Arkouda

This sounds like you agree with me.

The first time something hurt me and I didn’t like it.

I did not say that.

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.

There are, believe it or not, more things besides empathy that determine human behaviour. Weird, complicated creatures.

You are free to provide examples if you want me to agree with you.

That just means humans akso have an inherent wish to understand and explain things, even when they don’t have the necessary means yet.

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.

But “I don’t like…” is still the starting point for pretty much any discussion about morals as far as I believe.

I think we agree but we are misaligned on the wording.

Would you agree with the following statement:

The Human species can use the basic idea of "like and dislike" to form rudimentary "premoral behavior", but require the ability to communicate that information efficiently with a large group of humans and historically with the evidence we have this was done through spiritual and religious belief structures.

If a unified morality is required for our species to coexist in ever larger groups, and evidence of spiritual belief has been found in every documented group of Humans, why wouldn't it be safe to assume that spirituality was a requirement for our species to move beyond small family units?

Yes I am sure the first time you were hurt as a baby, before conscious thought even kicked in, you suddenly knew what was "morally correct".

There is no such thing as "inherent" traits. If that were true no human would hurt another human because we all would be coded not to do that and wouldn't need someone to tell you what is wrong and right.

If all evidence suggests that groups of humans have all had a spiritual belief structure I think it is safe to assume that as a requirement for a consistent, and easy to communicate "moral code".

I don't think that and never said that.

I would urge you to look at the fact that every documented human group we have evidence from had a spiritual belief structure, and that it is safe to assume that a spiritual belief system was required for our species to form larger groups and bigger populations.

This does not argue the existence of God, just our species constant and persistent belief that something supernatural is behind that shit. Which also happens to be the driver of early scientific study.

If you assumed I was Religious based on my post I also urge you to check your bigotry.

I agree.

What is sea lioning?