Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

...that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided...

And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.

It is the definition that was under discussion when you changed the goalpost.
Because we are talking about rationalization and you are discussing whether crows are rational, you are bound be to be confused. The other definitions DO have uses, but we weren't discussing them here. Changing to them was your rationalization to defend your very sensitive ego.
Find an example in the animal kingdom of an animal coming up with a rationalization for their behavior.
Good luck.

No, you posted your definition well into the discussion, it was never originally established this was the one and only definition anyone could possibly use, and it still hasn't been established by anyone but you. There is no goal post to move here, you're a fucking moron who can't accept that he is wrong because you somehow think you're not a moron.

We were discussing human spirituality and the erroneous point was made that it is caused by unique human rationality. I refuted that point by demonstrating other creatures can and do rationalize. THEN you wanted to cherry pick a definition you believed made your retarded point, and I dismantled your argument again, because you are a retard.

I've already found an example, posted video to demonstrate my example, and explained in detail how my example comports with your own cherry-picked definition. Still, you want to argue like a moronic retard. I don't need luck, what I need is for you to back up your argument that only humans exhibit the ability to rationalize. I totally understand you can't do this, which is why you are now trying to pretend we're having a different conversation.

 

[Boss]

They aren't trying to convince themselves of something that is simply an excuse for something else.
This is a ridiculous fail of cosmic proportions.

Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.

But the piece of food is the real purpose.
It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
Monumental fail.

There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego.

A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it.

If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point?

Monumental fail indeed!

 

[thebrucebeat]

And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.

It is the definition that was under discussion when you changed the goalpost.
Because we are talking about rationalization and you are discussing whether crows are rational, you are bound be to be confused. The other definitions DO have uses, but we weren't discussing them here. Changing to them was your rationalization to defend your very sensitive ego.
Find an example in the animal kingdom of an animal coming up with a rationalization for their behavior.
Good luck.

No, you posted your definition well into the discussion, it was never originally established this was the one and only definition anyone could possibly use, and it still hasn't been established by anyone but you. There is no goal post to move here, you're a fucking moron who can't accept that he is wrong because you somehow think you're not a moron.

We were discussing human spirituality and the erroneous point was made that it is caused by unique human rationality. I refuted that point by demonstrating other creatures can and do rationalize. THEN you wanted to cherry pick a definition you believed made your retarded point, and I dismantled your argument again, because you are a retard.

I've already found an example, posted video to demonstrate my example, and explained in detail how my example comports with your own cherry-picked definition. Still, you want to argue like a moronic retard. I don't need luck, what I need is for you to back up your argument that only humans exhibit the ability to rationalize. I totally understand you can't do this, which is why you are now trying to pretend we're having a different conversation.

Sorry you got so confused.
I am talking about rationalizations.
Do you understand now?
If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.

But the piece of food is the real purpose.
It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
Monumental fail.

There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego.

A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it.

If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point?

Monumental fail indeed!

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
I understand it is completely unfamiliar to your faux PhD.
If you want to show me how crows fool themselves, like you do, please do.

 

[Boss]

Sorry you got so confused.
I am talking about rationalizations.
Do you understand now?
If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.

 

[Boss]

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".

You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?

 

[thebrucebeat]

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".

You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?

Not a secret.
I have posted the definition twice from two different sources.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with very basic, freshman psychology is all anyone really needs to know about you.
Do you want me to cite more definitions?
How many sources do you want?
You poor thing. This kind of public humiliation can be devestating.
But you will build a nice protective rationalization to defend your disgraced persona.
The uneducated followers you attract will buy it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Sorry you got so confused.
I am talking about rationalizations.
Do you understand now?
If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.

The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
So humiliating for you.
You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.

 

[daws101]

I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using. None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing. They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.

Crows are pretty smart as animals go. OK. That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.

There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.

Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
rationalize: use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments.

Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.

As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history. Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well. And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things. Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.

Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.

I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to? Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.

I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.

the following is what boosy does: ra·tion·al·ize[ ráshən'l ̄̀z ]In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]
next is what boosy attempts to bamboozle people into,thinking he does..:

interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

 

[Boss]

Sorry you got so confused.
I am talking about rationalizations.
Do you understand now?
If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.

The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
So humiliating for you.
You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.

Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.

I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.

 

[daws101]

I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using. None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing. They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.

Crows are pretty smart as animals go. OK. That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.

There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.

Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
rationalize: use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments.

Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.



Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.

I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to? Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.

I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.

Boss I just don't know for sure but rationalize seems to be the wrong term. Being a hunter and someone who has raised horses and dogs. I think the proper term to describe what you're discussing would be instinct.

false! instinct is an automatic reaction to certain stimuli... like recoiling from fire or ducking at loud sounds like thunder...sex..etc

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".

You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8899537-post1272.html

Moderation Reminder:

This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include
relevant discussion in every post. It can't
descend into flame exchanges..

@flacaltenn

The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists as being "God-haters" and the OP has consistently been rude and abusive to anyone who has dared to expose his canards.

This thread belonged in the FZ from the very outset in my opinion. The OP himself isn't interested in abiding by the warning given in post #1272 either. Further evidence can be found ins Post #1425.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8913736-post1425.html

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

 

[Boss]

the following is what boosy does: ra·tion·al·ize[ ráshən'l ̄̀z ]In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]
next is what boosy attempts to bamboozle people into,thinking he does..:

interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective.

Look who's here? The Copy-n-Paste Queen of USMB!

What you are now doing is copying a definition of FALSE rationalization and trying to argue this is the only applicable definition of the word "rationalize". Talk about some profound intellectual dishonesty... this one takes the prize!

 

[daws101]

Look, man is not so much a rational creature as a rationalizing one. And his ability to rationalize doesn't automatically mean that these rationalizations are reasonable. I think most people would agree that, for instance, the Church's rationalization for burning people at the stake who they accused of being witches was not reasonable. One can rationalize just about anything. That doesn't make it reasonable or true.

from my pov the "church" had to rationalize one hell of alot to do something as irrational as burning people at the stake..but then again the church and christianity in general have spent copious amounts of time creating and practicing interesting way to torture and kill...

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.

The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
So humiliating for you.
You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.

Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.

I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.

What is RATIONALIZATION?
An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.

Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)

This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.

 

[Montrovant]

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".

You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?

But rational thought is not rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. That, of course, is what started this side discussion, and obviously should be the definition we are operating under here. Why you insist to use a different definition (and yes, there are multiple definitions, and yes, it is important which one is being used) is unclear, but certainly seem to be a rationalization.

 

[Boss]

The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists.

Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all. I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done.

 

[Boss]

The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
So humiliating for you.
You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.

Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.

I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.

What is RATIONALIZATION?
An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.

Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)

This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.

Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization.

You're confused.

 

[daws101]

Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.

But the piece of food is the real purpose.
It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
Monumental fail.

There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego.

A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow RATIONALIZES that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it.

If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point?

Monumental fail indeed!

bullshit! the crow realizes and deduces why it needs a longer stick it not a rationalization of any kind ....

The Great Crow Experiment is a non-scientific study conducted by wordsxo scientist-wannabes—MEH (My Engineer Husband) and me. As previously reported in MEH and the Crows (citation: wordsxo) and Science News (citation: Science News), American Crows are extremely intelligent animals. The hypothesis of this experiment is that Corvus brachyrhynchos (American Crow) has the ability to recognize individual people and individual cars. Part 1 of the experiment presented the hypothesis, materials, and method. This post, Part 2, presents Results, Conclusions, as well as opportunities for further research (i.e., things we just don’t know the answers to).

The Great Crow Experiment, Part 2

 

[daws101]

You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".

You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8899537-post1272.html

Moderation Reminder:

This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include
relevant discussion in every post. It can't
descend into flame exchanges..

@flacaltenn

The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists as being "God-haters" and the OP has consistently been rude and abusive to anyone who has dared to expose his canards.

This thread belonged in the FZ from the very outset in my opinion. The OP himself isn't interested in abiding by the warning given in post #1272 either. Further evidence can be found ins Post #1425.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8913736-post1425.html

Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.

major bump