You were, and possibly still are (it's hard to tell given your confused style of writing), under the impression I am actually a nihilist. This is very much a misunderstanding.
For what reason did you splice together two paragraphs of mine from two different posts?
You do not truly believe that life is "all about" what we say and do to others.
Incredible. - Again you make a flat out pronouncement about what I've experienced in my life. You must be a psychic.
Except that as anyone can see, my comment said nothing about your experience. It's about your beliefs, and these not learned psychically but -- if you'd pay attention to something called context -- by your other comments. I don't doubt that you "believe" in some sense that life is all about what you do and say to others -- but only as a platitude. As I already discussed, you defended the Golden Rule with reference to your own interests. The secondary principles are derived from the primary ones. If you derive the Golden Rule from your own self-interest, the self-interest is primary and the Golden Rule only secondary.
There you go again, off on some irrational tangent. Nice vs un-nice forms of amorality? Good grief.
The fact that you lack the resources to understand what I said doesn't make it irrational. Now again: if your basic principle is what's good for you (and by the evidence of what you've chosen to say here, it is), you're amoral. Not necessarily immoral; you're simply acting without reference to morality. In your case because you've subsumed morality to self-interest. If treating others nicely promotes your idea of the good life, then, perfectly amorally, you'll behave relatively decently. But others may have different ideas of the good life. What will you say to them? That they ought not to like what they like? But then you need some standard by which to judge their delights bad and unworthy, and then you would need to explain where this standard comes from and what makes it normative and this, I maintain, cannot be done coherently with a naturalistic worldview.
You were, and possibly still are (it's hard to tell given your confused style of writing), under the impression I am actually a nihilist. This is very much a misunderstanding.
Your own confusion is evident when you claim I misunderstand you. And frankly, I could care less about what you "actually" are. - You're not nihilist? - Fine.
For what reason did you splice together two paragraphs of mine from two different posts?
I doubt I did.
You do not truly believe that life is "all about" what we say and do to others.
Incredible. - Again you make a flat out pronouncement about what I've experienced in my life. You must be a psychic.
Except that as anyone can see, my comment said nothing about your experience. It's about your beliefs, and these not learned psychically but -- if you'd pay attention to something called context -- by your other comments.
Typically, you think you've made a point with that pointless sentence. Rest assured, no one but you can "see"..
I don't doubt that you "believe" in some sense that life is all about what you do and say to others -- but only as a platitude. As I already discussed, you defended the Golden Rule with reference to your own interests. The secondary principles are derived from the primary ones.
Gibberish. Platitudes about "secondary principles".
If you derive the Golden Rule from your own self-interest, the self-interest is primary and the Golden Rule only secondary.
There you go again, off on some irrational tangent. -- Nice vs un-nice forms of amorality? -- The golden rule as secondary? -- Good grief.
The fact that you lack the resources to understand what I said doesn't make it irrational.
Nor does the fact that you lack the resources to understand what I said make your observation rational.
Now again: if your basic principle is what's good for you (and by the evidence of what you've chosen to say here, it is), you're amoral.
Absurd conclusion derived not from what I've written here, but from your imagination.
Not necessarily immoral; you're simply acting without reference to morality. In your case because you've subsumed morality to self-interest. If treating others nicely promotes your idea of the good life, then, perfectly amorally, you'll behave relatively decently. But others may have different ideas of the good life. What will you say to them?
You find it necessary to "say" something to those who have different ideas, and find this to be 'moral behavior'. I do not. I mind my own business.
That they ought not to like what they like? But then you need some standard by which to judge their delights bad and unworthy, and then you would need to explain where this standard comes from and what makes it normative and this, I maintain, cannot be done coherently with a naturalistic worldview.
And there we have a partial answer to "Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?". What you 'maintain' is religious strife. -- Why not mind your own business instead?