Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Me Myself]

I mean I am sure it is "polite" to assume people know their feelings better than others about all or most matters, but my experience tells me many times this is simply not the case and betweepolite and true, I tend to go with true.

 

[Koldo]

Actually, I am just honestly surprised at how sure you are with so little information.

You truly seem to jump to conclusions with extremely superficial information.

There is little I can tell you. If you knew me, you would know that one of my main principles is that one must strive to know oneself and that I dont expect anyone's judgement about themselves to need to be accurate until evidenced against it. Any of my friends can tell you this.

Let us not confuse knowing our will into details, which is a hard task to perform, with knowing our reasoning that involves such will and results into actions.

If you knew me you would also know I take great time before pretending I more or less know someone and there are even circumstances with people I ve known for years and very intimately that I will tell them " This is my understanding from what I know of you, but I cant be certain because I have not seen you much on these circumstances and because of x y and z, but the contrary would surprise me"

Really, believe as you must, but you are making a very ironic and funny mistake.

I have no reason to lie to you about this. I have little doubt you invented one or a cuple in your head though.

I barely know you. But i know enough to reach some conclusions with a considerable degree of certainty.
Worry not. It is all good.

 

[Koldo]

I mean I am sure it is "polite" to assume people know their feelings better than others about all or most matters, but my experience tells me many times this is simply not the case and betweepolite and true, I tend to go with true.

It looks like you need to experience some more.
Just sayin.'

 

[Me Myself]

Let us not confuse knowing our will into details, which is a hard task to perform, with knowing our reasoning that involves such will and results into actions.



I barely know you. But i know enough to reach some conclusions with a considerable degree of certainty.
Worry not. It is all good.

Its funny because you reassure my conviction of how easy it is to make mistakes when you make conclusions about motives when you have no idea with whim you are taling with.


At the same time I want to change your mind now because you embody exactly what is wrong with general human perception: quick judgements based on insufficient information forming a very distorted and unreliable perspective on reality.

Yet the evidence tha tyou provide me that reassures my convictions and further shows me your wrongs is invisible to you.

You certainly have "know" info on the subject.

"Know" away.

 

[Koldo]

I am not so sure where his bias lies in this argument. If you review his posts, here and in other threads, you will find that he doesn't necessarily argue in favor of religion or against it. I think that he demonstrates a bias toward parental discretion in parenting matters but that is hardly irrational.

At war, some generals will prefer to hold their position until the end. Advance is the only other option. Others will prefer to give up on certain conflict points to regroup their troops on another more firm position.

I hope I have made myself understood.

 

[Me Myself]

At war, some generals will prefer to hold their position until the end. Advance is the only other option. Others will prefer to give up on certain conflict points to regroup their troops on another more firm position.

I hope I have made myself understood.

You assumed I made a common tendency about people who argue.

You pretend to "know" this .

I am truly amazed on how invisible it is to you how you jump to conclusions with no reliable information on the matter o.o

 

[Koldo]

Its funny because you reassure my conviction of how easy it is to make mistakes when you make conclusions about motives when you have no idea with whim you are taling with.

At the same time I want to change your mind now because you embody exactly what is wrong with general human perception: quick judgements based on insufficient information forming a very distorted and unreliable perspective on reality.

Yet the evidence tha tyou provide me that reassures my convictions and further shows me your wrongs is invisible to you.

You certainly have "know" info on the subject.

"Know" away.

Oh, please do not confuse the subject at hand with our private-yet-public little conversation. The kind of certainty I have on the girl's words is quite distinct from the one I have on your bias. They come from different sources.

 

[Koldo]

You assumed I made a common tendency about people who argue.

You pretend to "know" this .

I am truly amazed on how invisible it is to you how you jump to conclusions with no reliable information on the matter o.o

No. You didn't understand what i said. It is of no importance though.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, please do not confuse the subject at hand with our private-yet-public little conversation. The kind of certainty I have on the girl's words is quite distinct from the one I have on your bias. They come from different sources.

What is different othe tendency?

You have no reliable informaiton on the subject, but you pretend that you do, because you want to have an immidiate conclusion about something.

I can only wonder why are you so hasty with conclusions. I can understand this on some fields, but not on the ones at hand.

 

[Me Myself]

No. You didn't understand what i said. It is of no importance though.

In any cade, I did make a thread with a related subject. It includes a poll:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...155837-do-people-generally-know-why-they.html

 

[Koldo]

What is different othe tendency?

You have no reliable informaiton on the subject, but you pretend that you do, because you want to have an immidiate conclusion about something.

I can only wonder why are you so hasty with conclusions. I can understand this on some fields, but not on the ones at hand.

It is rather different.

On one case, I am considering the evidence provided and objetively evaluating it according to certain standards.

On the other, I am picking up certain hints on your posts, and comparing them to what I have picked up from other people including myself, and then cross checking data. It is a much more subtle and subjective process.

 

[Me Myself]

It is rather different.

On one case, I am considering the evidence provided and objetively evaluating it according to certain standards.

On the other, I am picking up certain hints on your posts, and comparing them to what I have picked up from other people including myself, and then cross checking data. It is a much more subtle and subjective process.

You believe your evaluation of "if she said it on a note before committing suicide then it must be true" is an objective judgement?

Sure, you can be adhering to an objective process. You seem to be doing so. Yet the process ebing objective does not mean the conclusion will be true.

If I tell you I will toss a coin everytime someone gave me an agfirmation and I will believe according to the coiflip, I have established an objective way of evaluating, but the premise (if the coin flips head then the statement is correct) is wrong, therefore the conclusion wont be objective in the sense that we cant know how true it will be.

 

[sojourner]

I don't comprehend what you are saying here.

You said: ''Worth is invalid if that worth is dependent upon some arbitrary condition.''

This means there is such a thing as invalid worth according to you.
What do you disagree with?

Whatever.
You and I said the same thing.
I said, "What's of worth is up for grabs."
You said, "Worth is a construct. It is whatever people make it out to be."
I then said,
"Didn't I just say that?"
"What's of worth is up for grabs" and "[Worth] is whatever people make it out to be" are both saying the same thing.

This means there is such a thing as invalid worth according to you.

There is such a thing as invalid self-worth, if that self-worth is predicated upon dishonest, exterior criteria that promote dishonest relationships, such as codependency.

I have absolutely no idea how "you must obey me, or your mother will die'' has anything to do with this... "Because one's self-worth isn't predicated upon codependent conditions enforced upon one from outside oneself."

Because it forces one's self-worth to be predicated upon a codependent relationship, wherein one's self-worth is determined by how well someone else is doing.

Why should I see self-worth the same way as you do?

Norms for self-worth are marked by certain criteria identified by the mental and spiritual health communities.

Then a whole lot of people are not living in a clear context as their parents are telling them to follow their religions.

Most religions teach truth in a mythic framework.

I am not saying all religions are untrue, but rather that so many of them contradict one another that it is safe to say that many religions are not based completely upon truth.

Contradiction is irrelevant. Contradictions merely reflect the multifaceted nature of mythical framework, human imagination, and human intuitive thought.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

it is a christian teaching that people will meet on heavens

As long as we're dealing with the letter of the law and not the spirit, i.e., claiming that a 12 year old who hangs themselves (where'd she learn to do that? Was that particularly Christian or a Christian suicide?) can be said to have committed suicide for religious reasons thanks to a note that attributes her death to a wish to be reunited with a loved one in heaven, we might as well throw that line of reasoning out the window too. Her note said nothing about heaven:
"Maria, from Leszno in Poland, had left a short note, which read: 'Dear Mum. Please don't be sad. I just miss daddy so much, I want to see him again.'"
Source

Now most people would say that believing you are going to see deceased people again is a religious idea. But Poland isn't known for it's religious people, there are multiple religions with ideas about death, and there are people who aren't religious who believe in life after death or tell their kids this. To my knowledge, no religion teaches children how to hang themselves.

So, we have a 12 year old girl who knows about a form of suicide girls especially and children in general do not commit who, as a reason, simply says the wants to see her father again. We can't even say it was a religious teaching that gave her this idea (one can see it in movies, on tv, in fairy tales, in mythologies, etc.). It certainly isn't necessarily a Christian idea and there is no evidence she was even actually taught this rather than picked it up and interpreted it which, given the fact that the religions which tend to have adherents who believe one can be reunited with the dead are also religions which have doctrinal reasons against suicide, is probably more likely than that she was taught it.

Moreover, if we follow the underlying logic of "ideas that can be harmful to Children because of the possibility of suicide" then most religions (especially those more influential and/or prevalent in the West-Christianity, Judaism, & Islam) are beneficial here.

There is no basis for arguing that religious teaching really informed this girl's decision as we don't know where she got the idea that one can meet deceased people, we don't know how she learned to kill herself by hanging (at 12), we don't know who or what caused her to believe that killing herself would allow her to reunite with the dead, and current psychological and medical theories hold that a child who chokes the life out of themselves at 12 has a severe medical illness (or, in more psychological terms, is severely distraught) and it is not because of religion.

 

[Falvlun]

I have yet to see anything that would induce me to label normal imparting of religious beliefs to children as "brainwashing".

Indoctrination is closer to the mark, if you use a loose definition of it, which means that it applies to many other things that parents teach to their children. It is essentially unavoidable.

I have also yet to see any argument that induces me to believe that significant harm is caused children by raising them within a particular belief frame-work. Again, such a thing seems rather unavoidable and religion seems to be singled out.

Additionally, no argument has convinced me that parents who do choose to impart their religious beliefs to their offspring are demonstrating an inferior form of parenting, and that with-holding such beliefs and teachings demonstrates a better form.

I think that sums up the three (or four) main things being argued.

 

[Me Myself]

I have yet to see anything that would induce me to label normal imparting of religious beliefs to children as "brainwashing".

Indoctrination is closer to the mark, if you use a loose definition of it, which means that it applies to many other things that parents teach to their children. It is essentially unavoidable.

I have also yet to see any argument that induces me to believe that significant harm is caused children by raising them within a particular belief frame-work. Again, such a thing seems rather unavoidable and religion seems to be singled out.

Additionally, no argument has convinced me that parents who do choose to impart their religious beliefs to their offspring are demonstrating an inferior form of parenting, and that with-holding such beliefs and teachings demonstrates a better form.

I think that sums up the three (or four) main things being argued.

Agreed on all points.

 

[Koldo]

You believe your evaluation of "if she said it on a note before committing suicide then it must be true" is an objective judgement?

Must be true?
It is more like ''It is very likely true'' if you want to get into that.

Sure, you can be adhering to an objective process. You seem to be doing so. Yet the process ebing objective does not mean the conclusion will be true.

Indeed.

If I tell you I will toss a coin everytime someone gave me an agfirmation and I will believe according to the coiflip, I have established an objective way of evaluating, but the premise (if the coin flips head then the statement is correct) is wrong, therefore the conclusion wont be objective in the sense that we cant know how true it will be.

The conclusion will be objective. It ''just'' won't be valid nor sound. These are the words you were looking for.

 

[Me Myself]

Must be true?
It is more like ''It is very likely true'' if you want to get into that.



Indeed.



The conclusion will be objective. It ''just'' won't be valid nor sound. These are the words you were looking for.

Do you have any psychological source saying that people who commit suicide tend to know which are the main issues that push em to do so?

Because on great emotional stress, we tend to make up %^*] on the fly.

 

[Koldo]

Because it forces one's self-worth to be predicated upon a codependent relationship, wherein one's self-worth is determined by how well someone else is doing.

I see nothing related to self-worth on that quote.

Norms for self-worth are marked by certain criteria identified by the mental and spiritual health communities.

And why must i abide by any existing community's take on it?

Most religions teach truth in a mythic framework.

In a certain way. To a certain extent.

Contradiction is irrelevant. Contradictions merely reflect the multifaceted nature of mythical framework, human imagination, and human intuitive thought.

Contradictions are completely relevant. When we have two opposing sayings being applied in the same context, at least one of them must be wrong.

 

[sojourner]

I see nothing related to self-worth on that quote.

Of course not! I'd expect nothing less. Your arguments get much of their steam from unrestrained skepticism.

And why must i abide by any existing community's take on it?

You don't have to. But you're going to be in an awfully lonely boat in this particular argument. Perhaps that's best for all of us...

Contradictions are completely relevant. When we have two opposing sayings being applied in the same context, at least one of them must be wrong.

No, it simply means that generalizations from limited perspectives are put forward as "the whole truth."