Morality without god

The real you is a person who makes things up to create an illusion that does not conform to the reality that is external to you.You just said a bunch of nonsense and made appeals to authorities that do not support what you just said. Like you have in other posts.There are no 7 Freudian/Jungian archetypes.Your summation of Libido was ignorant."Subliminal" does not support you.All in all, you are wasting your and everyone else's time pretending to be an intellectual.Why don't you take all this time you have to make poor graphics and to interject nonsense into the bible and actually educate yourself and BECOME a true intellectual rather than making shit up.You don't have to lie to make friends.

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.

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.

Yeah, I KNOW your 70% remark is bullshit.

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.

What seargent? You are lying.Don't lie about the marines you fucking twat.

The medal of honor has been awarded to 627 individuals posthumously, out of 3,476 awards received.So let's do the math.90% of 3476 = 31283128 individuals who fell on a grenade - 627 individuals who recieved a medal posthumously = 2501 heroes who jumped on a grenade and walked away.Does that seem reasonable?Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Your brother is a part of your fitness and is a vehicle for distributing your genes (most of them).I'm not sure if altruism has agene, so much as it is a behavior, but from an evolutionary standpoint, it does benefit you to keep him alive, even if it means you die.By extension of shared fitness, you would actually be protecting yourself and your store of genetic material. Throwing yourself in front of a bullet for your brother is not selfless.

really? Give us a name. This "sergeant" is suddenly a nobody drill instructor, yet has the task of figuring out the percentage of medal of honor awards given out for falling on a grenade. Give us a name, if you can, you lying POS. No one said that altruism is limited to motherly love. Nice strawman. Dude, you have been caught in a blatent and obviously lie which was both related and significant, being that it was the heart of the purpose of your post.. The only appropriate response is to call bullshit. Your argument is dicredited simply because it was not true and because you purposely lied.You discredit your own claims simply by making them without knowledge of the subject or fact-checking. You are a pseudo-intellectual that tried to pull the wool over everybody's eyes with a fabricated statement.It was bullshit and you know it. Don't blame others for holding you accountable when you cry wolf. You've got nobody but yourself to call a loser and to think poorly about.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

Because your brother survives, giving him the opportunity to spread his, and most of your genes around.His survival benefits you in the same way that having children benefits you. The furtherance of your type, culture, beliefs, values, character, ect.Immortality through the passing of genes.

By traits, Mendel was focused on quantative attributes inherited by a single locus.You don't know what you are talking about.

You already asked for sources. I gave them. It is not my fault if you did not bother to open even one link.Here they are again: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.

These are not just personal points of view.They are held by a large number of social behaviorists, biologists, and economists.You, yourself, have mentioned game theory, so you should already be aware of this. Since you aren't, I wonder why you would have mentioned Nash at all. You shouldn't pretend to have a perspective on subjects you are ignorant about.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

wtf are you talking about?What makes me dumb for admitting a position that I have always held? Did you not read my conversation about one brother dying for another?Do you not understand the basics of the conversation?Gender has little to do with altruism, with the exception of securing possible mates (holding the door for someone, paying for dinner, ect.)