Science Truth, and Religion

[Vastator]

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

I don't care how he did the study. You say it has been refuted. I am asking you whose work replaced it and if you believe there is a morality progression? I think you are lying and full of shit.

Of course you don't... because you don't have any pertinent material rehearsed for that. Ooohhh... And watch the anger when pressed. Man! Out come the insults and all.. You know... that same behavior carries over into personal relationships as well... Even; for instance... Marriages... that typically end up in divorce. Hmmm... I wonder...

 

[Czernobog]

No. that is not how that works. If you are going to defend his findings. Then start with his work. By all means, lets do that. Let's start with his subjects. Who were they?

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

I don't care how he did the study. You say it has been refuted. I am asking you whose work replaced it and if you believe there is a morality progression? I think you are lying and full of shit.

It has been refuted. By Carol Gilligan, and Christina Hoff Sommers, as well as others. Not that I expect you to know who either of those two people are. And to answer your obviously ignorant question, one theory that has been introduced to counter Kohlberg's theory is the Theory of Moral Intuition. Yes, I'm sure you're going to look that up. It's not really that complicated.

And now, you are dismissed, Troll. You have managed to take this entire conversation off into the weeds, I am tired, and I am going to bed.

 

[Czernobog]

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

You can't answer the questions because you are a fake.

I did answer your question. You, meanwhile, could not answer mine. Because all you were doing was pulling some bullshit off of the internet, thinking that would make you sound smart. You failed. You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

I don't care how he did the study. You say it has been refuted. I am asking you whose work replaced it and if you believe there is a morality progression? I think you are lying and full of shit.

It has been refuted. By Carol Gilligan, and Christina Hoff Sommers, as well as others. Not that I expect you to know who either of those two people are. And to answer your obviously ignorant question, one theory that has been introduced to counter Kohlberg's theory is the Theory of Moral Intuition. Yes, I'm sure you're going to look that up. It's not really that complicated.

And now, you are dismissed, Troll. You have managed to take this entire conversation off into the weeds, I am tired, and I am going to bed.

Not so fast... I thought you said Carol Gilligan refuted Kohlberg's work. That's not what she said.

Carol Gilligan - Psychology's Feminist Voices

In the book, Gilligan outlined her findings on female moral development and decision-making, drawing on studies with children and university students. In Kohlberg's classic studies, females appeared to be deficient in moral reasoning when compared to similarly aged males. This was true of both children and adults. However, Gilligan had noticed a problem - Kohlberg's early work in developing his moral stage theory was based on studies with only white male participants. In light of this, she began working with female participants facing a personally and politically charged dilemma: whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. The results of her study indicated that women were not deficient at all - they were simply using a style of moral reasoning that was not being captured by Kohlberg's assessment methods. As such, they did not fit within his theory, and their voices were not registering. Instead, Gilligan suggested that the women she interviewed used an ethic of care - their morality was based around care for others rather than appeals to seemingly universal codes of behaviour. She believed that this ethic of care was not inherently limited to females, but it was certainly more common among her female participants. Therefore, the ethic of care was not designed to replace Kohlberg's theory of morality, but rather to complement it. In fact, Gilligan has consistently argued that she would like to see psychology "free itself, both in theory and in methods, from the gender binary and the gender hierarchy."

 

[RodISHI]

No I am simply giving you the opportunity to you as you show with each of your own posts what sort of a hypocrite you are.

Well, you're failing miserably. Thanks for playing.

You are the one that fails to recognize or does not understand what a spirit is.

spir·it
ˈspirit/
noun
noun: spirit; plural noun: spirits

1. 1.
   the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
   "we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
   synonyms: soul, psyche, (inner) self, inner being, inner man/woman, mind, ego, id;
   pneuma
   "harmony between body and spirit"
   antonyms: body, flesh
   • the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
     "a year after he left, his spirit is still present"
   • the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
     synonyms: ghost, presence;
     informalspook
     "a spirit haunts the island"
   • a supernatural being.
     "shrines to nature spirits"
   • short for Holy Spirit.
     noun: Spirit; noun: the Spirit
   • archaic
     a highly refined substance or fluid thought to govern vital phenomena.
2. 2.
   those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.
   "the university is a symbol of the nation's egalitarian spirit"
   synonyms: ethos, prevailing tendency, motivating force, essence, quintessence; More
   atmosphere, mood, feeling, climate;
   attitudes, beliefs, principles, standards, ethics
   "the spirit of the age"
   • a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement.
     "he was a leading spirit in the conference"
   • a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time.
     "I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
   • a person's mood.
     "the warm weather lifted everyone's spirits after the winter"
     synonyms: mood, frame of mind, state of mind, emotional state, humor, temper
     "she was in good spirits when I left"
   • the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness.
     "his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"
     synonyms: morale, esprit de corps More
     "team spirit"
     courage, bravery, pluck, valor, strength of character, fortitude, backbone, mettle, stoutheartedness, determination, resolution, resolve, fight, grit;
     informalguts, spunk, sand, moxie
     "his spirit never failed him"
     enthusiasm, eagerness, keenness, liveliness, vivacity, vivaciousness, animation, energy, verve, vigor, dynamism, zest, dash, elan, panache, sparkle, exuberance, gusto, brio, pep, fervor, zeal, fire, passion;
     informalget-up-and-go
     "they played with great spirit"
   • the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
     "he confessed in a spirit of self-respect, not defiance"
     synonyms: attitude, frame of mind, way of thinking, point of view, outlook, thoughts, ideas
     "that's the spirit"
   • the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
     "the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"
     synonyms: real/true meaning, true intention, essence, substance
     "the spirit of the law"
3. 3.
   strong distilled liquor such as brandy, whiskey, gin, or rum.
   synonyms: strong liquor/drink; More
   informal hard stuff, firewater, hooch
   "he drinks spirits"
   • a volatile liquid, especially a fuel, prepared by distillation.
     "aviation spirit"
   • archaic
     a solution of volatile components extracted from something, typically by distillation or by solution in alcohol.
     "spirits of turpentine"

verb
verb: spirit; 3rd person present: spirits; past tense: spirited; past participle: spirited; gerund or present participle: spiriting

1. 1.
   convey rapidly and secretly.
   "stolen cows were spirited away some distance to prevent detection"

Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit,’ from spirare ‘breathe.’

And the only two of those that are real, are the last two.

Again you speak from the lack of your ability to perceive and yet you attempted to use the written word in your haste to attempt to disprove what you cannot perceive.

You keep talking about perception. You get that personal perception is the least reliable source for evidence. That is the whole reason for demanding objective evidence. Because objective evidence remains constant regardless of "perception". Gravity works, whether you see it working, or not. If you drop a ball off of a tower, and watch it, it falls to the ground. If you drop a ball off a tower, and turn your back, guess what it still does? That's right. Falls. To. The. Ground. If your "truth" requires some special "perception" to grasp it, then it is not true to anyone except you, and anyone else who chooses to look at the world through your altered view.

Energy is there also even if you cannot see it in action floating around. It is not bound to the constraints that a human/carnal mind can grasp. The spirit is the same way. Even if you cannot grasp it when you are asleep (unaware the spirit exist) in the dust of the earth. As smaller dust particles fly through the air you only see them if a light shines on them or catch them under a microscope. You could deny that those particles were there as you cannot see them without an external aid to assist you.

 

[ding]

You claim to be the expert. You claim Kohlberg has been discredited. I am asking you, the expert, if you believe there is a morality progression as we age and whose work replaced Kohlbergs.

Of course you are. Because, you can't answer the question, after presenting yourself as an expert. You know why you can't answer my questions? Because that isn't something you can just look up online, and pretend that you know what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

I did not present myself as an expert. You did. Can you answer the questions Mr. Expert? Or are you lying?

Oh, but you did. You brought up Kohlberg, spewing your knowledge of his "seminal work", and then made some snide remark about me having to "google" him, implying that you were the expert on Kohlberg, while I was just some pretender. Begone, troll.

You can't answer the questions because you are a fake.

I did answer your question. You, meanwhile, could not answer mine. Because all you were doing was pulling some bullshit off of the internet, thinking that would make you sound smart. You failed. You are dismissed.

I didn't need to pull anything off the internet. I read about it ten years ago. So are you telling me that you don't believe that we progress in morality as we age? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[ding]

Does that mean you can't answer my simple question? You have just basically discredited Kohlberg's work and I will assume his findings, right? So are you telling me that it is unusual for people to progress in morality as they age?

Now let me add a new one, if Kohlberg has been discredited, what is the new model and can I get a link on that?

No. It means that you aren't doing what you said you were going to do. You want to pretend you understand Kohlberg's work, and you called me out expecting me not to. When I pointed out my understanding of his work, and why it has been rejected, you claimed you were going to defend it. So, do so. Show us your understanding of his work. Start with explaining how he chose his study subjects, and why they were appropriate subjects.

Kohlberhg identified six stages of morality progression. He found that you had to go through the stages sequentially. That you could not skip steps. The early stages were because you were told to do so. The middle stages were because you got something out of it. The 5th stage was because you genuinely like the people and the six and final stage is that you followed the dictates of your conscience regardless of the letter of the law or the consequences to yourself. I am doing this from memory. I read it 10 years ago.

Now will you answer my questions Mr. Expert?

Do you believe that there is a morality progression?

Whose work replaced Kohlberg's work?

You didn't answer my question. Yes. he identified six stages of moral progression. How? What study did he employ to identify those six stages? Who were his study subjects? how did he choose them, and why, in your opinion, were they an appropriate sampling pool?

These are the exact same questions I have been asking you, that you keep refusing to answer. Why do you keep refusing to answer them? Because you can't just look the answers to these questions up online, and pretend to be an expert. You. Are. Dismissed.

I don't care how he did the study. You say it has been refuted. I am asking you whose work replaced it and if you believe there is a morality progression? I think you are lying and full of shit.

It has been refuted. By Carol Gilligan, and Christina Hoff Sommers, as well as others. Not that I expect you to know who either of those two people are. And to answer your obviously ignorant question, one theory that has been introduced to counter Kohlberg's theory is the Theory of Moral Intuition. Yes, I'm sure you're going to look that up. It's not really that complicated.

And now, you are dismissed, Troll. You have managed to take this entire conversation off into the weeds, I am tired, and I am going to bed.

So, just to be clear, you don't believe we progress in morality as we age, right?

Are you aware of the paper Neural development of mentalizing in moral judgment from
adolescence to adulthood by Carla L. Harenski a,∗, Keith A. Harenski a, Matthew S. Shanea, Kent A. Kieh?

"In summary, the findings of the present study demonstrate
that the engagement of brain regions implicated in
adult moral judgment, including the pSTS/TPJ and PCC,
increases with age. These findings suggest that from adolescence
to adulthood individuals progressively integrate
more information about the mental states of others, such
as intentionality, into moral judgments."

So how is Kohlberg wrong exactly?

 

[westwall]

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Soooo...you think that the mentally ill, and unbalanced are evil? Really???? And you call me bigoted?!? Huh...

A sociopath has the ability to CHOOSE. They simply don't care that their victim is suffering. They only care about their pleasure. There are high functioning sociopaths out there who are able to choose to not harm people, they get their jollies in other ways, but it is always a choice. Like I said, you look up definitions on wiki but you don't understand them. I'm a PhD geologist, and my wife is a PhD psychologist. We speak about science AS scientists.

And as one PhD to another you also make a lot of presumptions about others. Before you ask, psychiatry.

Then, an MD how it it that don't understand sociopathic behavior? Your claim is refuted by your lack of knowledge.

How is that you do not understand sociopathy is a disease?

According to the DSM V it is a personality disorder, not a disease.

 

[Czernobog]

Soooo...you think that the mentally ill, and unbalanced are evil? Really???? And you call me bigoted?!? Huh...

A sociopath has the ability to CHOOSE. They simply don't care that their victim is suffering. They only care about their pleasure. There are high functioning sociopaths out there who are able to choose to not harm people, they get their jollies in other ways, but it is always a choice. Like I said, you look up definitions on wiki but you don't understand them. I'm a PhD geologist, and my wife is a PhD psychologist. We speak about science AS scientists.

And as one PhD to another you also make a lot of presumptions about others. Before you ask, psychiatry.

Then, an MD how it it that don't understand sociopathic behavior? Your claim is refuted by your lack of knowledge.

How is that you do not understand sociopathy is a disease?

According to the DSM V it is a personality disorder, not a disease.

Semantics...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

A sociopath has the ability to CHOOSE. They simply don't care that their victim is suffering. They only care about their pleasure. There are high functioning sociopaths out there who are able to choose to not harm people, they get their jollies in other ways, but it is always a choice. Like I said, you look up definitions on wiki but you don't understand them. I'm a PhD geologist, and my wife is a PhD psychologist. We speak about science AS scientists.

And as one PhD to another you also make a lot of presumptions about others. Before you ask, psychiatry.

Then, an MD how it it that don't understand sociopathic behavior? Your claim is refuted by your lack of knowledge.

How is that you do not understand sociopathy is a disease?

According to the DSM V it is a personality disorder, not a disease.

Semantics...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Definition of semantics-"the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text."

Definition of disease-"a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Definition of personality disorder-"a deeply ingrained and maladaptive pattern of behavior of a specified kind, typically manifest by the time one reaches adolescence and causing long-term difficulties in personal relationships or in functioning in society."

So no, it ain't semantics, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Czernobog]

And as one PhD to another you also make a lot of presumptions about others. Before you ask, psychiatry.

Then, an MD how it it that don't understand sociopathic behavior? Your claim is refuted by your lack of knowledge.

How is that you do not understand sociopathy is a disease?

According to the DSM V it is a personality disorder, not a disease.

Semantics...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Definition of semantics-"the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text."

Definition of disease-"a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Definition of personality disorder-"a deeply ingrained and maladaptive pattern of behavior of a specified kind, typically manifest by the time one reaches adolescence and causing long-term difficulties in personal relationships or in functioning in society."

So no, it ain't semantics, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Sure. Have a nice night. Always enjoy seeing the kindness, generosity, and charity of theistic moralists on display. Does your wife treat her patients with that much compassion, and understanding?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

Then, an MD how it it that don't understand sociopathic behavior? Your claim is refuted by your lack of knowledge.

How is that you do not understand sociopathy is a disease?

According to the DSM V it is a personality disorder, not a disease.

Semantics...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Definition of semantics-"the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text."

Definition of disease-"a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

Definition of personality disorder-"a deeply ingrained and maladaptive pattern of behavior of a specified kind, typically manifest by the time one reaches adolescence and causing long-term difficulties in personal relationships or in functioning in society."

So no, it ain't semantics, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Sure. Have a nice night. Always enjoy seeing the kindness, generosity, and charity of theistic moralists on display. Does your wife treat her patients with that much compassion, and understanding?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'm not a theist, however, if we were to use your definition of evil (or lack thereof) it would sure make implementing the death penalty a lot easier wouldn't it. If murderers are merely diseased critters, then killing them would be easy peasy. After all, if your arm has developed gangrene you chop it off to save the body. Thus it is a easy step to view a criminal as just another diseased limb that needs to be chopped off.

I wonder if you aren't smart enough to realize that, or are demented enough to want to follow that philosophy to its violent conclusion?

 

[sealybobo]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

Boss has taught me one thing. Religion and science are incompatable. He acknowledges dinosaurs existed and were wiped out making way for us but then somewhere he stops believing in facts and decide god poofed all the land animals here. We know so many reasons that’s nonsense like 99% of all animals that have lived here have gone extinct.

Or maybe they think only humans were poofed here but then why the cruel evolution and history of all the other humans.

The reason our kids aren’t more scientific is because they are brainwashed with nonsense young. We fuck with the young mind and hold it back at the worst age. This is why we suck

 

[kjw47]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

Archeologist dug many sights that prove some of the occurrances of the OT true.
Man has misused science and math so badly, they are destroying Gods earth. Things are starting to happen at an alarming rate. Weather havoc to the extremes all over the world. Because of the hole in the ozone--The air, land, water= all polluted, They are selling to us cancer. These are the men you put your trust into--I wouldn't walk that path.
Gods kingdom is mankinds only remaining hope. I believe its getting very close.

 

[Czernobog]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

They have? Please post up some scientific facts that have proven the bible to be false. I personally think the bible is a very accurate source for the history of the middle eastern areas from over 4,000 years ago. Archaeological work done in the region has shown the bible to be remarkably accurate. So, by all means plese tell us the scientific facts that you claim nullify actual archaeological work done in the area.

How about we start with an easy one: Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar."

Science has proven that for that to occur, would, literally, require the Earth to abruptly stop spinning on its axis, flinging everything - atmosphere, plants, animals, and us - into space. It is a scientific impossibility. A lie. And the Bible is full of such lies.

"Sun" meaning congregation of righteousness (hosts of heaven created to assist humans in overcoming). Whilst 'sun' is referring generally to illicit worship. "Moon", 'moon' is what old coinage/money/wealth again an un-righteous aspect and a righteous aspect. Do some homework.

And therein is the rub. By applying "interpretive meaning" to the bible, we get to have an ever-moving target, so that every time any part of the bible is proven to be impossible, rather than just consider that the bible may just be a collection of myths written by a bunch of desert dwellers, a couple thousand years ago, and no more relevant than the myths of Greece, we, instead, get to keep re-inventing the bible, and relegating whatever we need to to "allegory", and "metaphor" so we still get to say, "See? Your science didn't prove nuthin wrong!"

That's not how reason, and logic works.

 

[Czernobog]

Sorry, but murder is not rationally prohibitive because it is "evil"; it is prohibitive, because of self-preservation. When I am angry,. I want to lash out. I want to hurt you. If my rage is strong enough, I even want to kill you.

However, If I insist that it is okay for me to kill you, then I must agree that it is also okay for you to kill me. Common sense. Well, I don't want to be killed. So, I agree to a simple set of rules. No one gets to kill anyone; not because of some imaginary ethical code handed down "from on high", but out of simple self-preservation.

How is it self preservation to murder a child? Your argument falls flat on its ass dude. You are not equipped to discuss this subject if that is the best you can come up with.

You might wanna go back and re-read my post for comprehension. You clearly missed it..

No, I got it, you ignored my point. People DO murder children. They do it for their pleasure. Thus, yet again, your argument fails.

yes, people break the law. I would dispute your characterisation that it solely for pleasure, and it does nothing to dispute my point.

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

 

[westwall]

How is it self preservation to murder a child? Your argument falls flat on its ass dude. You are not equipped to discuss this subject if that is the best you can come up with.

You might wanna go back and re-read my post for comprehension. You clearly missed it..

No, I got it, you ignored my point. People DO murder children. They do it for their pleasure. Thus, yet again, your argument fails.

yes, people break the law. I would dispute your characterisation that it solely for pleasure, and it does nothing to dispute my point.

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

 

[Czernobog]

In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, most religious people act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts. These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them. Then, once in groups, they ironically attack other groups of schizophrenic human beings who happen not to conform to their specific mental failings. Of course, these groups obviously also attack the remaining rational non-believers. Differing religious groups will go so far as to persecute, torture, murder and completely wipeout entire societies of human beings that will not conform to their schizophrenic views. Characterizing religions in this way is almost humorous, if it were not true! It is a flaw in the human design that has existed for all of recorded history. Religions provide answers to questions that do not yet have a scientific solution and many humans accept them. The table below lists some of the natural events that were not understood in the past. It lists the religious, untrue explanation often provided by the Church as well as the eventual scientific explanation that was discovered.Among atheists, the schizophrenic nature of the religious mind is among the most frustrating and baffling aspects of religion. How can believers continue to have faith in an explanation that has been proven time and time again to be false!?!? Why do human beings not reject organizations that continue to tell them lies!? These are dangerous human beings and more dangerous groups. They have committed horrendous atrocities throughout history in the name of their God. They have done this whenever they have attained a certain level of popularity or authority within their country either via the Church or government. Be afraid of these groups and never let down your guard of the separation between Church and State.



Scientific truths have continually shown the Bible to be a book of lies. Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?

Archeologist dug many sights that prove some of the occurrances of the OT true.
Man has misused science and math so badly, they are destroying Gods earth. Things are starting to happen at an alarming rate. Weather havoc to the extremes all over the world. Because of the hole in the ozone--The air, land, water= all polluted, They are selling to us cancer. These are the men you put your trust into--I wouldn't walk that path.
Gods kingdom is mankinds only remaining hope. I believe its getting very close.

Sooo...we are "doing this" to the Earth contrary to God's Will? Or God wants the Earth to become uninhabitable? Because if it is the former, then we are powerful enough to thwart the Will of God?!?!? Really?!?!? And this is an "All-Powerful" God? Doesn't sound like it.

If it is the latter, then God is malevolent. Also, Archaeologists have found ruins that may (and that may is a very important qualifier) be of places mentioned in the Bible. We have found ruins of places spoken of in Arthurian Legends. Does than mean that King Arthur, and Merlin really lived? We know where 22b Baker Street is. Does that mean Sherlock Holmes was real?

 

[Czernobog]

You might wanna go back and re-read my post for comprehension. You clearly missed it..

No, I got it, you ignored my point. People DO murder children. They do it for their pleasure. Thus, yet again, your argument fails.

yes, people break the law. I would dispute your characterisation that it solely for pleasure, and it does nothing to dispute my point.

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

I think we might be whistling past each other. What you want to call "evil", I call unhealthy. But they are essentially the same thing - they are behaviours that are destructive. So, we're just dancing around each other, playing semantics.

 

[westwall]

No, I got it, you ignored my point. People DO murder children. They do it for their pleasure. Thus, yet again, your argument fails.

yes, people break the law. I would dispute your characterisation that it solely for pleasure, and it does nothing to dispute my point.

I suggest you look at sociopaths and their behavior before you make such an ignorant statement.

Do aberrations exist? How that contradicts my point, I don't understand. Sociopaths aren't "evil"; they're broken. Unless you submit that anyone who is broken is "evil"? Are schizophrenics "Evil"? How about Bi-Polar? Or OCD? I am not of the opinion that evil cannot exist; however to point to a person who is mentally broken, and call that evil seems a bit insensitive.

Not all sociopaths murder. The same is true for all psychological types. The evil comes in when they CHOOSE to do evil. And it is ultimately always a choice.

I think we might be whistling past each other. What you want to call "evil", I call unhealthy. But they are essentially the same thing - they are behaviours that are destructive. So, we're just dancing around each other, playing semantics.

No, we're not. What I am saying is there need not be religion for evil to exist. You all claim that religion is the root cause of all the bad stuff and that is simply ridiculous. MAN is the root cause. Your calling the murder of someone "unhealthy" is asinine. That person is pretty fuckin dead, and the asshole that did it, isn't "unwell", unwell is a bellyache, or a runny nose, murdering someone is evil, pure and simple.