It's not clear that in the case of the religious not living up to what they profess this is really due to cognitive dissonance. You'd need to rule out deliberate duplicity. Religion's bloody history warrants such scrutiny. — baker

I wouldn’t rule out either as an explanation. There are many reasons. Also Cognitive dissonance is observable, primarily through the contrast between a persons thought expression and their behaviour.
That’s a lot clearer than the basis of your view which is based on your own rigid definition of belief. You entitled to that rigid definition but I see no compelling reason to adopt it myself.

To which I replied affirmatively. But see my above post: Some beliefs are inactionable, at least for some people. So one has to wonder why would anyone profess those beliefs? Because of their metavalue? (Ie. because professing such beliefs spares one from being prosecuted by other people?)

Compare: You and I believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years; I assume neither of us works in the nuclear industry, so we can't act on this belief. We also don't make a point of telling anyone that we believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years. So what gives? — baker

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Sometimes your beliefs are not relevant, your example of immaculate conception doesn’t show that they can’t be acted upon it’s an example of when a person wouldn’t act upon it because they have no reason, it’s irrelevant.
We would make a point to tell people about radium if we were talking about radium.
These things that you are talking about are not mutually exclusive with my own explanations. Both are reasons for the divide between thought and action.

Exactly, it’s not the theistic concepts per say because some of those are A) not original to that theism and B) are not in opposition to non-theists. (The golden rule for example)

No. They threaten with eternal damnation anyone who doesn't believe like they do. Because of this, they do not deserve the kind of lenience that you describe above and which would apply in other situations, for other beliefs (inlcuding flatearthing and antivaxxing). — baker

It’s not lenience, it is just understanding what’s going on re cognitive dissonance. You asked for an alternative...though it appears your “what else?” was rhetorical in light of that response.

It's the religious who primarily see belief in such binary terms! — baker

Sure, I will concede binary terms is a common malady of the religious but the comment directed at you was very specific to your view of “belief”. I have no idea if you think in binary terms on anything else or in general the way a religious person might.
Maybe binary isn’t the right term...I meant to describe how on your view your belief is either backed up by action or it isn’t really a belief. That seems like a binary metric to me.
Anyway, not meant as derogatory, it’s not like I think anything binary is bad. You just define belief differently that I do on which lead to my misunderstanding but I got it now.

Well I'll press you a little there. Imagine the same social worker applies the same fallacious reasoning in choosing a life partner. It seems to me that this is something one might remonstrate about if one cared for the social worker as a friend, but not something socially unacceptable in the way that it would be applied to professional life, and that because the social worker has power qua social worker as distinct from the privilege of personal foibles in private life. Liberty requires us to accept the one and find the other unacceptable. — unenlightened

The application of fallacious reasoning is the problem. If that problem goes away, any problems in whatever scenario you construct go away too. (Well, the ones pertaining to reasoning anyway)

I like the 'when' in the title. A stereotype is unacceptable when the (pre)judgement is acted on, and is directly proportional to the power and authority of the actor. — unenlightened

I disagree. It depends on what the act is that is based upon on that pre-judgement. And I don’t think it has anything to do with the power and authority of the actor, let alone directly proportional. If the stereotyping is unacceptable, it is unacceptable regardless of the power and authority of the state be making it.

I don't know if it is accurate on average. It might be misleading anyway, because stereotypically, unhealthy people have less energy and tend to do less and so run to fat because of illness rather than laziness. The stereotype becomes toxic though when it is applied by - say - social workers to separate the deserving from the undeserving poor, because even if it were usually true, if it is not universally true it must result in injustice. — unenlightened

A fair point and I agree with the bolder portion in particular. A good example of a stereotype being unacceptable because it is used in fallacious reasoning.

To the new title:

Unacceptable stereotyping is when the stereotyping is either based on something other than merely noticing a pattern (like prejudice or bias) or when the stereotype is being used to justify treatment of the stereotyped type.
Basically there are fair and unfair stereotypes. Unfair stereotypes are the unacceptable ones because they are about the target and not the behaviour/trait we are calling a stereotype.

I think that prejudice and stereotypes do relate to one because when people think in stereotypes, which are like caricatures, it often leads to judgements about people in a negative way. For example, a few people who are struggle with weight issues have told me that they do feel that people make assumptions about them being lazy and a few other things. — Jack Cummins

I wouldn’t call them caricatures, they are generalizations based on common occurrence. Fat people do tend to be lazier. They are unhealthy and have less energy. That’s is a negative judgement sure, but an accurate generalization.

There is plenty lack of conviction in humanity to go around. People have grown used to compromising themselves and they support each other’s lack conviction by a mutual, unspoken agreement to maintain an illusion of accountability when in fact there is almost none, at any level.

I’m not sure the question makes sense. Stereotyping becomes prejudice when it’s prejudice right? They are not progressional stages of the same thing.

Baden is right T Clark, the portion you quoted isn’t racist. As Baden pointed out the mention of “white” was about people who believe jesus was white not white people.
It would be analogous to calling a BLM activist a black crusader or something. I don’t think that would be racist and I don’t think it would get deleted or a person banned for saying so but I could be wrong.
Baden, would I be moderated for calling Malcolm X a black crusader?

T Clark, I agree that there is racism against white people that is hypocritical and socially acceptable. Academically there is open and accepted racism against white people as well, as when racism is defined as “prejudice plus power”.
I think you see this too, but in this case I think your sensitivity to it is clouding your view. Perhaps your anger has the best of you here because Baden is right, your position here hasn’t held up to scrutiny.

Cognitive dissonance, humans can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. It doesn’t mean they don’t believe in one or the other, it means they are holding an irrational contradiction. Most of the time it’s because the person doesn’t see the contradiction.
That makes more sense to me than saying they don’t really believe it considering the kinds of things they do in the name of their beliefs.

I don’t see “belief” as binary like you do, I think as long as there are differences in how strongly people can believe things you have to accept that conviction and belief are distinct from each other.

And I doubt such is necessarily always the case. — baker

I agree with that. :up:

Because I've seen religion and religiosity from the inside. Like I said, I know many religious people, but I yet have to meet one who would actually believe what they say.
I've seen Catholics go to church, there chant "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", then go home and get drunk and curse God, Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Roman Church, and continue in that vein until next Sunday, when it is again "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", and so on. — baker

Ah, I see what you are saying now. They contradict what they purport to believe with their actions. To me that’s a lack of conviction rather than lack of belief. I suspect our disagreement is how we are defining belief. Am I right in guessing you would say there is no belief without conviction? That if you really believe something you obligate yourself to act in accordance with it?

Probably not, and it's not relevant for the most part anyway. — baker

Well I thought it was relevant because I misunderstood your reasoning. My mistake.

Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism.

I thought Banno was moderating? I assumed there was some PMing going on...
You guys assuredly need a moderator, complete waste of time otherwise, you guys might as well just keep snipping at each other in this thread if you opt for no moderator.

Lol, something tells me Amen would object.

Ok, so a thread just for you two. How to find a moderator now? Do you both agree to a moderator?

Not sure it needs to be a debate, the moderator is merely there to keep everybody honest since each of you accuses the other of trolling/dishonesty.

The problem with deleting uncalled for insults is that each party would have the power to derail the discussion by claiming offence. There is bound to be instances where a perceived insult from one party is not at all perceived as an insult by the other. There will also almost certainly be instances of offence taken where none was intended, which is also not good for discourse.

I think a gentleman’s agreement for each party to try there best to keep it polite is the best you can hope for.
The moderator should for sure spend some time establishing some of the more obviously aggressive or passive aggressive moves each party has made in the past.

Someone said insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. A thread that’s just a replication of this discussion will obviously lead to the same outcome: none, spinning wheels and throwing shade.
Might I suggest a change that might lead to a different outcome, a real discussion perhaps?
Start the thread, but get someone to moderate the debate. Someone whose objectivity you can both be satisfied with. Then try this discussion again.
If you both intend on using rational argumentation there should be nothing for either to fear from having a moderator hold each of you accountable to the other. That should address the problems each of you have expressed about the others discourse.
How about it fellas?

Ok, thanks. :up:

I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far. — T Clark

Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though?
I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? (That question isn’t meant to be rhetorical or baiting, This isn’t my area so I’m sincerely asking...maybe these foundational assumptions are that important.)
I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldn’t it?

I wish I could properly respond but I’ve gotten the distinct impression you address me only to fuck with me. You’ll eject, and ignore me as it suits you. Your prerogative, but fool me once shame on you, fool me 8 times shame on me again...lucky number 9 though so I’m afraid not this time sir. :wink:

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. — T Clark

I’m not sure that’s the case...”everywhere in the universe”? ”will be the same forever”?
Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work?

Your example is about the nature of the subject, that’s not what cogito ergo some says anything about. It concludes only that there is a subject. A dreamer, a dreamer within a dream, a brain in a vat, a mind in the Matrix...none of those refute cogito ergo sum in any way because cogito ergo sum refers only to the undoubtable subject of ones own experience.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Note that the word "religious martyr" tends to be applied to anyone who died "for religion", regardless of how they lived prior to that; regardless of the specific of their death (whether it's a bus full of schoolchildren dying in a bomb attack, or whether it's someone who prior to their public execution said some notable religious words); and regardless of who declared their death to be "for religion" (Romans might have killed a lot of Christians, but should we therefore surmise that they were all martyrs for Christianity?). — baker

My point is that it would take a true belief in god in order to sacrifice your life for god. Let’s not get lost in the weeds it should be clear the exact kind of martyr I was talking about.

Some of them are egomaniacs. It's taboo to name names in this category, but surely you can think of some people who are publicly regarded as "saints", but it is also known they had a "dark side", replete with sex and drug scandals, financial shenaningans, and so on.

Some just have nothing left to live for, nothing to lose, so in a last desperate attempt to make sense of their lives, they do something extreme and pin a religious label to it.

Some are pathological altruists.

Some are blackmailed into extreme actions ("We'll kill your family if you don't blow yourself up with this bomb in the middle of a busy public square").

Some are just mentally ill.


These options seem more likely to be the explanations for the cause of religious martyrdom than religiosity. Of course, we can't empirically test this, and the available anecdotal data is limited. — baker

Sure, those are all reasons people might have for blowing themselves up. They don’t seem any more plausible than an actual belief they have that not only justifies but demands that behaviour.
Why are you so sure religiosity isn’t the reason even though that is the reason given AND we can see from the religious texts/religious leaders that they are instructed to do so?
Would you be equally dismissive of the reasons that I gave for any given action? If I told you I post on this forum because I want to practice debating would you suspect I actually was doing it for some other possible reason you can come up with?

Well I can respect that your on a spiritual journey of some kind, but I’ve never found any such beliefs to be convincing of their truth. Ups seem to be searching for meaning, most of us have been there.

Not sure you really answered my question there, but I understand what you are getting at.
What about modern religions? Scientology is newer than Christianity, let’s compare those then. Do you take Scientology more or less seriously than Christianity?

I said that I don't know anyone who does. I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any. — baker

You’ve never heard of religious martyrs? Suicide bombers? You think these people don’t really believe in god and rewards of gods afterlife?
Why do you think they do it then? What is the reason why they are sacrificing their lives and claiming they do it because god wants them to?

If you meet someone who believes Apollo pulls the sun across the sky you don’t think of that belief as foolish?
Have you ever heard the expression to keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?
Do you really think of belief in Zeus as on the same footing as Christianity? You take them both to be more or less equally justified/legitimate?
I understand the desire to be open to everyone’s way of looking at things but there must be limits or you will end up talking nonsense. Some beliefs are just ignorant and erroneous.

Why do we think of believing in Zeus to be somewhat silly but not so for Christianity if they are both legitimate beliefs from the same source?

I’m having trouble with what exactly you are asking...are you basically asking if there is a commonality between all the different definitions of reality? Or am I getting that wrong?

We are all devastated.

Ha. Every once in a while you right something worth reading. Succinct and amusing.

Alright well if you will not respond to points against you then you have opted out of having a discussion and I won’t waste my time.

:up:

Have you ever questioned that your attachment to logic and science is emotional as well? — Zenny

Yes, I have. I consider it due diligence to question all my positions and attachments that way.

A series of defensive assertions. — Zenny

Lol
Ya, and?
Do you mean a baseless assertion? I provided argument with my assertions, none of which you addressed.

The last point exposes your "rationality" — Zenny

I don’t‘ think so, I think you failed to grasp the point I was making.

The most important thing that a human does is finding a partner and having a Family. And your claiming logic doesn't apply here. So when its something ultra important we turn to irrationality? Or is it that emotions are primary? Why abandon your number one tool,logic,when the going gets tough? — Zenny

It’s only your opinion that the most important thing is partner and family...speaking of baseless assertions. I said logic doesn’t apply when falling in love...you expanded/redefined that to finding a partner and having a family, then you used this thing I did not say to make an argument. That’s called a straw man argument, when you pretend I said something I did not and then argue against that pretend position instead of my actual one. No one said we should turn to irrationality either. Just stop, I’m not your enemy, I’m trying to have an honest discussion on which we disagree. There is no need for you to play “gotcha”.
When it comes to finding a partner and starting a family of course logic is involved. As I said before, logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive. An emotional desire to fix the car at the same time as logic is being applied to actually do it. Having a family requires planning and forethought (well, it should) and most of the time some sort of emotional connection like love.
Lastly, I was talking about falling in love and that isn’t something you have a tool for. Therefore it isn’t something in which I would be abandoning a tool like logic.

Now, I’m not sure why you ignored my actual arguments and instead focused on trying to conjure irrationality on my part but before we get lost in the weeds you should do so. I believe the points you ignored refuted your arguments. Show me where my counterpoints fail.

I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi. — Jack Cummins

Sure, there is history and the churches cherry picking to consider but none of that makes the stories any less man made.

But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Why do we have to consider it? For what purpose?
I mean this is even worse, the made up stories were stolen Friday m other made up stories.
You didn’t answer my question. Zeus, Odin, Ra...are these made up? What’s the difference between them and any other god concept?

However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts. Thst is where I think it gets rather difficult. — Jack Cummins

Sure...made up stories that have meaning, even deep meaning. Like most fairy tales. Symbolism...ya, like so many stories do.
It doesn’t seem difficult to me at all. None of that speaks to the truth of religion. Nothing you’ve said indicates to me a divine source.
Why do you think Christianity (for example) has a divine source but not Zeus or Odin?

There is no false equivalence. I said both sets of people ultimately determine this on their beliefs and emotions. Feelings if you will.
Everything you mentioned you do with feelings. You fix your car according to to the beliefs you have. Either do it yourself or if you don't feel able you ask a mechanic. — Zenny

It’s not either or, it’s both. As I said, you experience emotions of course but your emotions are not what you are relying on when you fix your car. Really strong feelings don’t fix a car engine...to fix the car requires logic and rationality. That occurs simultaneous with emotions that a person feels. The reason you have for fixing the car might be emotional, but you aren’t relying on them to actually do it.
The emotions might be present, as they always are with humans, but they are not the means.

What you claim as logic is really memory of a task,plus some creative tinkering and pushed by your desire to fix your car. — Zenny

No, there is memory of the task, “creative tinkering”, a desire to fix the car AND logic. Again, you are trying hard to ignore the presence of logic/rationality so that you can make a false equivalence, to try and take away the very solid ground science has so it can be considered the on the same (sorry, not trying to be rude) feeble basis upon which religion is based. Religion doesn’t give you answers, it gives you place holders for questions to which you have no answers. The correct answer to any questions you think religion answers is “I don’t know”.

Tell me,in meeting a partner do you get a tape measure and engage in dialectics and a DNA test to assess their suitability? In everyday life,very few use scientific logic or philosophy. — Zenny

Yes, feeling emotions towards someone is an emotional thing. Obviously.
It comes off as pretty disingenuous to use an example like that. It should be obvious that I wasn’t claiming logic motivates people in situations which are explicitly not logical like falling in love.

I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings. — Jack Cummins

Of course it was made up...the bible is a man made text. Why would it be any different than other mythology? Zeus, Odin, Ra...these aren’t made up?
Yes religion was a first attempt at finding answers when we didn’t know anything but it wasn’t about the spiritual questions you imply religion is able to answer today...it was answers to many questions science came to answer. What’s going on with that volcano? What’s that big glowing ball of fire and how does it move across the sky? Why has this persons face broken out is sores and growing up blood? Gods, demons, Apollo were the answers religion had...and science gave us better, not made up answers.
You only shift the answers religion is for now because religion has had to give so much ground to science already. All that’s left is the gaps of science, the answers it doesn’t have, for the believer to insert their made up stuff.