Morality without god

Hmmm,...I appeal to the literature rather than any direct personal proof of these archetypes.But I do note that people today recognize and tag Egomaniacs with this epitaph, while the magazine, SELF has had a high circulation in America.The terms I use of course were all devised by researchers in the science of Psychology, so I am merely deferring, as always, to available references.But what seems consistent to me is the long tradition of referring to seven entities particularly noted for their ability to motivate misbehaviors that are called evil spirits: 1) Id = Lucifer
2) Libido = Satan
3) Ego = Mammon
4) Anima = Devil
5) Self = Beelzebub
6) Superego = False Prophet
7) Harmony = False shepherd
8) Conscience = Good Shepherd

Yeah, this is more numerological bullshit.You can't mix and match ego, id, and superego, which make up Freud's psychic apparatus, with Jungian archetypes, of which there are five:Self
Shadow
Anima
Animus
PersonaLibido and Harmony are not archetypes.So, no, you do not appeal to the literature. You aren't deferringto references, you are picking random terms and saying they apply to your model that you created, but they don't.And there is no long tradition of referring to seven "evil spirits" in psychology. There is no short tradition.This is not relevant to psychology.You are a liar.

Theology does not deny the existence of Good and evil, they are very much real as concepts, thoughts and ideologies. I simply mean they have no substance, no spiritual existence or physical existence. they are manifestations of either the Spiritual or phyisical substance itself.They become valid,actual and absolute, when there is in existence a being that is eternal in character, substance and knowledge. They can only be absolute or actual if he is such, that no other information could be added to his character to make a decison in the opposite or alternate direction. Hence real and absolute. This is all reality and reason will allow concerning the literalness of an actual existence of morality, right or wrongIf you do not believe in God and those characteristics, it is hopelessly relative, subjective and propositional.Since we are not infinte in knowledge or existence, it follows there can be no actual right or wrong, not to mention moralityAbsoluteness demands eternality. Anything else is non-senseDawn Bertot

Too funny. You never have read the Bible, have you?According to the Bible God does not have infinite knowledge.

Then your supposed absolute morality is actually relative to what a person believes. So much for absolutes.Also, an eternal God can still command people to do immoral things. Being eternal does not guarantee that the deity is good. It merely shows that they can exist forever. Even more so, there are apparently multiple eternal gods worshipped by several cultures, and they give different answers for what is and isn't moral. So which edicts do we follow, and which gods do we trust? Again, this is all relative to your beliefs, just as any atheistic or secular morality code would be.

You are saying that altruistic behaviour persists in the species because it is beneficial to the species.I am saying that it persists in the species because it is beneficial to the individual.How can you benefit the species without benefiting the individual?

Proverbs 6:6
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:But to be more helpful,think of the mothers instinct and how they would easily sacrifice themselves while totally oblivious to the personal danger to themselves simply because of the kind of love that is just that great for others.Our instinct for survival is our strongest yet we have no real clue why, when one considers some of the things men have endured in its name.
Why is it inconceivable to you that such an instinct exists for men to save others at the same cost of their own lives?
On the battle field, I know men who became big brothers and somehow assumed some weird responsibility to make sure their little brothers did not die whatever the personal cost.90% of the Medal of Honors are awarded to soldiers who jumped on a grenade to save all the others.

I don't think your claim about 90% is researched. You are just stating that as it it were true.We protect our young because they are the "ark" that houses our genetic relics and allow us, in one way or another, to live forever.We will give our lives for our children and close relatives as an act of self interest.We lay our lives down for strangers to set a priori for all humans to protect each other because it increases the likelihood of our own progeny to have success even if we we have to give up our own lives to attain it.

Ethics may be relative to the culture on lives in, but morality is simply a rule that says men can not do harm to themselves or others by the behavior or lack of a behavior they elect to exhibit.Listing those behaviors one insists will hurt others becomes a personal and subjective argument for that person's abstaining from such behaviors.
But the test of whether the behavior could or might actually hurt others is open to discussion and debate in many cases.Does Welfare actually hurt the children of Single Mothers, who represent 70% of all our social problems in America?Is it then immoral to use Welfare with the intention of helping Single Mothers?
or, is it just immoral to become a Single Mother?Or, is all this reason Single Motherhood was once consider immoral itself?What ought be the Ethics of American citizens in regard to Welfare, considering the effect on the larger society it hurts?

source?

Yeah, I KNOW your 70% remark is bullshit.

Falling on a grenadeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchFalling on a grenade refers to the deliberate act of using one's body to cover a live time-fused hand grenade, absorbing the explosion and fragmentation in an effort to save the lives of others nearby. Since this is almost universally fatal, it is considered an especially conspicuous and selfless act of individual sacrifice in wartime; in United States military history,...... [B[]more citations for the Medal of Honor have been awarded for falling on grenades to save comrades than any other single act.[/B]90% is the figure the Marines round it off at in rough terms.
I assume the sgt researched it.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

lame...

While quite amusing coming from someone with a blatent history of doctoring evidence, such a request is reasonable.Behavioral models are boil down to one thing, and it is an economic fundamental: That humans are rationalWhen the benefit of an action outweighs the consequence, the determination is that one must act.http://business.xtu.edu.cn:8055/...txtnews20120409012033.pdfhttp://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.htmlDoing Well By Doing Good; Agricultural Research: Feeding and Greening the World
Derek E. Tribe
Pluto Press
ISBN 13: 9780949138729http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/...cts/Spring02/Holt/enlightened.htmlDawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). Population genetics. New Biology, 18, 34-51.Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16.Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17-52.Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The theory of evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.That should be a good start, but there is also the realm of the reward system and how humans take pleasure in taking risks and a resulting incentive salience.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

yes, your claim was lame.