnect between message sent and message received. When I’ve seen it before, it’s usually because one party was coming from a different linguistic background. Seems that’s not the case here.
Anyway, since it seems impossible for me to articulate my argument to you, I don’t see a point in continuing. If you like, you’re welcome to interpret that as a victory against whatever argument you think I was making.