Secular families are ethical families

[Indeependent]

40 years of warnings and all they had to do was stop that little list.
They were consumed with their own desires and not for the welfare of their children.
And you say God is cruel?

It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

You can bet what3ever you'd like. I certainly don't defend their actions as moral, and ethical. You have done nothing but defend these actions.

Children. And. Infants.

You defend them by enabling them to repeat their crime.

 

[Czernobog]

40 years of warnings and all they had to do was stop that little list.
They were consumed with their own desires and not for the welfare of their children.
And you say God is cruel?

It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I did my job.
You implied scripture justified the murder of children and infants.
You lied
Enjoy.

 

[Czernobog]

It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

You can bet what3ever you'd like. I certainly don't defend their actions as moral, and ethical. You have done nothing but defend these actions.

Children. And. Infants.

You defend them by enabling them to repeat their crime.

I defend nothing. You defend them, and now you are trying to shift your guilt to others in order to regain the moral position that you have lost by defending the murder of children, and infants.

Give up. You lost the minute you could not deny that your god ordered the murder of children, and infants.

 

[Dr Grump]

It does explain my extremely high IQ.

Course it does...

 

[ding]

Children. And. Infants.

Are you this egocentric with your patients?
You did not address my questions concerning the abuse of children by parents.
I presume you treat patients?

You're right. I didn't address your fake concern. I already told you, you suborn, defend, and justify genocide, and the murder of children, and infants. After that fact is exposed, any fake morality that you pretend to exhibit is irrelevant.

Children. And. Infants.

You are not a psychiatrist and I doubt you have ever read any of the articles you post.

You are a sociopath who suborns, supports, defends, and justifies the murder of children and infants, so your opinion of me hardly matters. Anything else?

I suggest an all new thread discussing how a psychiatrist would treat a patient who claims to be an expert in a realm of which they possess little knowledge.
Sound good?

It would be educational to hear his psychiatric analysis on anything.

 

[ding]

40 years of warnings and all they had to do was stop that little list.
They were consumed with their own desires and not for the welfare of their children.
And you say God is cruel?

It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I made a comment somewhere back in this thread that the Hebrews didn't follow God's orders and that it seems like that was a mistake. They would have had a whole lot less problems if they had just done what God told them to do. The whole " Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia started over 600 years ago and they are still pissed off. Heck, I bet the American Indian would could kill every white person, if he actually thought he could do it. The same came be said for the Muslims today. The only sure way to end it would be to kill every last one. I don't recall a moral distinction being made or needed. History and nature are littered with such events. So much so that it can be said to be the natural order. Smarty Pants doesn't believe in God or the Book he is quoting from therefore he must attribute it to the natural order. He is making an argument of convenience to attack religion. Trying to take the moral high road when he has none. How does this not prove my signature line?

 

[ScientificHumanism]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

 

[ding]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

 

[Czernobog]

It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I made a comment somewhere back in this thread that the Hebrews didn't follow God's orders and that it seems like that was a mistake. They would have had a whole lot less problems if they had just done what God told them to do. The whole " Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia started over 600 years ago and they are still pissed off. Heck, I bet the American Indian would could kill every white person, if he actually thought he could do it. The same came be said for the Muslims today. The only sure way to end it would be to kill every last one. I don't recall a moral distinction being made or needed. History and nature are littered with such events. So much so that it can be said to be the natural order. Smarty Pants doesn't believe in God or the Book he is quoting from therefore he must attribute it to the natural order. He is making an argument of convenience to attack religion. Trying to take the moral high road when he has none. How does this not prove my signature line?

Oh, that's rich. I don't care if you want to attribute the genesis of your sociopathic desire to God, Natural Order, or your dog whispered it in your ear, you are the one attempting to make the argument in favour of genocide, in multiple cases, and you dare to suggest that I am the one lacking a moral high road.

Sit, down. Shut up, and go back to playing in your pudding. Grown-ups are talking here, and this is far above your infantile reasoning ability.

 

[ding]

And the inhabitants didn't care.
Sort of like many of your patients, I presume.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I made a comment somewhere back in this thread that the Hebrews didn't follow God's orders and that it seems like that was a mistake. They would have had a whole lot less problems if they had just done what God told them to do. The whole " Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia started over 600 years ago and they are still pissed off. Heck, I bet the American Indian would could kill every white person, if he actually thought he could do it. The same came be said for the Muslims today. The only sure way to end it would be to kill every last one. I don't recall a moral distinction being made or needed. History and nature are littered with such events. So much so that it can be said to be the natural order. Smarty Pants doesn't believe in God or the Book he is quoting from therefore he must attribute it to the natural order. He is making an argument of convenience to attack religion. Trying to take the moral high road when he has none. How does this not prove my signature line?

Oh, that's rich. I don't care if you want to attribute the genesis of your sociopathic desire to God, Natural Order, or your dog whispered it in your ear, you are the one attempting to make the argument in favour of genocide, in multiple cases, and you dare to suggest that I am the one lacking a moral high road.

Sit, down. Shut up, and go back to playing in your pudding. Grown-ups are talking here, and this is far above your infantile reasoning ability.

No. I am making an argument of reality. Lands have been taken by force since the beginning of man. We have not always been so gentrified like "you" are today. When one people take a land from another, those people never forget. The only way the problems ends is when one of those two people no longer exists. The same can probably be said for people like you and I. Until that time though you will have to just contend with me correcting and exposing you all of the time. I bet your latest anti-Christian rant is a result of you searching militant atheist websites for arguments.

 

[Indeependent]

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter how many "warnings" were given. Do you think slaughtering children an infants is less evil, if you tell me you are going to slaughter my children and infants, first. If you demand that I behave the way you want me to, or you are going to slaughter my children, and infants, do you think that makes you less evil? No. that just makes you evil, and tyrannical. It doesn't matter if I, you, or every reasonable person on the planet agrees with your "rules". As soon as you demand my compliance under the threat of the lives of my children, and infants, you. Are. Wrong. That is a simple fact that you simply cannot get around, regardless of how many different ways you try to justify, excuse, or defend it.

Children. And. Infants.

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I made a comment somewhere back in this thread that the Hebrews didn't follow God's orders and that it seems like that was a mistake. They would have had a whole lot less problems if they had just done what God told them to do. The whole " Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia started over 600 years ago and they are still pissed off. Heck, I bet the American Indian would could kill every white person, if he actually thought he could do it. The same came be said for the Muslims today. The only sure way to end it would be to kill every last one. I don't recall a moral distinction being made or needed. History and nature are littered with such events. So much so that it can be said to be the natural order. Smarty Pants doesn't believe in God or the Book he is quoting from therefore he must attribute it to the natural order. He is making an argument of convenience to attack religion. Trying to take the moral high road when he has none. How does this not prove my signature line?

Oh, that's rich. I don't care if you want to attribute the genesis of your sociopathic desire to God, Natural Order, or your dog whispered it in your ear, you are the one attempting to make the argument in favour of genocide, in multiple cases, and you dare to suggest that I am the one lacking a moral high road.

Sit, down. Shut up, and go back to playing in your pudding. Grown-ups are talking here, and this is far above your infantile reasoning ability.

No. I am making an argument of reality. Lands have been taken by force since the beginning of man. We have not always been so gentrified like "you" are today. When one people take a land from another, those people never forget. The only way the problems ends is when one of those two people no longer exists. The same can probably be said for people like you and I. Until that time though you will have to just contend with me correcting and exposing you all of the time. I bet your latest anti-Christian rant is a result of you searching militant atheist websites for arguments.

I gotta tell you, Ding, I'm getting a real kick out of you.
You doing all this research and analysis and "Psychiatrist" boy is tossing out the same ad hominem over and over again.

 

[ding]

People kill their children all the time and I bet you prescribe drugs for them.

I did my job.
You claimed you knew Scripture.
You lied.
Enjoy!

I made a comment somewhere back in this thread that the Hebrews didn't follow God's orders and that it seems like that was a mistake. They would have had a whole lot less problems if they had just done what God told them to do. The whole " Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia started over 600 years ago and they are still pissed off. Heck, I bet the American Indian would could kill every white person, if he actually thought he could do it. The same came be said for the Muslims today. The only sure way to end it would be to kill every last one. I don't recall a moral distinction being made or needed. History and nature are littered with such events. So much so that it can be said to be the natural order. Smarty Pants doesn't believe in God or the Book he is quoting from therefore he must attribute it to the natural order. He is making an argument of convenience to attack religion. Trying to take the moral high road when he has none. How does this not prove my signature line?

Oh, that's rich. I don't care if you want to attribute the genesis of your sociopathic desire to God, Natural Order, or your dog whispered it in your ear, you are the one attempting to make the argument in favour of genocide, in multiple cases, and you dare to suggest that I am the one lacking a moral high road.

Sit, down. Shut up, and go back to playing in your pudding. Grown-ups are talking here, and this is far above your infantile reasoning ability.

No. I am making an argument of reality. Lands have been taken by force since the beginning of man. We have not always been so gentrified like "you" are today. When one people take a land from another, those people never forget. The only way the problems ends is when one of those two people no longer exists. The same can probably be said for people like you and I. Until that time though you will have to just contend with me correcting and exposing you all of the time. I bet your latest anti-Christian rant is a result of you searching militant atheist websites for arguments.

I gotta tell you, Ding, I'm getting a real kick out of you.
You doing all this research and analysis and "Psychiatrist" boy is tossing out the same ad hominem over and over again.

Thanks. It is my pleasure. I was serious about what I said earlier, if they had only listened to God they would have had a lot fewer problems.

And you know I nailed that last one. He probably has four militant atheist websites open at all times.

 

[Czernobog]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

 

[ding]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

 

[ding]

your inadequate "stages" of morality.

Well golly gee, Dr. Phil, if these "stages" of morality are inadequate, how do these stages of morality compare to the stages of morality you were taught while you were getting your PhD is psychiatry?

 

[Czernobog]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

That's not even close to the thought process of a narcissist. A narcissist doesn't worry about what will promote a positive self-image, because a narcissist is incapable of conceiving of a negative self-image. Why don't you leave the psychology to the professionals, and leave Google out of it. I'm sorry that self-image doesn't fit nicely into your little paradigm of how morality develops, but, maybe that is because there are ways of thinking about morality and ethics that have nothing to do with your imaginary non-existent God. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

 

[ding]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

That's not even close to the thought process of a narcissist. A narcissist doesn't worry about what will promote a positive self-image, because a narcissist is incapable of conceiving of a negative self-image. Why don't you leave the psychology to the professionals, and leave Google out of it. I'm sorry that self-image doesn't fit nicely into your little paradigm of how morality develops, but, maybe that is because there are ways of thinking about morality and ethics that have nothing to do with your imaginary non-existent God. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so fast. That's what came up when I googled your phrase and you still have the little problem of telling me what the accepted morality progression looks like. And for the record, that came from the book titled, "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century," by Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth Yost Hammer. Do you have anything besides your uninformed opinion? Didn't you have to use references in your thesis to get your PhD? Is this concept foreign to you?

Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century

 

[Czernobog]

Secular people do good stuff not out of fear of divine punishment, but because they simply believe that it's what's best for the world (humanity.) That is a more VIRTUOUS reason for doing good than for just avoiding punishment (in "hell"), as well.

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

That's not even close to the thought process of a narcissist. A narcissist doesn't worry about what will promote a positive self-image, because a narcissist is incapable of conceiving of a negative self-image. Why don't you leave the psychology to the professionals, and leave Google out of it. I'm sorry that self-image doesn't fit nicely into your little paradigm of how morality develops, but, maybe that is because there are ways of thinking about morality and ethics that have nothing to do with your imaginary non-existent God. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so fast. That's what came up when I googled your phrase and you still have the little problem of telling me what the accepted morality progression looks like. And for the record, that came from the book titled, "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century," by Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth Yost Hammer. Do you have anything besides your uninformed opinion? Didn't you have to use references in your thesis to get your PhD? Is this concept foreign to you?

Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century

I don't care what it came from, your misapplication of the term narcissist is still wrong. This is why trying to use google to pretend that you have an understanding of fields that you are clueless about, just make you look stupid. This would be why, when you started going into minutia about quantum physics, going beyond my basic understanding, instead of trying to use Google to pretend I am fluent in the field, I simply admitted it is not my field of expertise, and left it at that.

As to your "morality progression", why do I need to provide you with such a progression? How does that help you understand any better the concept that was already explained in such simple terms?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

You mean they don't do it for these reasons?

Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people

Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views.

Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society.

Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values.

Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

That's not even close to the thought process of a narcissist. A narcissist doesn't worry about what will promote a positive self-image, because a narcissist is incapable of conceiving of a negative self-image. Why don't you leave the psychology to the professionals, and leave Google out of it. I'm sorry that self-image doesn't fit nicely into your little paradigm of how morality develops, but, maybe that is because there are ways of thinking about morality and ethics that have nothing to do with your imaginary non-existent God. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so fast. That's what came up when I googled your phrase and you still have the little problem of telling me what the accepted morality progression looks like. And for the record, that came from the book titled, "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century," by Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth Yost Hammer. Do you have anything besides your uninformed opinion? Didn't you have to use references in your thesis to get your PhD? Is this concept foreign to you?

Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century

I don't care what it came from, your misapplication of the term narcissist is still wrong. This is why trying to use google to pretend that you have an understanding of fields that you are clueless about, just make you look stupid. This would be why, when you started going into minutia about quantum physics, going beyond my basic understanding, instead of trying to use Google to pretend I am fluent in the field, I simply admitted it is not my field of expertise, and left it at that.

As to your "morality progression", why do I need to provide you with such a progression? How does that help you understand any better the concept that was already explained in such simple terms?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You are arguing Psychology with Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth and Yost Hammer, the authors of "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century."

You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Are you telling me that you don't have a better one?

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. None of those. You come close with that Stage two. It's not about "What's in it for me". Rather it's about "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image," It's not about "What's in it for me", so much as "What makes me feel good about myself?" Notice that this is not the same as the hedonistic question "What makes me feel good, right now?" Those two questions produce two entirely different responses.

When hedonist is presented with a young woman being attacked by a rapist, he may ask the latter question, and may well decide to join in. However, when a humanist atheist is presented with that same scenario, and askes the former, he will, likely, call 911, or, perhaps, even, jump in to help the woman himself. Two very different questions, with two very different outcomes.

The important thing to note however, was that the Huminaist did not ask any of the questions suggested by your inadequate "stages" of morality.

I googled "What behaviour permits me to maintain the most positive self-image" and no scholarly articles came up, but I did find something that describes your behaviors to a "T":

"Narcissists have highly positive but easily threatened self-concepts. Above all else, their behavior is driven by a need to maintain their fragile self-esteem. They are far more interested in making themselves look powerful and successful ... They also assert that narcissists' “me-first” attitude has led to increased materialism..."

Didn't you claim to be a materialist? Who says there's no God, lol?

Gee, Dr. Phil... why don't you list the stages of morality progression?

That's not even close to the thought process of a narcissist. A narcissist doesn't worry about what will promote a positive self-image, because a narcissist is incapable of conceiving of a negative self-image. Why don't you leave the psychology to the professionals, and leave Google out of it. I'm sorry that self-image doesn't fit nicely into your little paradigm of how morality develops, but, maybe that is because there are ways of thinking about morality and ethics that have nothing to do with your imaginary non-existent God. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not so fast. That's what came up when I googled your phrase and you still have the little problem of telling me what the accepted morality progression looks like. And for the record, that came from the book titled, "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century," by Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth Yost Hammer. Do you have anything besides your uninformed opinion? Didn't you have to use references in your thesis to get your PhD? Is this concept foreign to you?

Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century

I don't care what it came from, your misapplication of the term narcissist is still wrong. This is why trying to use google to pretend that you have an understanding of fields that you are clueless about, just make you look stupid. This would be why, when you started going into minutia about quantum physics, going beyond my basic understanding, instead of trying to use Google to pretend I am fluent in the field, I simply admitted it is not my field of expertise, and left it at that.

As to your "morality progression", why do I need to provide you with such a progression? How does that help you understand any better the concept that was already explained in such simple terms?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You are arguing Psychology with Wayne Weiten, Dana S. Dunn, Elizabeth and Yost Hammer, the authors of "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century."

You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Are you telling me that you don't have a better one?

No. I'm arguing your misapplication of Weiten, Dunn, and Hammers. I'm equally certain that they would be appalled at your gross misuse of their work. So, again, how about you just leave the psychology to the professionals.

I'm telling you that moral decision making does not necessarily fit in with your little list. Nothing more. Nothing less. You are the one who wants to make things more complicated than they are.