Like I said you may have been involved in a particular aspect of the overall approach
Yes, and in which measures of beliefs were highly relevant.
But the risk and proetctive model is what will identify that religious communities have certain thinking that is associated with that community in the first place.
No, not really. All religious communities need to have their own discussions about how they receive traditions around things like power, hierarchy, authority, gender and familial roles, and so on.
Your dismissing the mind behind those beliefs though.
No, I'm just refusing to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all mind behind holding particular beliefs.
The point was it takes a different mind to believe in such
There is no evidence for this claim. Any of us might form such beliefs, depending on the various experiences and influences we have.
I have. I linked evdience showing that abusive parents have unreal expectations and beliefs. I linked evdience showing that the controlling mindset behind abuse and violence is linked to psychological distress.
Your evidence did not demonstrate that all abusers are irrational. You are taking a statistical correlation and applying it as an absolute, and inferring a causal relationship where none has been demonstrated.
But I am not saying abuse is caused by any particular factor
Then suggesting that people who score highly on clinical scales of irrational beliefs are potential abusers seems misplaced.
Whereas your view is that only belief can tell us who is abusive and all other factors are irrelevant.
Well, no. Observed behaviour tells us who is abusive. Beliefs tell us who is most likely to engage in those behaviours, since we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs.
The point was, how do we tell which beliefs lead to abuse
By studying abusers and their beliefs. Your off-topic hobby horse is irrelevant, as it is not at all the same sort of behaviour.
I suggest the only way we can tell which beliefs are abusive is by grounding them in the thinking that breeds these beliefs.
Not at all. We tell which beliefs underpin abuse by observing which beliefs are held by the people who abuse.
But saying that a persons belief in say hierarchies is abusive without any solid evidence grounded in facts is unreal and unfair.
I have never said that a person's belief is abusive. Behaviour is abusive, not beliefs. But behaviours arise out of beliefs, and we can study which beliefs are most likely to give rise to abusive behaviours. It turns out that valuing hierarchy and relationships of power and control is one of them.
So for example you mean biological differences in behaviour or thinking or in feelings. Your saying you don't believe in these differences. Like say males are generally stronger and more powerful. Or males think more spacially in terms of things and females more socially in terms of people and relationships. That type of stuff.
I mean biological differences in our bodies. Sure, some people are bigger than others, stronger than others; women bear children and men don't, that kind of stuff. Sure. But I don't particularly believe in biologically determined differences in behaviour or thinking or feelings; I think that is mostly on the nurture side of the nature/nurture ledger.
Why related specifically.
Because otherwise it's far afield from the topic of this thread.
I'm talking about the core beliefs of all religions. Your saying that they don't include some sort of revelation of a moral code. a divine source of life, a creative entity or aspect for life, and an afterlife or some sort of soul or spirituality.
Correct. Not all religions hold these as core beliefs.
Actually hunter gatherers were tribal, they formed smaller groups and were consumed by food to survive. If another group came and took their stuff they would be upset after all that hard work lol.
But the point is that they often did (do) not hold personal or private property within the small group.
Your conflating the exceptions as the rule.
No, I'm pointing out the holes in your claims.
This doesn't negate that humans have knowledge that rape is wrong. A violation. All this is showing is that some denied this truth.
Well, no, sorry, this doesn't wash. I don't agree that people who don't hold your particular view about something are just in denial about the truth. People do actually, really, hold different beliefs on these points.
God tells us that we all have knowledge of His laws through our conscience.
I can't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I'm sure we've discussed this point before. Our conscience develops and is formed through our experiences. It is not a perfect, infallible knowledge of divine morality.
You certainly seemed to be claiming that all differences in outcome were due to differences in either natural talent or hard work. Which is blatantly, demonstrably false.
Are you saying all people in positions of government are there because of their parents.
No; but I'm saying that most people who are very prominent or successful have had significant privilege which has helped them obtain their prominence or success. I'm not saying they don't also work hard and demonstrate high commitment and talent, but that there are many other things besides that which help people get ahead.
Whether hes the best is not the point.
If you want to claim that all social hierarchies are the natural outcome of the distribution of talent and hard work, then it kind of is the point.
I've seen plenty of fools and idiots in high positions, who are there for reasons other than merit.
