Why do you believe in the bible?

Originally posted by sammii
Well surely when you were feeling depressed if you had gone to a councilor, psychiatrist ect, they would have told you how to live just as well as the bible

would that have then ment you belived in councilors? and worshiped them?

Originally posted by Regret
Interestingly enough, depending on the psychological school of thought, a psychological counselor would have had various possible solutions to the issue. I, being a behaviorist would suggest one spend more time with individuals that are in the position that the individual wants to be in. The Christian community that he became a part of obviously has the aspects of life that he wishes to have himself, and by becoming a part of their group, they have shaped his behavior such that he is like them. Such is a logical path, and the path he chose includes belief in the Bible. One cannot become like someone else while denying aspects of that someone. If one wishes to do well in school, one should befriend and spend time with those that do well in school. If one wishes to sleep around, one should befriend and spend time with those that sleep around. If one wishes to be a racist, one should befriend and spend time with racists. We are shaped by those we spend time with, regardless of what they are. No one worships counselors, so there is no shaping towards such a behavior, such would be an illogical leap in speculation. Although if one goes to a counselor and the counselor makes them feel better, regardless of the method, the subject will be inclined to hold that advice above conflicting advice. Such is seen in religious devotion as well. The question in religious devotion is whether the reinforcement is due to ones religious compatriots or due to the deity and practices of the religion, does one rely on the group or the concept for reinforcement? Most frequently I believe it is the group that is reinforcing the behavior, not the concept, but a conclusion on the subject would need proper observation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
B.F. Skinner's influence on you is quite clear. Especially his concepts of neutrality in motivation.

And very few people here will understand that.

Originally posted by Nellinator
And very few people here will understand that.

Originally posted by Regret
Seldom are behaviorists understood, our views often appear cold and are inttrpretted as totally against the possibility of internal states existing.

Not necessarily, I thought it was interesting, but it does contradict your stubborn beleif in Sin and Hell.

If you truly beleive that we learn throughout eternity, then you must also beleive that this Life is just one of many forms of existance that we as human beings will endure, and that it would only make sense that for whatever mistakes or "sins" we commit in this life would not be punished by the method of Hell (eternal torment), but rather given an infinite number of chances to mature past, since you still insist on the belief that education, in a spiritual sense, is eternal.

I find it self contradicting that you are open to the belief that we still evolve as spirits, not just bodies, yet you also beleive that Heaven and Hell exist as eternal consequences for whatever actions were done in this one limitted lifetime.

Originally posted by Regret
Seldom are behaviorists understood, our views often appear cold and are inttrpretted as totally against the possibility of internal states existing.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not necessarily, I thought it was interesting, but it does contradict your stubborn beleif in Sin and Hell.

If you truly beleive that we learn throughout eternity, then you must also beleive that this Life is just one of many forms of existance that we as human beings will endure, and that it would only make sense that for whatever mistakes or "sins" we commit in this life would not be punished by the method of Hell (eternal torment), but rather given an infinite number of chances to mature past, since you still insist on the belief that education, in a spiritual sense, is eternal.

I find it self contradicting that you are open to the belief that we still evolve as spirits, not just bodies, yet you also beleive that Heaven and Hell exist as eternal consequences for whatever actions were done in this one limitted lifetime.

Also, Behaviorists believe that punishment works, it does charge behavior rates. For a behaviorist the issue is that punishment must be instant and severe. From our perspective, divine punishmint may be too much delayed, but probably not too severe.

Punishment in no way conflicts with a behavioral perspective.

Originally posted by Regret
You forget that an extremely small few actually make it to Mormon Hell.

I bet that extremely small few includes all homosexuals 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
Also, Behaviorists believe that punishment works, it does charge behavior rates. For a behaviorist the issue is that punishment must be instant and severe. From our perspective, divine punishmint may be too much delayed, but probably not too severe.

1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ?

2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel.

3) Factually, Punishment does not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality.

Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.

Originally posted by Regret
Punishment in no way conflicts with a behavioral perspective.

It does if it's eternal punishment, which is what Hell is said to be by the Bible.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ?

2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel.

3) Factually, Punishment does [b]not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality.

Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.[/B]

Originally posted by Nellinator
I personally prefer methods of negative reinforcement for learning discipline.

Why ? Why opposed to positive reinforcement? Is Compassion not positive ? Since when does Negativity, aggression or hostility of any kind qualify as beneficial ?

You don't know what negative reinforcement is if you made that comment. Its not cruel, violent or aggressive. Its a psychology term from the work of B.F. Skinner (the guy in Regret's sig).
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I bet that extremely small few includes all homosexuals 🙄

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
3) Factually, Punishment does [b]not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality. [/B]

If the presentation or withdrawal of a stimulus does not reduce the rate of the target behavior, it was not a punisher. Punishment always works by definition. If behavior does not decrease, it was not punished.

Factually, punishment does always work. If the individual attempting to punish fails, punishment did not fail, punishment did not occur.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It does if it's eternal punishment, which is what Hell is said to be by the Bible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Its not wishful thinking. It is a firm psychological principle that is tried and true. Of course there are variations due to the unique nature of each person, but the concept is still the same. I personally prefer methods of negative reinforcement for learning discipline.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You don't know what negative reinforcement is if you made that comment. Its not cruel, violent or aggressive. Its a psychology term from the work of B.F. Skinner (the guy in Regret's sig).
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of it.

Thanks Nellinator.

For Urizen:

Negative reinforcer - A stimulus or event the removal of which increases the rate of the behavior upon which it is contingent.

In simple terms the experimenter makes the subject's life better by removing aversive stimuli from the environment.

Originally posted by Regret
No, there are only a handful of individuals. The only means by which a person can reach the "Eternal punishment" of Hell (Outer Darkness in Mormon terminology) is to have absolute knowledge of God and deny that knowledge. Even the worst criminals of our time don't reach this hell. There are times when a subject must be removed due to problems so severe that they compromise the ability of the subject to complete the minimum requirements. Outer Darkness is the place these individuals go.

Originally posted by Regret
What states that Heaven is unchanging? I am doubtful that such is the case. Eternal only refers to duration, not state.

If Heaven is eternal reward, then it is final. There is no need for further evolution or development, since nothing but the desired goal will result from it's beginning. There will be no struggle, no negative consequence, no true achievement if it is a state of eternal reward.

Only enjoyment. Hey, I am all for that, but unlike Reincarnation, no true maturity can be achieved without the struggle.

Originally posted by Regret
Punisher (scientific definition) - A stimulus or event, the presentation or removal of which diminishes the rate of a behavior.

Punisher- (ACTUAL definition)- a person who condemns, hurts, harms, or discourages another person for having a thought, performing an action, or speaking thier voice which the first person does not approve of.

Punishment- the act of making a person suffer, feel guilty for, or regret a prior action, thought, or speech.

Originally posted by Regret
If the presentation or withdrawal of a stimulus does not reduce the rate of the target behavior, it was not a punisher. Punishment always works by definition. If behavior does not decrease, it was not punished.

Punishment only works in scientific definition, which is never truly the context by which punishment is used. Religion makes use of the common social concept of punishment, not the concept your presented.

Behavior has improved in MANY people WITHOUT punishment in EITHER definition of the word, so your stance is factually false.

Originally posted by Regret
Factually, punishment does always work. If the individual attempting to punish fails, punishment did not fail, punishment did not occur.

WRONG

Punishment in your scientific definition does not exist in the same context that religion or law uses it, which is the social definition of punishment.

Originally posted by Regret
Punishment works. Reinforcement works. If behavior rates do not change then neither reinforcement or punishment were present. I do not see how, you seem to have a limited understanding of behavior principles.

Behavior Principles are in psychological theory, and considering the fact that psychology is an ever-changing, constantly ret-conned science, I do not see it as absolute fact.

Ex: Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the Psychological Evaluation. Today that is NOT the case, and the mental scientific FACTS have CHANGED.....

Interesting, isn't it ?

dude, where do you find the patience to write those long ass posts?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Heaven is eternal reward, then it is final. There is no need for further evolution or development, since nothing but the desired goal will result from it's beginning. There will be no struggle, no negative consequence, no true achievement if it is a state of eternal reward.

Only enjoyment. Hey, I am all for that, but unlike Reincarnation, no true maturity can be achieved without the struggle.

[b]Punisher- (ACTUAL definition)- a person who condemns, hurts, harms, or discourages another person for having a thought, performing an action, or speaking thier voice which the first person does not approve of.

Punishment- the act of making a person suffer, feel guilty for, or regret a prior action, thought, or speech.

Punishment only works in scientific definition, which is never truly the context by which punishment is used. Religion makes use of the common social concept of punishment, not the concept your presented.

Behavior has improved in MANY people WITHOUT punishment in EITHER definition of the word, so your stance is factually false.

WRONG

Punishment in your scientific definition does not exist in the same context that religion or law uses it, which is the social definition of punishment.

Behavior Principles are in psychological theory, and considering the fact that psychology is an ever-changing, constantly ret-conned science, I do not see it as absolute fact.

Ex: Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the Psychological Evaluation. Today that is NOT the case, and the mental scientific FACTS have CHANGED.....

Interesting, isn't it ? [/B]

Second, Behavior Analysts hold little scientific credibility in any explanations of behavior that includes mentalistic or internal variable claims as objective evidence is lacking in such claims. Given this, schools of psychology that promote such are not viewed by us as having scientific credibility in all matters.

Mental illnesses are only diagnosed if they interfere with a person's ability to survive. Or if the person feels that they have a problem. Homosexuality is a mental illness if it fits either of these. The DSM_IV TR may not list something, it is not an end-all list of mental illness, and is not intended as such, it is only a reference to reduce wasted time tryng to treat an illness when a reliable treatment has already been researched.

Lastly, if you wish to attack science that is all well and good. Science changes, this does not lessen its validity.

Originally posted by Regret
First, Behavior Analysis has been consistent in its definition and little it anything has changed in behavioral definitions.

But is not consistant with social definitions of the SAME terms. Punishment does NOT always work the way its INTENDED.

Originally posted by Regret
Second, Behavior Analysts hold little scientific credibility in any explanations of behavior that includes mentalistic or internal variable claims as objective evidence is lacking in such claims. Given this, schools of psychology that promote such are not viewed by us as having scientific credibility in all matters.

I love how you claim to trust psychology, but will nitpick the teachings that are more favorable, while ignoring what isn't convienent for you to argue.

Originally posted by Regret

Mental illnesses are only diagnosed if they interfere with a person's ability to survive. Or if the person feels that they have a problem. Homosexuality is a mental illness if it fits either of these. The DSM_IV TR may not list something, it is not an end-all list of mental illness, and is not intended as such, it is only a reference to reduce wasted time tryng to treat an illness when a reliable treatment has already been researched.

1) You cannot just nitpick certain teaching of psychology, and then ignore the others. Again, it is painfully CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT that you are allowing your religious bias to choose what part of psychology you beleive, and what part to disregard.

You trust Behavioral Theories, even though they are not proven, nor do they validly translate into the social definitions of the same terms, but then you want to INSIST that Homosexuality is a mental illness, EVEN THOUGH Psychology TEACHES it is NOT.

Please stop with the Hypocrisy, because it is getting REPETITIVE and sickening.

2) Homosexuality in itself does NOT interfere with one's ability to survive. Homophobia and SOCIAL STIGMA does.....these two factors are ALSO to blame for one's beleif that one has a problem if one is homosexual.

3) Now, let's just say for arguments sake, that if a person is a homosexual and is NOT exposed to massive homophobia or stigma, but would rather have heterosexual desires, then and only then can we say this person is mentally ill, because he or she is not living a life where they are content or at peace.

Again, this only proves that Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, even though you fkn continue to INSIST it is.

I love how you present factual information that CONTRADICTS your personal beleifs, and then ignore the obvious contradictions..... 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
Lastly, if you wish to attack science that is all well and good. Science changes, this does not lessen its validity.

I attack science and religion the same, and since Scientific Data has changed over the centuries, I don't feel like I'm taking a huge risk challenging it. However, since science holds more validity than religion, I try to be more careful 😉

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But is not consistant with social definitions of the SAME terms. Punishment does NOT always work the way its INTENDED.

I love how you claim to trust psychology, but will nitpick the teachings that are more favorable, while ignoring what isn't convienent for you to argue.

1) You cannot just [b]nitpick certain teaching of psychology, and then ignore the others. Again, it is painfully CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT that you are allowing your religious bias to choose what part of psychology you beleive, and what part to disregard.

You trust Behavioral Theories, even though they are not proven, nor do they validly translate into the social definitions of the same terms, but then you want to INSIST that Homosexuality is a mental illness, EVEN THOUGH Psychology TEACHES it is NOT.

Please stop with the Hypocrisy, because it is getting REPETITIVE and sickening.

2) Homosexuality in itself does NOT interfere with one's ability to survive. Homophobia and SOCIAL STIGMA does.....these two factors are ALSO to blame for one's beleif that one has a problem if one is homosexual.

3) Now, let's just say for arguments sake, that if a person is a homosexual and is NOT exposed to massive homophobia or stigma, but would rather have heterosexual desires, then and only then can we say this person is mentally ill, because he or she is not living a life where they are content or at peace.

Again, this only proves that Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, even though you fkn continue to INSIST it is.

I love how you present factual information that CONTRADICTS your personal beleifs, and then ignore the obvious contradictions..... 🙄

I attack science and religion the same, and since Scientific Data has changed over the centuries, I don't feel like I'm taking a huge risk challenging it. However, since science holds more validity than religion, I try to be more careful 😉 [/B]

I do not nitpick, I blatantly disregard all explanations of behavior by way of mentalist fiction. I will present their claims if such comes up, and questions are asked, but I am a behavior analyst. Many of us [behavior analysts] even dislike and avoid the terms psychologist and psychology, as one cannot truly empirically study the "mind" as there is, at least speaking to the evidence at hand, no such thing.

Once again, you show an utter lack of knowledge on the subject of psychology. Behavior analysis is a fact. It is the most solid and heavily supported stance in psychology. It has been shown repetitively to be a fact. All behavioral principles are repeatedly tested and retested. Behavior analysis is as solid as any statement in physics or any other "hard" science.

A flawed lay definition of a term is irrelevant. When I speak of punishment I am referring to the scientific definition I provided.

I never claimed anything was a mental illness, let alone homosexuality. I merely stated that it can be considered such, depending on the individual case. Use of the term survive was in error, here is a better statement:

Mental disorders will fit at least one, but could fit more, of the following:

[list=1][*]Present distress[*]Disability[*]Significantly increase risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, an important loss of freedom[/list]

At one point being homosexual resulted in the third being a consideration, and was thus considered to be a problem. I never claimed homosexuality was a mental illness, but it can be considered such depending on the individual and the context. Nearly all behaviors can be considered problematic in the proper context, and if rates exist to an abnormal level.

I believe that choice disappears at some point. I believe there are addicts (not including addicts at birth to to maternal error.) Do they currently have a choice as to whether or not to do the drug? Not in all cases, does this mean doing drugs initially was not a choice? Not at all, their past choices resulted in the present inability to choose, or rather the inability to alter their behavior without aid. This in no manner contradicts the belief that homosexual behaviors were chosen. Also, my belief is that homosexuality was chosen. So far science has not shown it to be otherwise.

Oh, and btw thanks for keeping in form and bringing up the homosexual agenda of Urizen again 🙄