Why do the God-haters persist?

[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.

"Good and evil are subjective perception."

That's from you.
Next.

Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?

Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?

If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Are all activities or attributes which are only found in humans described as such in their definitions? If I look up the definition of the word novel, as a noun, will it say something like, "A written story of a certain length only created by humans"?

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.

Love to hear that rationalization.

 

[Boss]

Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?

Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?

If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?

It was argued that humans have spirituality because humans are able to rationalize. It has been demonstrated that other species also rationalize behavior. Then the argument ensued regarding psychoanalytic derivatives of rationalization which are important to psychiatric evaluation but really do not pertain to the topic in context.

If you were to bring up civil rights then start talking about pedophiles having the right to molest children, this would be similar.

 

[Boss]

"Good and evil are subjective perception."

That's from you.
Next.

Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.

Love to hear that rationalization.

No need for rationalization, there are two different comments being made. It's logic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.

Love to hear that rationalization.

No need for rationalization, there are two different comments being made. It's logic.

You're busted again.

 

[Boss]

You're busted again.

No, you're fucked in the head again.

Read the two statements slowly, you'll notice they contain different words which mean different things. The meanings do not contradict.

Good and evil are subjective perception.

This does not negate the fact that in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.

Many of our subjective perceptions of good and evil are influenced by religious and spiritual beliefs whether we recognize them as such or not.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You're busted again.

No, you're fucked in the head again.

Read the two statements slowly, you'll notice they contain different words which mean different things. The meanings do not contradict.

Good and evil are subjective perception.

This does not negate the fact that in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.

Many of our subjective perceptions of good and evil are influenced by religious and spiritual beliefs whether we recognize them as such or not.

BELIEFS!!!
Not truths.
Subjective beliefs agreed upon culturally that have no intrinsic validity but are subjectively agreed upon within a given social structure.
Subjective!
Internally selected not externally verified.
You just give and give and give.
What did I do to deserve a gift like you?

 

[Boss]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

 

[BreezeWood]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

 

[Montrovant]

Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?

Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?

If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?

It was argued that humans have spirituality because humans are able to rationalize. It has been demonstrated that other species also rationalize behavior. Then the argument ensued regarding psychoanalytic derivatives of rationalization which are important to psychiatric evaluation but really do not pertain to the topic in context.

If you were to bring up civil rights then start talking about pedophiles having the right to molest children, this would be similar.

I believe you made that argument after rationalization was already brought up.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

 

[jillian]

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.

I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith. there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".

 

[jillian]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

no

 

[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.

I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith. there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".

You have completely misinterpreted the comment. I've said nothing remotely close to what you seem to have inferred. Nowhere did I say religious people can't be ugly. Nowhere did I superimpose religion over faith or equate religion and spirituality. How you arrived at these conclusions, I honestly have no idea.

Culturally, our concepts of what is "good" or what is "evil" is very often rooted in some religious or spiritual belief, whether we recognize it as such or not. Case in point, your own sentiments here. Not that "people online being ugly" is actual "evil" in any sense of the word, you have a perception of people "being ugly" because they aren't behaving in the way you perceive as "good." Now, what is your perception of "good" based on, and on what basis have you determined they were "ugly" to you? Most likely, from the concept of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." You see them as not upholding that compact, which is rooted in a religious teaching.

Another example... You probably don't believe it is cool for your husband or boyfriend to cheat on you. If you are married, you'd probably expect your husband to be loyal. This is rooted culturally in religious beliefs regarding adultery. In other cultures, men have multiple wives, so it is not viewed as "disloyal" for your husband to be with another woman. And likewise, this is culturally accepted because of religious beliefs.

If you were around for 9/11, you likely saw something "evil" happen that day. Men flew planes full of innocent people into the WTC buildings. However, in another culture and based on completely different religious underpinnings, this same event was seen as "good" and not "evil" at all. These men were martyrs and saints in the eyes of many. Our perceptions of what is "good" and what constitutes "evil" are very much rooted in a cultural understanding which is very often based on religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[daws101]

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.

that's a lie and you claim you never lie ...you just fucked yourself .
my pov is any one can believe anything they want...whether it fits the facts is another story...
there's nothing in the freedom of religion clause of the constitution that says you can spew whatever religious nonsense you wish and not be questioned or disagreed with concerning your belief.
the problem with believers is they "think" that their take on religion is the only and best one.
it's not ....

 

[daws101]

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.

I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith. there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".

 

[orogenicman]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

Word salad.