words are a scientific tool your degenerative comment has been noted. is not a scientific fact probability is statistics you dont have to be a dick just because you dont understand something.
this is around 3 paragraphs of referencing to variant psychological fundamental developmental psychology of the mind and personality. talking about things it sounds like is way out of your depth. if it were mathematics it would a sequence of code but it is a sequence of terms in relativistic frame metaphors used to form a mathematical coded definition like painting a picture of the human psyche and drawing around some aspect to highlight it. you could learn something if you didn't take your pants off and stick your dick into the thread. i liked your perspective on things. but your ego problems when you feel confronted by something that may trigger some issues you have because the enemy so you have o devalue it and label it as complete nonsense to avoid the inner feelings you have that are telling you something that you feel uncomfortable. thats ok. everyone has such issues. but when you dogmatise the emotive reaction to the feeling of trigger words then you ingrain a point of conflict inside your own emotional psyche. that renders you into a victim of your own baggage. stow the baggage feel the hurt but dont let it prevent you from learning and turning it into a weeping infected sore that makes you intellectual limp. im quite annoyed, but but obviously thats your issue, not mine. feel free to ask me anything you like about anything in private message. happy to always talk to genuine people who are open to learning. im a little pissed off because i liked your responses to things in threads. it makes me a little sad to think of that. but i will get over that quickly
(This is in reply to post #60) But, isn't that the way it is with many stories, even historic, non-religious ones? If we read about the beginnings of the United States for example, some people tout the ''founding fathers'' as heroes, while others saw them as tyrants, who stole the land from others to make a way of life for themselves. Which version is true? There are many stories like this, whether they be on this historic end of the spectrum, or religious in nature. Maybe humans just suck at story telling. lol When it comes to reading the Bible, it can be helpful to apply the ''suspension of disbelief,'' if for no other reason than to make it through without judging the literalness or religious undertones. (if one is interested in reading the entire Bible)
That kinda contravenes the Holy Book notion. If a biblical scholar were to do that in some American towns I can think of, he'd be lynched. You can't pull something so fundamental out from under people. They've invested heavily in the cherry-picking and interpreting and compartmentalizing throughout their lives and the life of their congregation. Why, it would be worse than dissolving the GOP!
True. I only do it to be honest. That's what those words strung together in that way sounded like to me. Perhaps structured differently, or in six sentences, giving some context, they would have made sense to me.Or maybe not. Or maybe they don't anyway. Can't tell. I hope so. I never meant to hurt you.
The second. Always. Because the critical interpretation is not based on "the story", but on verifiable historical data. That's not a question of self-interest; just research. The heroic version is myth-making, and the popularity and longevity of those myths is a testament to how very good humans are at story telling. That is a prerequisite for Christians and Muslims, even before they can read: they had to leave their disbelief at the door. Those who are interested in it as historical, cultural or literary reference read critically, or there is no point - for entertainment, we have Huxley, Christie, Hemingway and Puzo.
It's a perfectly good analogy. There is just as much evidence for the Santa myth as for the God myth.
the term "psychobabble" to sociology & psychology is like calling a democrat party volunteer a professional republican media strategist the intention of psychobabble is to deliberately lie to people to fool them into thinking you know something they do not(& you do not) and assume a position of intellectual "informed' superiority"(power) over them. thus the intellectual nature of the production of the meaning is to undermine the nature of the content validity in its ability to maintain an equal footing to the conversation. = degeneration Language is a tool; a science... it has many different forms and variations(though the majority considered it an art) i am well aware of your cynical/critical humor(i quite like that in people when it is well informed intellectual content) and how you have applied it. i am also well aware of how you were feeling when you posted that response. hence my lengthy reply. reactionary verbose linguistics is highly emotive. does it mean the nature of the persons true identity and moral position when they use it ? not always... most often, not mostly. however, when collective in group action, reactionary linguistics have emotional collective force(like a group of people all making the same facial expression and staring at one person). a psychologist/psychiatrist/sociologist using the term "psychobabble" is a clear definition of someone who has lost the plot/lost their shit/gone mad/full of shit/talking bullshit/talking out their ass/scamming people/dementia patient/Alzheimers... etc etc
Your somewhat ... individual ... utilization of it may sometimes be confusing to the uninitiated.I'm accustomed to a different syntax. BTW I didn't say it was *********, only what it sounded like to me, in that instance. All the same, I'm sorry I insulted you; it wasn't intended as a slight of anything like the magnitude you describe. I'll be more careful with popular terminology in future.
+/- 1 -1 / π = x languages as science can be used to mean anything though collective assumption of meaning is often per-determined. existential algorithmic probabilistic self determinism to function as i am to know what i am i process function as a form of behavior to deliver values to the self of probable outcomes
lol the vast majority of peoples vocabulary is dictated by their need to fit into the group behavior. if the group demand that 1 plus 1 = 3 then the language doesn't matter as much as the desired expectation of conformity of outcome. things like group think dictate conformity of thought they also dictate conformity of language form like teaching people to read but only letting them read a religious book, and only the same 1 over and over again the science behind the communication becomes un-important compared next to the expectation to comply with the Pre-determined-agreed-meaning of the books & the ability to read.
I rather think God doesn't need to work at all. He issues executive orders and all the prelates run around whipping the faithful into frenzied activity. It matters naught that the activity is unproductive: it keeps 'em too busy to notice they've been had.
I can't risk becoming any kind of god. I don't believe in them. The minute I put my hand on the 10' stack of holy books (they only use the post-papyrus ones; megalyths are too cumbersome) I'd have to go up in a puff of smoke.
There's no real status in being a lesser God and since that would be your category I don't blame you for passing.
So, like, there's a hierarchy? Just greater and lesser, or do they come in ranks, like lieutenant colonel and commissar?
