ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th November 2018, 01:11 PM   #1
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
#Churchtoo is born

There seems to be a groundswell of those taking on the church, regarding the patriarchy encouraged by them, leading to violence against women.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...witter/9188666


Quote:
Many survivors say the teaching in some churches on male headship and wifely submission had "laid the groundwork" for and exacerbated their abuse.

I know it will be pointed out by others that some churches have gone a long way, in providing equal status for women. Of course a big lump of Biblical scripture must be set aside in order to progress along this road. One has to wonder how far this can go, whilst maintaining the concept of the Bible being the divinely inspired script, that defines Christianity.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 26th November 2018 at 01:13 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2018, 01:27 PM   #2
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,700
#thortoo?

__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 26th November 2018 at 01:33 PM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2018, 08:47 PM   #3
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
You are a sharp one Mojo.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2018, 09:25 PM   #4
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,926
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I know it will be pointed out by others arthwollipot that some churches have gone a long way, in providing equal status for women.
FTFY. Come on, you know you were thinking it.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Of course a big lump of Biblical scripture must be set aside in order to progress along this road. One has to wonder how far this can go, whilst maintaining the concept of the Bible being the divinely inspired script, that defines Christianity.
You'll find that the progressive Christians of my acquaintance - and I'm not talking about anyone else in this case - would say that they're not "setting aside" anything. One of my friends shared a meme the other day which basically said "why don't we let love determine how we interpret the bible, rather than letting the bible determine how we interpret love?" I think you might find their perspective refreshing.

Again, I'm not talking about anyone except my progressive Christian friends here, who happen to be members of the Uniting Church. Other churches can and do differ.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2018, 01:49 PM   #5
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
FTFY. Come on, you know you were thinking it.

You'll find that the progressive Christians of my acquaintance - and I'm not talking about anyone else in this case - would say that they're not "setting aside" anything. One of my friends shared a meme the other day which basically said "why don't we let love determine how we interpret the bible, rather than letting the bible determine how we interpret love?" I think you might find their perspective refreshing.

Again, I'm not talking about anyone except my progressive Christian friends here, who happen to be members of the Uniting Church. Other churches can and do differ.

Thanks for fixing that for me arth.

You're progressive Christian friends put me in mind of doublespeak (George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four.). Setting aside stuff written in the book that is the cornerstone of their religious faith. How does one do that? How does one let love interpret stuff like stoning your kids and burning in Hell?

As I have mentioned before, my brother (now doing paintings for God in Heaven I am told) and his son, strongly believed in the man being the head of the house. This idea is strongly supported by the Bible, which they both drew upon for support. By what mechanism do your friends, set the clear instructions aside, without setting them aside?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2018, 02:50 PM   #6
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,926
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks for fixing that for me arth.

You're progressive Christian friends put me in mind of doublespeak (George Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four.). Setting aside stuff written in the book that is the cornerstone of their religious faith. How does one do that? How does one let love interpret stuff like stoning your kids and burning in Hell?

As I have mentioned before, my brother (now doing paintings for God in Heaven I am told) and his son, strongly believed in the man being the head of the house. This idea is strongly supported by the Bible, which they both drew upon for support. By what mechanism do your friends, set the clear instructions aside, without setting them aside?
Again, I don't think that they would say that they're setting anything aside. I think that they would say that they were reading the Bible in context, and not allowing archaic interpretations of scripture influence what they believe. I haven't confronted them and demanded a response to Leviticus 18:22, because I'm not an *******.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2018, 03:08 PM   #7
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,674
I think what is often forgotten here (probably because the outspoken believers here are .. what they are) is that a lot of Christians don't regard the Bible as the ultimate truth in any way. They are aware that it was written by humans, a long time ago, and at best lays down some sort of framework. Some will then say that those are not real Christians [tm], but that is their loss.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2018, 03:30 PM   #8
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,926
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think what is often forgotten here (probably because the outspoken believers here are .. what they are) is that a lot of Christians don't regard the Bible as the ultimate truth in any way. They are aware that it was written by humans, a long time ago, and at best lays down some sort of framework. Some will then say that those are not real Christians [tm], but that is their loss.
Indeed, and it's frequently the atheists and antitheists who cry you're doing it wrong when Christians don't live up to the worst possible interpretations of the Bible.

This is why I stopped listening to the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, entertaining though it was at times. The hosts repeatedly said that if you aren't a horrible person, you're just not very good at being Christian. As if they had the authority to decide who was a good Christian and who wasn't. Ironically, by their definition, it was the "best" Christians - ie the most liberal and progressive - who were the worst.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2018, 11:44 PM   #9
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Indeed, and it's frequently the atheists and antitheists who cry you're doing it wrong when Christians don't live up to the worst possible interpretations of the Bible.

This is why I stopped listening to the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, entertaining though it was at times. The hosts repeatedly said that if you aren't a horrible person, you're just not very good at being Christian. As if they had the authority to decide who was a good Christian and who wasn't. Ironically, by their definition, it was the "best" Christians - ie the most liberal and progressive - who were the worst.
The most liberal and progressive Christians aren't really Christians anymore as some of them evolved into Unitarians. They hold the "love thy neighbor" still, but the rest of Christianity is gone, because they accept more than the Bible.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:04 AM   #10
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,537
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think what is often forgotten here (probably because the outspoken believers here are .. what they are) is that a lot of Christians don't regard the Bible as the ultimate truth in any way. They are aware that it was written by humans, a long time ago, and at best lays down some sort of framework. Some will then say that those are not real Christians [tm], but that is their loss.

Hans
I think it is because we tend to have more USA folk here, and the versions of Christianity that are popular in their country do tend towards the idea of the Bible being the only source of the "word of God" . Of course the history of Christianity for around 1500 years never held that the Bible was the only source and the vast majority of folk who claim to be Christian in the world today still hold that their church is the source of the word of God, of which the Bible is only one part.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 01:08 AM   #11
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,642
Great, plenty of Christians are super nice and enlightened and wouldn't hurt a fly...
Doesn't change one thing about the OP.
Plenty of other churches aren't.
And as far as I can tell it isn't meany fundamentalist anti-theists taking on Christendom in general, but Christian victims of abuse speaking up about the role of their church in that abuse...
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:06 PM   #12
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,635
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Indeed, and it's frequently the atheists and antitheists who cry you're doing it wrong when Christians don't live up to the worst possible interpretations of the Bible..
While I won't say "they are doing it wrong" I will question how the bible means anything, if you can just choose the parts you like and throw out the rest.

That's not using the bible as a guide, even.

If we can ignore those certain parts as being contextual, or metaphor, or otherwise not reliable, why should we accept the other parts? Starting with the resurrection from the dead, for example. If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, what is it about him that matters?

I'm not going to judge right and wrong in terms of using the bible, but I will note that it turns into being completely arbitrary, at which point, there is not much left to discuss.

"Why do you believe that?" "Because I want to."
"Why doesn't that part matter?" "Because I don't want it to."
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:19 PM   #13
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The most liberal and progressive Christians aren't really Christians anymore as some of them evolved into Unitarians. They hold the "love thy neighbor" still, but the rest of Christianity is gone, because they accept more than the Bible.

My thoughts also and I wonder why the "Christian" label is still clung to by many.

Unitarians accept more than the Bible and simultaneously accept less from the Bible. Gone is the triple headed god tosh.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:30 PM   #14
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Great, plenty of Christians are super nice and enlightened and wouldn't hurt a fly...
Doesn't change one thing about the OP.
Plenty of other churches aren't.
And as far as I can tell it isn't meany fundamentalist anti-theists taking on Christendom in general, but Christian victims of abuse speaking up about the role of their church in that abuse...

This always happens when I post something about Christianity that is on the nose. Arthwollipot jumps in with "But, but, but I know these Christians that are really really nice, and they don't do that because they don't take any notice of that stuff in the Bible."

See pgwenthold's post ^ for further elaboration.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 12:39 PM   #15
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
My thoughts also and I wonder why the "Christian" label is still clung to by many.

Unitarians accept more than the Bible and simultaneously accept less from the Bible. Gone is the triple headed god tosh.
Now combine with this, especially the end part.
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
While I won't say "they are doing it wrong" I will question how the bible means anything, if you can just choose the parts you like and throw out the rest.

That's not using the bible as a guide, even.

If we can ignore those certain parts as being contextual, or metaphor, or otherwise not reliable, why should we accept the other parts? Starting with the resurrection from the dead, for example. If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, what is it about him that matters?

I'm not going to judge right and wrong in terms of using the bible, but I will note that it turns into being completely arbitrary, at which point, there is not much left to discuss.

"Why do you believe that?" "Because I want to."
"Why doesn't that part matter?" "Because I don't want it to."
Unitarians took the consequence of "Because I want to" versus "Because I don't want to".
They (as I see it) want a humanitarian and secular religion incorporating the "love all humans and all of nature" with science, so they accept all texts across all traditions, which support that. Of course there is a spiritual aspect, but that is both an end itself (a feeling of belong to something bigger and so on) and supports "love all humans and all of nature".
In a sense, they start with what they want and then they look for it in all traditions. Do they cheat? Well, yes, but I don't mind because they align with my world view.

Remember there is no one universal system of ethics, so we all do in some form "Because I want to" versus "Because I don't want to". That is not unique to religion.
So back to #Churchtoo. All organized religion, which are not democratic, are more subject to power abuse and religions don't exist in vacuum, so of course as times change, religions change.
In the western world more so, because we have freedom of opinion and free assembly.

So in the end, I don't think it is bad that it is "Because I want to" versus "Because I don't want to", because if morality was given in stone, we couldn't change.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2018, 04:45 PM   #16
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 59,926
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
While I won't say "they are doing it wrong" I will question how the bible means anything, if you can just choose the parts you like and throw out the rest.
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This always happens when I post something about Christianity that is on the nose. Arthwollipot jumps in with "But, but, but I know these Christians that are really really nice, and they don't do that because they don't take any notice of that stuff in the Bible."
Once again for the kiddies at home. The Christians I know would not say that they're "throwing out" or "not taking any notice of" or "disregarding" any part of the Bible. They would say that they're interpreting it in a modern context. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

And Thor, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm picking on you. It's not intentional. It's just that we tend to read the same parts of the forum. You have a tendency to make broad sweeping statements about Christians that directly contradict my experience. If you don't want your horizons expanded, if you would prefer to go on believing that all of Christianity is monolithically barbarous, just say so and I'll lay off for a bit. But I don't think you should.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 03:06 AM   #17
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,571
Just the Christian church, then? No #mosquetoo, to take on the endemic suppression and dehumanisation of women in Islam? They don't have the balls.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 03:13 AM   #18
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Just the Christian church, then? No #mosquetoo, to take on the endemic suppression and dehumanisation of women in Islam? They don't have the balls.
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9789811032707

It is there, they don't have the same rights as us, thus is more dangerous.
You are counter-productive. You want change, then support it how ever small it is.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 07:32 AM   #19
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,674
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
The most liberal and progressive Christians aren't really Christians anymore as some of them evolved into Unitarians. They hold the "love thy neighbor" still, but the rest of Christianity is gone, because they accept more than the Bible.
Who are you - or I, or anybody else - to say who is a real Christian and who is not? All anybody can say is "my Christianity is a different kind".

As for how most Christians in my neck of the woods (Northern European secular democracies) see the Bible.... Well first of all, they see the OT as a collection of interesting, but hardly authentic legends. The NT is given more authority, but few regard any part of it as the ultimate Truth. They don't believe that there is one and only one invariant way to be a Christian.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 07:34 AM   #20
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,674
As for the OP: Well, let's get alle the abuses out in the open. Religion can only benefit from that.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 07:38 AM   #21
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,571
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9789811032707

It is there, they don't have the same rights as us, thus is more dangerous.
You are counter-productive. You want change, then support it how ever small it is.
I'm not sure of the relevance of the enormously expensive e-book, but in answer to your latter point, I do. I support condemnation of the suppression of women in the Christian churches and within Islam. And within certain strands of Hinduism and every other religion that promotes such backwards ideas.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 08:11 AM   #22
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,642
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Just the Christian church, then? No #mosquetoo, to take on the endemic suppression and dehumanisation of women in Islam? They don't have the balls.
Looks too much like #mosquito...

But sure, I'd love for Islamic victims of abuse to speak up about the role of their religious structures. You might be right that they are afraid to.

But I doubt tht the best way of motivating those people is to call Christian victims of abuse a bunch of SJW's for not talking about the role of Islam in their Christian lives...
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 08:18 AM   #23
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,571
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Looks too much like #mosquito...
#mosqu-e-too - Islam sucks you dry. I like it.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
But sure, I'd love for Islamic victims of abuse to speak up about the role of their religious structures. You might be right that they are afraid to.

But I doubt tht the best way of motivating those people is to call Christian victims of abuse a bunch of SJW's for not talking about the role of Islam in their Christian lives...
I wouldn't dream of it. This # tag wasn't started by Christian victims and, in the main, it won't be shared by Christian victims either.

Quote:
Started by spoken word poet Emily Joy and writer and religious trauma researcher Hannah Paasch, the hashtag #ChurchToo has quickly become an online repository of women's — and men's — accounts of being groped, raped, coerced and disbelieved by parishioners and pastors in church communities.

Hannah Paasch said she and her friend Emily Joy began #ChurchToo — a hashtag inspired by the #MeToo campaign documenting women's accounts of sexual harassment and assault — on behalf of abuse survivors who have been "silenced and erased".
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 02:13 PM   #24
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
As for the OP: Well, let's get alle the abuses out in the open. Religion can only benefit from that.

Hans

Well I don't know about "religion" benefiting. The religious maybe as religion loses its grip on them. The empty churches in much of the Western World is testament to that.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2018, 11:19 PM   #25
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well I don't know about "religion" benefiting. The religious maybe as religion loses its grip on them. The empty churches in much of the Western World is testament to that.
Well, if I recall correctly studies have shown that what is happening is the beliefs go from being organized to folk beliefs.
Google:
Quote:
In folkloristics, folk belief or folk-belief is a broad genre of folklore. This category includes a wide variety of behaviors, expressions, and beliefs. ... Folk belief and associated behaviors are strongly evidenced among all elements of society, regardless of education level or income.
Even atheists have folk beliefs. That is how culture works. In the olden days that was called doxa(philosophy), but is the same.
You have them and I have them.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2018, 12:10 AM   #26
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,640
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Well, if I recall correctly studies have shown that what is happening is the beliefs go from being organized to folk beliefs.
Google:

Even atheists have folk beliefs. That is how culture works. In the olden days that was called doxa(philosophy), but is the same.
You have them and I have them.


Pray tell: what “folk beliefs” do you imagine I might have? I believe that when we die there is nothing but black, that there is no God and that ultimate reality will eventually be fully explained by scientific inquiry.

Better yet, tell me what folk beliefs YOU have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2018, 12:15 AM   #27
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Pray tell: what “folk beliefs” do you imagine I might have? I believe that when we die there is nothing but black, that there is no God and that ultimate reality will eventually be fully explained by scientific inquiry.

Better yet, tell me what folk beliefs YOU have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hold the same first 2 standard sub-culture western beliefs. I don't hold the 3rd one, since I am a skeptic.
You just admitted that they are beliefs. You are a member of a sub-culture, who holds these 3 beliefs.

You are a product of nature/nurture, so am I. You just admitted that. Where is the problem?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2018, 02:52 AM   #28
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,642
Ah yes, the continuing crusade against posters here who have the temerity to not include a clause about being willing to be shown wrong, or acknowledging their subjectivity, in every single post in which they express a conviction.
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2018, 01:23 PM   #29
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Well, if I recall correctly studies have shown that what is happening is the beliefs go from being organized to folk beliefs.
Google:

Even atheists have folk beliefs. That is how culture works. In the olden days that was called doxa(philosophy), but is the same.
You have them and I have them.

Why do I get the feeling you would dismiss almost everything, no matter how logically derived, as a "folk belief"?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2018, 11:23 PM   #30
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Why do I get the feeling you would dismiss almost everything, no matter how logically derived, as a "folk belief"?
Do you understand the limits of logic? They are there.

In short it works this way.
Someone: A is B. That is logical
Someone else: No A is not B. That is logical.

Now if you learn to check all of the different categories of what A is B or not B can stand for, you learn that there is a limit to A is B or not B for reason, logic and evidence. So not all cases of A is B or not B are with reason, logic and evidence, some are but not all. Some are beliefs.
So that a person stops believing in organized religion, doesn't mean that the person stops overall believing.

In logical terms it is the following:
Fact: People are no longer believing in organized religions.
Therefore: They are no longer believing at all.

The conclusion is invalid, it doesn't follow from the fact.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 30th November 2018 at 11:24 PM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2018, 10:42 AM   #31
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,380
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Do you understand the limits of logic? They are there.

In short it works this way.
Someone: A is B. That is logical
Someone else: No A is not B. That is logical.

Now if you learn to check all of the different categories of what A is B or not B can stand for, you learn that there is a limit to A is B or not B for reason, logic and evidence. So not all cases of A is B or not B are with reason, logic and evidence, some are but not all. Some are beliefs.
So that a person stops believing in organized religion, doesn't mean that the person stops overall believing.

In logical terms it is the following:
Fact: People are no longer believing in organized religions.
Therefore: They are no longer believing at all.

The conclusion is invalid, it doesn't follow from the fact.

Who is this someone, and who is the someone else, and what is the A and B they're disagreeing on?

Please stop asking everyone to address the import of imagined arguments made by imaginary people. Let "someone else" post their own arguments if they have them.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2018, 11:19 AM   #32
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Who is this someone, and who is the someone else, and what is the A and B they're disagreeing on?

Please stop asking everyone to address the import of imagined arguments made by imaginary people. Let "someone else" post their own arguments if they have them.
Nobody has ever claimed that everything/reality/the universe is natural or not, right?
We never debate if political rights are from God or not.
If communism is correct or not.
The list goes on.

A is B or non-B are stand-in for all these case, which happen all the time.
And it is always a question of reason, logic and evidence?!!
Do we agree so far?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2018, 12:56 PM   #33
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Do you understand the limits of logic? They are there.

In short it works this way.
Someone: A is B. That is logical
Someone else: No A is not B. That is logical.

Now if you learn to check all of the different categories of what A is B or not B can stand for, you learn that there is a limit to A is B or not B for reason, logic and evidence. So not all cases of A is B or not B are with reason, logic and evidence, some are but not all. Some are beliefs.
So that a person stops believing in organized religion, doesn't mean that the person stops overall believing.

In logical terms it is the following:
Fact: People are no longer believing in organized religions.
Therefore: They are no longer believing at all.

The conclusion is invalid, it doesn't follow from the fact.

You surely can shovel a lot of words into a simple idea Tommy.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2018, 01:11 PM   #34
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You surely can shovel a lot of words into a simple idea Tommy.
Yes.
Fact: Theism causes some harm.
Fact: That is not unique to theism.
Therefore: ?

I agree that theism causes some harm. That is not unique to theism. I am not sure about the latter in regards to you. You properly agree to some extent, but want to start with theism. I don't.
You have your POV and I have mine.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 03:26 AM   #35
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,537
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes.
Fact: Theism causes some harm.
Fact: That is not unique to theism.
Therefore: ?

I agree that theism causes some harm. That is not unique to theism. I am not sure about the latter in regards to you. You properly agree to some extent, but want to start with theism. I don't.
You have your POV and I have mine.
Would you like me to quote our resident expert on what a fact is?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 03:45 AM   #36
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Would you like me to quote our resident expert on what a fact is?
Here is your expert:
Quote:
John Searle developed Anscombe's concept of brute facts into what he called brute physical facts—such as that snow is on Mt. Everest—as opposed to social or institutional facts, dependent for their existence on human agreement.
Further another variant of brute fact:
Quote:
In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained. To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained.
A brute fact is that is so. You can't explain it further. E.g. How come there is something at all? Because there is!!!

Someone(S1): There is at least 2 kinds of facts.
S2: Yes.
S3: No.
That is part of the game we play, if all facts can be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts.
Now the idea "all facts can be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts" is itself a social or institutional fact. It is an axiom, paradigm and what not for which another idea is possible: All social or institutional facts are caused by objective, physical, brute facts, but can't be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts.
I.e. non-reductive physicalism/materialism/naturalism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 07:25 AM   #37
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,537
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Here is your expert:


Further another variant of brute fact:

A brute fact is that is so. You can't explain it further. E.g. How come there is something at all? Because there is!!!

Someone(S1): There is at least 2 kinds of facts.
S2: Yes.
S3: No.
That is part of the game we play, if all facts can be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts.
Now the idea "all facts can be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts" is itself a social or institutional fact. It is an axiom, paradigm and what not for which another idea is possible: All social or institutional facts are caused by objective, physical, brute facts, but can't be reduced to objective, physical, brute facts.
I.e. non-reductive physicalism/materialism/naturalism.
Just to be clear I was of course saying that you are happy to use the word fact whilst at the same time claiming other people can't use the word fact. It's simple hypocrisy.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 08:11 AM   #38
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,674
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Just to be clear I was of course saying that you are happy to use the word fact whilst at the same time claiming other people can't use the word fact. It's simple hypocrisy.
And that's a fact.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 08:44 AM   #39
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Just to be clear I was of course saying that you are happy to use the word fact whilst at the same time claiming other people can't use the word fact. It's simple hypocrisy.
There are 2 kinds of facts and while one is caused by the other, they are not the same.
Quote:
While ontological physicalism is often presupposed in the philosophical discussion, controversy arises about the properties possessed by these physical particulars. For example, what is the ontological status of putative mental properties? Are they reducible to underlying physical properties, or do they have a kind of being of their own? The reductive physicalist affirms, while the nonreductive physicalist denies, that mental properties are "nothing but" the physical. Broadly conceived, reductive physicalism asserts that all nonphysical properties are coextensive with particular physical properties. Nonreductive physicalism, on the other hand, conjoins the irreducibility of nonphysical properties (property dualism) to ontological physicalism.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/educati...d-nonreductive

Social facts are caused by physical facts, but not reducible to physical facts.

E.g. that I believe in humanism, is caused by physical facts, but not reducible to physical facts.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2018, 01:27 PM   #40
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There are 2 kinds of facts and while one is caused by the other, they are not the same.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/educati...d-nonreductive

Social facts are caused by physical facts, but not reducible to physical facts.

E.g. that I believe in humanism, is caused by physical facts, but not reducible to physical facts.

Here we go again. Same crap different thread.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.