Why do the God-haters persist?

[daws101]

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!

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

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
Your post is a fine example of rationalization.
It is also confirmation that you have no exposure to the field of psychology.

 

[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?

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.

Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."

You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!

 

[daws101]

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.

You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
Your post is a fine example of rationalization.

if you ever needed proof that boss has no integrity his epic fail spin on rationality
ra·tion·al·i·ty[ ràshə nállətee ]
rational attitude: rational thought or behavior, or the ability to think rationally
something rational: a rational belief, opinion, or action
condition of being logical: the condition in which values, beliefs, and techniques are believed to be based on logical, explicable principles
should do it!

 

[Boss]

You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........

Which one states it's an exclusively human attribute?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "formulate a valid argument against" these imaginary "God-haters" of his.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."

You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!

Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
Why don't you stop?
Let the bleeding heal.

 

[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.

Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "formulate a valid argument against" these imaginary "God-haters" of his.

Funny, I'm not seeing where I "openly admitted" or even vaguely implied any such nonsense.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........

Which one states it's an exclusively human attribute?

Goalpost shift alert!
Now it isn't that they got the definition wrong and left off the introductory word.
Now you are going to try to make the case that crows use rationalizations to overcome their feelings of guilt.
Go for it!!!
This should be good.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "formulate a valid argument against" these imaginary "God-haters" of his.

Funny, I'm not seeing where I "openly admitted" or even vaguely implied any such nonsense.

bigot

— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

Bigot | Define Bigot at Dictionary.com

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
Your post is a fine example of rationalization.
It is also confirmation that you have no exposure to the field of psychology.

 

[Boss]

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.

Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."

You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!

Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
Why don't you stop?
Let the bleeding heal.

I've already been through the dictionary definitions. There are numerous variations and implied context for the word "rationalize" and you are using only one of them. If you had stated that humans derived spirituality from their ability to formulate false rationalizations, I would have still disagreed with your argument, but we wouldn't have gone off on this long debate over the intended context of the word.

You know, I wish now that I hadn't ever shared with you that I have a PhD in psychology. It seems to be something you simply want to keep using to badger me with, and that's a good lesson for anyone posting on these forums... keep your personal life off here! Don't reveal ANY details of who you are or what you've done, because little pissant morons will take that information and harass you with it from then on. Tell you what, you ever get brave enough to confront me face-to-face, you come to Alabama and I will show you my diplomas.

You won't do that for the same reason you won't back up your arguments here, you're a fraudulent little chickenshit moron who thinks he can fool people. It's apparent to me that you have no intentions of engaging in an honest debate on anything, and you simply want to turn the thread into a flame war. Well mister, our conversation is OVER... got it? DONE!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."

You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!

Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
Why don't you stop?
Let the bleeding heal.

I've already been through the dictionary definitions. There are numerous variations and implied context for the word "rationalize" and you are using only one of them. If you had stated that humans derived spirituality from their ability to formulate false rationalizations, I would have still disagreed with your argument, but we wouldn't have gone off on this long debate over the intended context of the word.

You know, I wish now that I hadn't ever shared with you that I have a PhD in psychology. It seems to be something you simply want to keep using to badger me with, and that's a good lesson for anyone posting on these forums... keep your personal life off here! Don't reveal ANY details of who you are or what you've done, because little pissant morons will take that information and harass you with it from then on. Tell you what, you ever get brave enough to confront me face-to-face, you come to Alabama and I will show you my diplomas.

You won't do that for the same reason you won't back up your arguments here, you're a fraudulent little chickenshit moron who thinks he can fool people. It's apparent to me that you have no intentions of engaging in an honest debate on anything, and you simply want to turn the thread into a flame war. Well mister, our conversation is OVER... got it? DONE!

I think that is a wise choice for you.
You have been crushed.
Why go on?
I have backed up every argument I have made, complete with citations from sources you should find entirely credible. Dictionaries that are specific to your claimed field of expertise should have some weight for you.
Your anger is your humiliation on display, nothing more.
By the way, I got a diploma from high school. After that I got degrees. Is it different at U. of A.?
Your half of the conversation was over a very long time ago.
I will feel free to respond to any nonsense you utter.
You are free to keep to yourself.

 

[daws101]

You of course are familiar with the fact that personal flames/insults/attacks are against the rules in this forum.

Of course you are.

Trolls.

you mean like this http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...do-the-god-haters-persist-94.html#post8912716 they are ok as long as the are in context to the subject...

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Reopening the thread. A lot of honest effort in
these pages.. But it got derailed again..
Keep it on the Zone 2 rails..


flacaltenn

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

OP: True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.

Report

Atheists, Humanists Suffer Persecution World Wide.


(Reuters) - Atheists and other religious skeptics suffer persecution or discrimination in many parts of the world and in at least seven nations can be executed if their beliefs become known, according to a report issued on Monday.

The study, from the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), showed that "unbelievers" in Islamic countries face the most severe - sometimes brutal - treatment at the hands of the state and adherents of the official religion.

The report, "Freedom of Thought 2012", said "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry."

just a snapshot of today, not mentioning past history of the Dark and Middle ages ...

Boss: 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.

oh really Boss and that is not to say your brethren do not today and have not in past history persecuted in large no.s anyone who disagreed with their religious beliefs ...


your OP is nothing but a blind eye to the legitimate consequences incurred by scripturalist for their past and present actions and a provocative attempt to lay blame where it is least deserving.

.

 

[orogenicman]

Well said.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Well, no.
I looked up the phrase "false rationalization" and you'll never guess what I found.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.
No reference to the phrase in either professional or common usage.
Rationalization on the other hand?
Pages and pages of professional reference to the term as well as common usage, and all in perfect agreement with the definitions I have already posted. Not a single outlier.
You are so easy.
The gig is up.
Anyone with a freshman exposure to psychology would not be having this discussion. Well, certainly not your half of it. They might be having mine.
Why don't you take a picture of your "diploma", black out the name and make it your avatar.
Either you are a complete charlatan or U. Of A. is more inept as an educational institution than our stereotypes of that state allow us to imagine.

 

[thanatos144]

Looks like a good movie that is debates the same things in this thread.... With the same bigotry towards those with faith that those in this thread show.

 

[daws101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QXbXu5jHrzY

Looks like a good movie that is debates the same things in this thread.... With the same bigotry towards those with faith that those in this thread show.

you would think that.. it's easy money another way to fleece the flock..