Why do the God-haters persist?

[Uncensored2008]

Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!

I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.

I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.

Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.

FYI, the term is a MURDER of crows.

Flying rats, if you ask me..

 

[Boss]

Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!

I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.

I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.

Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.

One of the articles I posted is talking about how crows memorize the schedules and routes of the garbage trucks. They know what days they will be where and which trucks to follow. They will drop nuts at an intersection so that cars will run over and crack them open, and when they retrieve the nuts, it's only during the red light so they don't get run over.

In a battle of wits, I think I would be more comfortable picking any crow over Brucey.

 

[Boss]

See you are still avoiding my posts that rip yours to pieces.

You couldn't rip wet toilet paper to pieces, you're an idiot. I ignore idiots.

Watch out for the crows!

More avoidance.
Noted.

My little Runaway.

Level 2 Forum... note the rules.
You're violating them.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.

No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition which states it is an exclusively human attribute. I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?

How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.

ra·tion·al·ize/ˈræʃənlˌaɪz, ˈræʃnlˌaɪz/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!

I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.

I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.

Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.

One of the articles I posted is talking about how crows memorize the schedules and routes of the garbage trucks. They know what days they will be where and which trucks to follow. They will drop nuts at an intersection so that cars will run over and crack them open, and when they retrieve the nuts, it's only during the red light so they don't get run over.

In a battle of wits, I think I would be more comfortable picking any crow over Brucey.

You would be more comfortable there.
You are wildly overmatched here.

 

[Boss]

You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.

No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition which states it is an exclusively human attribute. I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?

How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.

ra·tion·al·ize/ˈræʃənlˌaɪz, ˈræʃnlˌaɪz/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

Where does that say that only humans rationalize? That was your argument, that is why we are having this myopic and obtuse conversation. That is the definition you need to provide.

 

[Montrovant]

Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started. You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.

How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute, since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions?

Have you not said that the fact that most of humanity has had some sort of belief in something greater than themselves is evidence that something greater actually exists?

I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin.

Atheism/agnosticism may be rare, but so is your non-religious spiritual belief. The vast majority of people today and, I would guess, throughout history, have believed in an established religion. You claim that people are all connecting to the same thing with the many and varied religions and faiths that humanity has followed. Is that a common belief?

Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self.

That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself. Of course they would change. Most things do. Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?

I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway. I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.

I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self.

Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!

If a word has multiple definitions, then at least one will always be out of context when used in a sentence! Since I believe this side-track started when someone said either you, or perhaps religious people, were rationalizing, the context is important. Really, the only time context isn't important with a word that has multiple definitions is when discussing the various definitions.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition which states it is an exclusively human attribute. I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?

How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.

ra·tion·al·ize/ˈræʃənlˌaɪz, ˈræʃnlˌaɪz/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

Where does that say that only humans rationalize? That was your argument, that is why we are having this myopic and obtuse conversation. That is the definition you need to provide.

I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
Whenever you are ready.

 

[Boss]

Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started. You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.

How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute, since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions?



I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin.



Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self.

That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself. Of course they would change. Most things do. Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?

I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway. I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.

I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self.

Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!

If a word has multiple definitions, then at least one will always be out of context when used in a sentence! Since I believe this side-track started when someone said either you, or perhaps religious people, were rationalizing, the context is important. Really, the only time context isn't important with a word that has multiple definitions is when discussing the various definitions.

About all I can say to you is this... If anyone ever needs some scarecrows constructed, you'd be the man to call! You're very good with straw men.

The argument started when someone claimed we have spirituality because we rationalize. I pointed out that other creatures also rationalize.... from there, we've come to here. Now "rationalize" does have a bunch of various definitions across several sources that I found, but not a single one of them mentions this being an exclusive human attribute. Which has always been my point.

 

[Boss]

I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
Whenever you are ready.

Crows. The research was posted.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
Whenever you are ready.

Crows. The research was posted.

That doesn't address the definition posted at all.

 

[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.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

 

[Boss]

I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
Whenever you are ready.

Crows. The research was posted.

That doesn't address the definition posted at all.

Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.

to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Crows. The research was posted.

That doesn't address the definition posted at all.

Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.

to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.

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.

 

[Boss]

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.

No one is arguing that ability to rationalize is always correct or reasonable. The crow didn't know the long stick would reach the food when he was rationalizing how he might obtain it.

This whole argument about "rationalization" stems from someone making the erroneous claim that humankind is spiritual because of our (unique) ability to rationalize. It's not an unique ability of humans to rationalize, and there is no logical explanation for why the most intelligent of all species would have 'rationalized' a complete falsehood for the entirety of it's existence.

 

[Boss]

That doesn't address the definition posted at all.

Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.

to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.

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.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

No one is arguing that ability to rationalize is always correct or reasonable. The crow didn't know the long stick would reach the food when he was rationalizing how he might obtain it.

This whole argument about "rationalization" stems from someone making the erroneous claim that humankind is spiritual because of our (unique) ability to rationalize. It's not an unique ability of humans to rationalize, and there is no logical explanation for why the most intelligent of all species would have 'rationalized' a complete falsehood for the entirety of it's existence.

If man has a spiritual side, it comes from his ability to look beyond himself to the bigger picture, and with his ability to empathy with others. While it is true that other species may exhibit altruism, no other species exhibits it on the scale of humans. Then again, no other species exhibits hatred of others on the scale in which humans exhibit it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

...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.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.

to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.

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.