Why do the God-haters persist?

[koshergrl]

Can't prove a negative.

You haven't proven you have the evidence, so there's no need to prove you don't. It's assumed you don't. That's the way logic and debate work.

 

[Boss]

I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions. You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.

Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.

You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.

I gave you six definitions last time, all conforming with what I am saying, including one from a psychology dictionary. None from Ask.com by the way. All major dictionaries and sources specific to psychology.
How many do you want this time?
Well, we have gone from a PhD. to a Bachelors in one quick hurry. Did the guilt of you being a fraud finally catch up to you? Probably the Spiritual Nature working on your conscience.
Oh wait! It doesn't care about you personally. I forgot.
As for insults, you and your vulgarities (which I am sure used to make your academic mentors proud) kind of lead the pack on these boards for that.
You want to put me on ignore to save yourself further embarrassment, and that is probably a good idea. You can't handle my arguments, which I support with data and research and you just finally descend to name calling when you are revealed as an unskilled laborer in the field of critical thinking.
As to where does this empathic nature evolve from? We see it in lesser degrees in the animal kingdom. Chimps show it, lions and even whales to a lesser degree. In man it is a larger part of the brain and is more pronounced. The development of that part of the brain would have been naturally selected for as working together as a group had a greater chance of survival than having everyone and everything being an enemy. If it is survival of the fittest, what made us more fit was empathy and a collective mindset.
The part of the brain can be shown. It has been identified. The process of evolution for it to be more pronounced in man is understood. The reason nature might select it becomes obvious. This is discussed in the articles I have already posted and the many more I can crush you with.
What have you got?
"We'll, I don't think so!"
Go ahead and declare your victory now, and then put me on ignore.
I will still embarrass you, but at least you won't have to see it and you can create a rationalization that tells yourself you are intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Again, you are not answering the question, you are obsessing on a word from a month ago. You posted the same incomplete definition from 6 sources, and the definitions were accurate in certain context. The word has about 5-6 different meanings depending on what you're talking about. Humans make both legitimate and false rationalizations all the time. For instance, humans rationalized sending men to the moon. In this thread, you and others are rationalizing the existence of life without a Creator. You can rationalize buying a house or car. Or getting married, going or not going to college, etc., etc., etc.

The argument over "rationalization" was whether or not it is an attribute exclusive to humans, and it's not. None of your 6 definitions indicated this. You've yet to find any definition that indicates this. So your theory that human spirituality is caused by our unique ability to rationalize is without support. To cover for this failure, you are obsessing on what you have 'rationalized' as a victory over a word definition. Now you've moved swiftly to explaining how the brain works, but the physiology of how the brain works is not in question. Whether other animals are capable of empathy has nothing to do with what drives human conscience.

Now we have basically distilled the question of what drives human conscience down to two possible answers depending on individual perspective. It is either driven by soul/spirit or self-interest. I believe our conscience is driven by our soul and spirit. You don't believe in souls or spirits so you believe our conscience is driven by self-interest. Superficial discussions about chemistry and the brain are only distractions from this point.

What this means in terms of conscience guided emotions like love, empathy, compassion, etc., is that people who's conscience is driven by their soul are operating with consideration for their obligations to something greater than self. It's not "all about them." Whereas, those who don't believe in souls are operating ultimately out of self-interest. You "love" someone because there is something in it for you. You "show compassion" because it serves your self-interest to do so.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Can't prove a negative.

You haven't proven you have the evidence, so there's no need to prove you don't. It's assumed you don't. That's the way logic and debate work.

Agreed.
That is why agnosticism is the only reasonable place to land.
It is equally assumed you have no proof.
The acknowledgment that there is no proof either way is the essence of agnosticism.
It doesn't imply belief or a lack of same.
It implies that the knowledge of either is unattainable.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions. You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.

Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.

You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.

I gave you six definitions last time, all conforming with what I am saying, including one from a psychology dictionary. None from Ask.com by the way. All major dictionaries and sources specific to psychology.
How many do you want this time?
Well, we have gone from a PhD. to a Bachelors in one quick hurry. Did the guilt of you being a fraud finally catch up to you? Probably the Spiritual Nature working on your conscience.
Oh wait! It doesn't care about you personally. I forgot.
As for insults, you and your vulgarities (which I am sure used to make your academic mentors proud) kind of lead the pack on these boards for that.
You want to put me on ignore to save yourself further embarrassment, and that is probably a good idea. You can't handle my arguments, which I support with data and research and you just finally descend to name calling when you are revealed as an unskilled laborer in the field of critical thinking.
As to where does this empathic nature evolve from? We see it in lesser degrees in the animal kingdom. Chimps show it, lions and even whales to a lesser degree. In man it is a larger part of the brain and is more pronounced. The development of that part of the brain would have been naturally selected for as working together as a group had a greater chance of survival than having everyone and everything being an enemy. If it is survival of the fittest, what made us more fit was empathy and a collective mindset.
The part of the brain can be shown. It has been identified. The process of evolution for it to be more pronounced in man is understood. The reason nature might select it becomes obvious. This is discussed in the articles I have already posted and the many more I can crush you with.
What have you got?
"We'll, I don't think so!"
Go ahead and declare your victory now, and then put me on ignore.
I will still embarrass you, but at least you won't have to see it and you can create a rationalization that tells yourself you are intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Again, you are not answering the question, you are obsessing on a word from a month ago. You posted the same incomplete definition from 6 sources, and the definitions were accurate in certain context. The word has about 5-6 different meanings depending on what you're talking about. Humans make both legitimate and false rationalizations all the time. For instance, humans rationalized sending men to the moon. In this thread, you and others are rationalizing the existence of life without a Creator. You can rationalize buying a house or car. Or getting married, going or not going to college, etc., etc., etc.

The argument over "rationalization" was whether or not it is an attribute exclusive to humans, and it's not. None of your 6 definitions indicated this. You've yet to find any definition that indicates this. So your theory that human spirituality is caused by our unique ability to rationalize is without support. To cover for this failure, you are obsessing on what you have 'rationalized' as a victory over a word definition. Now you've moved swiftly to explaining how the brain works, but the physiology of how the brain works is not in question. Whether other animals are capable of empathy has nothing to do with what drives human conscience.

Now we have basically distilled the question of what drives human conscience down to two possible answers depending on individual perspective. It is either driven by soul/spirit or self-interest. I believe our conscience is driven by our soul and spirit. You don't believe in souls or spirits so you believe our conscience is driven by self-interest. Superficial discussions about chemistry and the brain are only distractions from this point.

What this means in terms of conscience guided emotions like love, empathy, compassion, etc., is that people who's conscience is driven by their soul are operating with consideration for their obligations to something greater than self. It's not "all about them." Whereas, those who don't believe in souls are operating ultimately out of self-interest. You "love" someone because there is something in it for you. You "show compassion" because it serves your self-interest to do so.

LOL!
You claim the chemistry and the physical evidence are "distractions" because they make a very compelling case against your pulling your vision out of thin air.
I understand.

"Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation."
From Psychology.about.com

I can post as many of these as you like, and then you can create a rationalization of how starfish make arguments for explaining their unacceptable behaviors.
You are absolutely hilarious.
Every definition for rationalization attributes it specifically to humans.
Every...Single...One.
Do you want to see them all again?
I have the information. I can confirm it all for you. I have done it once. Do you want me to show your are a fraud AGAIN?!
From a PhD. to a top of the class Bachelors.
What's the next update?
It was really only a GED?

 

[Boss]

Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.

Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.

 

[MrMax]

Proof that God exists is everywhere. Humans are proof God exists. Some just wish to ignore that proof.

Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.

Are you saying a tree doesn't exist? Or DNA?

I'm saying that you have no proof that an invisible superbeing made the tree or DNA...

 

[thebrucebeat]

Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.

Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.

They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
We are all on the edge of our seats.
Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.

 

[Uncensored2008]

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?

Why would we need to?

You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.

Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good?

Are you saying that God created evil? If so, was it for the purpose of daming people to eternal suffering?

Good and evil are subjective perception.

Nonsense.

There is no universal understanding.

Really?

How about we discuss that while I cut your arm off with a butter knife?

When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good.

No, he sure didn't. He knew full well that he was engaged in evil. His lust for power made him not care.

When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.

Some questions of morality are open to dissension, many are not.

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.

I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.

 

[Spoonman]

you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him. libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay. why can't they ever follow their own advice?

 

[Uncensored2008]

you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him. libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay. why can't they ever follow their own advice?

It's funny how the left demands that others not believe in God. duhs goes absolutely apeshit over the idea that others are permitted to believe.

 

[Boss]

Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.

Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.

They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
We are all on the edge of our seats.
Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.

What "causes" empathy has nothing to do with what drives it. We can identify what part of the brain causes anger, or even what chemicals are released in the brain when anger is felt... we can't explain why some people project anger by killing a bunch of innocent people while another projects anger by punching a wall. That's not a different chemical or way the brain is functioning physiologically, it's driven by conscience of the individual.

I've not "pretended" anything, I already know the brain and how it functions. I also know about rationalization. "Covering up feelings of guilt" is not the exclusive definition of a rationalization. I never claimed starfish rationalize, and I don't know why you bring that up here. I gave you several valid examples of rationalizations which simply don't conform to your myopic one-dimensional definition. We rationalize getting married, buying a car or house, going or not going to college. You're rationalizing in this thread how life can exist without a Creator. Do you think you are "covering up feelings of guilt?"

And why do you keep referring to "WE" in your posts? Are you pregnant? Split personality disorder? Do you believe you're speaking for everyone here besides me? I see you and a few of your equally moronic friends who spend more time thanking each other's posts than making salient points, but I also see several people here schooling that ass on a regular basis. I certainly don't see the basis for your "we are all" chortles, unless you are delusional, which is a high possibility.

 

[HUGGY]

you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him. libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay. why can't they ever follow their own advice?

It's funny how the left demands that others not believe in God. duhs goes absolutely apeshit over the idea that others are permitted to believe.

I believe it serves capitalists more than any other group to promote the selling of things no one needs. I have never seen where someone from the left demanded that you cannot believe in god or any make believe entity. Lefties sell just as much nonsense as righties.

 

[Boss]

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?

Why would we need to?

You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.

Why do we need to now?

Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.

Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good?

Are you saying that God created evil? If so, was it for the purpose of daming people to eternal suffering?

Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying.

Did Light create Dark?

Good and evil are subjective perception.
Nonsense.

Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.

When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good.
No, he sure didn't. He knew full well that he was engaged in evil. His lust for power made him not care.

Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do.

When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.

Some questions of morality are open to dissension, many are not.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.

I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.

No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.

 

[Boss]

Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.

Are you saying a tree doesn't exist? Or DNA?

I'm saying that you have no proof that an invisible superbeing made the tree or DNA...

Biogenesis. They didn't create themselves.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.

Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.

I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.

They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
We are all on the edge of our seats.
Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.

What "causes" empathy has nothing to do with what drives it. We can identify what part of the brain causes anger, or even what chemicals are released in the brain when anger is felt... we can't explain why some people project anger by killing a bunch of innocent people while another projects anger by punching a wall. That's not a different chemical or way the brain is functioning physiologically, it's driven by conscience of the individual.

I've not "pretended" anything, I already know the brain and how it functions. I also know about rationalization. "Covering up feelings of guilt" is not the exclusive definition of a rationalization. I never claimed starfish rationalize, and I don't know why you bring that up here. I gave you several valid examples of rationalizations which simply don't conform to your myopic one-dimensional definition. We rationalize getting married, buying a car or house, going or not going to college. You're rationalizing in this thread how life can exist without a Creator. Do you think you are "covering up feelings of guilt?"

And why do you keep referring to "WE" in your posts? Are you pregnant? Split personality disorder? Do you believe you're speaking for everyone here besides me? I see you and a few of your equally moronic friends who spend more time thanking each other's posts than making salient points, but I also see several people here schooling that ass on a regular basis. I certainly don't see the basis for your "we are all" chortles, unless you are delusional, which is a high possibility.

You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word, which is the only one relevant to any discussion we have ever had on this topic. It is clear and unambiguous.
It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the research regarding how the amount of chemicals or the the size of certain elements of the brain influence behavior. The cause IS the driver.
Sophmore year.
The rest is just your usual bluster and vitriol. Not worth addressing.

 

[Boss]

It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.

Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well.

The cause IS the driver

Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.

You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..

Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.

 

[thebrucebeat]

It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.

Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well.

The cause IS the driver

Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.

You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..

Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.

Thank god I didn't, because he certainly failed you as an educator.

 

[thebrucebeat]

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?

Why would we need to?

You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.

Why do we need to now?

Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.



Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying.

Did Light create Dark?



Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.



Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do.



Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.

I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.

No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.

I agree with the idea that good and evil are subjective.
We agree on this.
They are a cultural decision that determines if you are contributing to that society or are an antisocial element of it.
It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.

 

[Boss]

It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.

Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[thebrucebeat]

It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.

Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.

"Good and evil are subjective perception."

That's from you.
Next.