Using Ontology to Attack Theistic Errors

I love attacking people on the grounds of ontology like my battering ram, I am here to force you to think and remove thinking errors. Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. *Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness. Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim. *Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)-What is your claim?-What aspects must be there for your claim?-What makes your claim different than other similar claims? Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.” I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology) Then, I may respond, “how do you know that, what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology) Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you insure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology) Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”   I may respond, what do you mean by...

Moral Judgment and Value Theorizing?

Lawrence Kohlberg and the Six Levels of Moral Judgment? Snippet 1 Traditionally, psychology has avoided studying anything that is loaded with value judgments. There is a degree of difficulty involved in trying to be unbiased about things that involve terms like “good” and “bad!” So, one of the most significant aspects of human life—morality—has had to wait quite a while before anyone in psychology dared to touch it! But Lawrence Kohlberg wanted to study morality, and did so using a most interesting (if controversial) technique. Basically, he would ask children and adults to try to solve moral dilemmas contained in little stories, and to do so outloud so he could follow their reasoning. It wasn’t the specific answers to the dilemmas that interested him, but rather how the person got to his or her answer. Heinz’s Dilemma One of the most famous of these stories concerned a man named Heinz. His wife was dying of a disease that could be cured if he could get a certain medicine. When he asked the pharmacist, he was told that he could get the medicine, but only at a very high price—one that Heinz could not possibly afford. So the next evening, Heinz broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife’s life. Was Heinz right or wrong to steal the drug? (Source: The above passages of both Kohlberg’s work and the Heinz dilemma were taken from Dr. C. George Boeree’s terriffic web site.) Snippet 2 The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) didn’t think moral behavior should be thought of as a grab bag of virtues, e.g. that being a moral...