Secular families are ethical families

[ding]

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.

It came out of their book. No editing, editorial, paraphrasing, etc. needed. 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." Not me.

 

[ding]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

Yeah, you actually do need a better one. Until you can provide a better one, there are no other challengers. Put up or shut up, Dr. Phil.

 

[ding]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

You don't find it odd, that someone like you who claims to hold a PhD in psychiatry can't provide a better morality progression? I mean you did say the one I posted was inadequate. It would seem to me that there must be a better model out there that would make you make that statement.

You don't want there to be a morality progression. That would go against your beliefs. Science and common sense tell us that as we age there is a morality progression.

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.

Provide something better. You can't do it.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

Yeah, you actually do need a better one. Until you can provide a better one, there are no other challengers. Put up or shut up, Dr. Phil.

Except there doesn't need to be any other "challengers". If your "Progression of morality" does not adequately provide for ethical decision making, then it can be simply ignored. Period. No "better progression" necessary. Kohberg's theory is just that - a theory. So, when it can be demonstrated that there are outliers that cannot be made to fit the theory, the theory can simply be discarded. We had this discussion before. There have been a number of psychologists who have rejected his theory for a number of reasons.

Thank you for playing. You are dismissed. And, no. It is not my job to give you a dissertation of behavioural psychology. If you want to know who has rejected Kohlberg, do some research. Look it up. You have demonstrated that you are quite proficient with Google. Use it to educate yourself, instead of trying to use it to confirm your biases.

 

[ding]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

Yeah, you actually do need a better one. Until you can provide a better one, there are no other challengers. Put up or shut up, Dr. Phil.

Except there doesn't need to be any other "challengers". If your "Progression of morality" does not adequately provide for ethical decision making, then it can be simply ignored. Period. No "better progression" necessary. Kohberg's theory is just that - a theory. So, when it can be demonstrated that there are outliers that cannot be made to fit the theory, the theory can simply be discarded. We had this discussion before. There have been a number of psychologists who have rejected his theory for a number of reasons.

Thank you for playing. You are dismissed. And, no. It is not my job to give you a dissertation of behavioural psychology. If you want to know who has rejected Kohlberg, do some research. Look it up. You have demonstrated that you are quite proficient with Google. Use it to educate yourself, instead of trying to use it to confirm your biases.

Sorry, this was not settled. You ran away. Again.

No one has discredited that a morality progression exists. It's pretty much common fucking sense that as a rule people grow in morality as they age. And that there are forces that drive that change. And that a progression based on

you do the right thing because you are told to you do the right thing
you do the right thing because of what it will get you
you do the right thing based on good intentions to societal norms
you do the right thing because you have become obedient
you do the right thing because you respect others
you do the right thing irregardless to the law or consequences to one's self

makes a lot of fucking sense.

Let's see, your's is:

nothing. How convenient that is for you? I would have thought someone with a PhD is psychiatry would be able to do better.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

Yeah, you actually do need a better one. Until you can provide a better one, there are no other challengers. Put up or shut up, Dr. Phil.

Except there doesn't need to be any other "challengers". If your "Progression of morality" does not adequately provide for ethical decision making, then it can be simply ignored. Period. No "better progression" necessary. Kohberg's theory is just that - a theory. So, when it can be demonstrated that there are outliers that cannot be made to fit the theory, the theory can simply be discarded. We had this discussion before. There have been a number of psychologists who have rejected his theory for a number of reasons.

Thank you for playing. You are dismissed. And, no. It is not my job to give you a dissertation of behavioural psychology. If you want to know who has rejected Kohlberg, do some research. Look it up. You have demonstrated that you are quite proficient with Google. Use it to educate yourself, instead of trying to use it to confirm your biases.

Sorry, this was not settled. You ran away. Again.

No one has discredited that a morality progression exists. It's pretty much common fucking sense that as a rule people grow in morality as they age. And that there are forces that drive that change. And that a progression based on

you do the right thing because you are told to you do the right thing
you do the right thing because of what it will get you
you do the right thing based on good intentions to societal norms
you do the right thing because you have become obedient
you do the right thing because you respect others
you do the right thing irregardless to the law or consequences to one's self

makes a lot of fucking sense.

Let's see, your's is:

nothing. How convenient that is for you? I would have thought someone with a PhD is psychiatry would be able to do better.

Numerous psychologists have criticised, and discarded Kohlberg's inadequate theories. The fact that theistic moralists cling to them does not make them still worthy of discussion. You can continue to point to them, as if they are valid, and those of us who know better will continue to ignore them, and you. You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

How long are you going to dodge my question about the morality progression? You were the one who claimed the morality progression I posted was inadequate. Do you have a better one? If not, then shut your fake ass up.

I don't need a "better one". I already proved yours doesn't work. My work here is done. You are dismissed.

Yeah, you actually do need a better one. Until you can provide a better one, there are no other challengers. Put up or shut up, Dr. Phil.

Except there doesn't need to be any other "challengers". If your "Progression of morality" does not adequately provide for ethical decision making, then it can be simply ignored. Period. No "better progression" necessary. Kohberg's theory is just that - a theory. So, when it can be demonstrated that there are outliers that cannot be made to fit the theory, the theory can simply be discarded. We had this discussion before. There have been a number of psychologists who have rejected his theory for a number of reasons.

Thank you for playing. You are dismissed. And, no. It is not my job to give you a dissertation of behavioural psychology. If you want to know who has rejected Kohlberg, do some research. Look it up. You have demonstrated that you are quite proficient with Google. Use it to educate yourself, instead of trying to use it to confirm your biases.

Sorry, this was not settled. You ran away. Again.

No one has discredited that a morality progression exists. It's pretty much common fucking sense that as a rule people grow in morality as they age. And that there are forces that drive that change. And that a progression based on

you do the right thing because you are told to you do the right thing
you do the right thing because of what it will get you
you do the right thing based on good intentions to societal norms
you do the right thing because you have become obedient
you do the right thing because you respect others
you do the right thing irregardless to the law or consequences to one's self

makes a lot of fucking sense.

Let's see, your's is:

nothing. How convenient that is for you? I would have thought someone with a PhD is psychiatry would be able to do better.

Numerous psychologists have criticised, and discarded Kohlberg's inadequate theories. The fact that theistic moralists cling to them does not make them still worthy of discussion. You can continue to point to them, as if they are valid, and those of us who know better will continue to ignore them, and you. You are dismissed.

And replaced it with what?

 

[Czernobog]

So. Would anyone who does not suborn genocide, or insist on relying on inadequate behaviour theories like to offer any opinions on the recent study?

 

[ding]

So. Would anyone who does not suborn genocide, or insist on relying on inadequate behaviour theories like to offer any opinions on the recent study?

Should we ask Bob, "how it makes him "feel" to be proven wrong through logic and reason?"

 

[Andylusion]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

I wasn't aware that anyone believed this mystical claim of yours.

Mark Gungor, James McDonald, Chip Ingram, and numerous local pastors I've heard speak, have always said that total pagans can live decently, if they choose to follow the values of the Bible.

The motivations for why people do stuff, is largely irrelevant. If people follow the Bible's statements that they should live Self-less, honest, and caring lives, they will reap the rewards of this.

The Bible is filled with such examples. The most obvious is Jonah, being sent to Nineveh. Jonah told the people to repent of their evil. They did. That doesn't mean they became Jewish, or start going to the Temple in Jerusalem or something. They just stopped being evil, and started doing good, and because of that good happened for them.

Even more than that, the Bible says very clearly that every human has right and wrong etched in their hearts. From the time they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So we as Christians should expect that even without reading the Bible, pagans (non-christians) can and do, live good lives.

Now as to pagans somehow live better than religious people... that's interesting. I do wonder though what their definition of "religious" people means.

Anyone can say "I am religious". That doesn't mean much though.

How do they define that? Because there are some "religious" people who beat their wives, and honor kill their daughters.

Lumping all "religious" people into a single group, doesn't seem all that fair, since definitions of right and wrong differ with groups.

Further, there are many people who claim to be religious, and honestly don't live any sort of religious life. I know a girl right now, who lives a life that is completely against everything that Christianity says is good. Yet she would say "I'm a Christian". But she's obviously not. So does this research separate faithful people from those who only claim to be?