| Kasz216 said: A). Your continued arguement of this point is just pure ignorance to social science Research methods... B) Every article? No... but quite a few do. If you follow science in the media at all, you sould know this. They always get studies wrong and exagerrate what they say. C) Your source wasn't a counter source. That was talking about... God priming. Do you know what god priming is? If you had journal access you could look at that first article and find a numbr of supporting studies. Since pretty much all research studies begin with a literature review. Well that and the fact that said study was actually 3 studies that all came to the same conclusion. D) Again... this seems to be pure ignorance to social sciences. Social sciences collect data and then infer results. Because you can't measure motivations and emotions like you can say, gravity. E) Again, do you or do you not believe in moral relatvism? If you do. Specific examples that have more or less always held consistant as moral are the only things you can measure to judge morality. If you have two groups except one group thinks it's morally right to drink cofee, and the other thinks it's morally incorrect to drink coffee.... no comparison can be made on morallity based on drinking coffee. This goes all the way up to crazy things like always forcing women to cover their heads. If you believe in moral relatvism... you can't use those things for comparison.
It's clearly obvious that your the one who doesn't know anything about research. Nor apparently moral relatvism. Which is odd... being a moral absolutist who is an atheist honestly just makes you a pretty illogical atheist.. It's like being an atheist and believing in modal realism. Your just giving up one "fantasy" for another. |
Getting really tired of education you on matters you pretend to know.
A) Lol.
start reading: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html
This sample is not befit of the masses and is simply born of convenience. Do you understand what this means or no?
B) Okay, you've posted no articles. I've posted 2. Again you bring forth nothing but suppositions. Do you have a rebuttal or not?
C) You argue that god priming is dissimilar when it isn't at all. You neglect to admit that religious folks are naturally primed, it permeates their life at all times. That study cited continues to show another study where priming is not born of God constructs, but of authoritative constructs and the same results are found, and again with simple moral constructs, and again...same results. Set aside your devotion to myopia and read my source.
D) There is no confirmation bias here. Results speak for themselves, despite my disagreement with the methodology.
E) Morality isn't as simple as you'd like with reductionist nonsense like relativism. Naturally it is relative because it is subjective, but there are certain absolutes with morality - murder for instance is universally immoral.
Lol, now you're not only putting words in my mouth but attacking this imaginary straw man. Hahah.
Do you have anything to bring to the table in regard to sources or just endless suppositions?
