Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[AmbiguousGuy]

It depends. Does it have enough evidence to be considered a fact?

Yes. In my opinion, it has enough evidence to be considered a fact.

No. In your opinion, it doesn't have enough evidence to be considered a fact.

So I ask you again: Is it a fact or is it just a belief?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes. In my opinion, it has enough evidence to be considered a fact.

No. In your opinion, it doesn't have enough evidence to be considered a fact.

So I ask you again: Is it a fact or is it just a belief?

It depends. Does it actually have enough evidence to be considered fact?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It depends. Does it actually have enough evidence to be considered fact?

You mean in God's Opinion?

If not God's, then in whose opinion must a thing have enough evidence to be considered fact?

 

[Curious George]

1) This doesn't change the fact that children need the shots, unless you want to run the risk of them getting stuff like polio.

2) You're more than welcome to explain to them the statistics and how the shots work. That's the whole point. You can explain to them the rationale behind the medicine. There is good reason to get the shots. It's not just a personal belief.



I've already given a defense that this hasn't responded to. I've already said I'm not a big fan of Santa as fact. However, it's still quite a bit different when you know they're going to grow out of it anyway. You can acknowledge that difference or ignore it, but it's still going to be there and still going to be significant.

1 there is no risk if children are not exposed or have a natural immunity

2 both medicine and vaccines are not 100% guarantees. Statistically medicine will help and statistically the vaccine will prevent a disease. These are the facts. So telling your children that the medicine will help or make them feel better is not a fact. The medicine could have no effect, or could have a worse effect such as side effects without benefit or an allergic reaction.

3 yeah, you gave an explanation for Santa by acknowledging that future teaching has a Retro effect on past teachings making what qualifies as immoral, under your beliefs, moral. If this is possible with Santa then it is possible with religion.

 

[Magic Man]

You mean in God's Opinion?

If not God's, then in whose opinion must a thing have enough evidence to be considered fact?

Not in someone's opinion; in reality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not in someone's opinion; in reality.

Pretty strange. So can you tell me who speaks for 'reality'?

If I say a thing is a fact and you say it's only a belief... which one is it in reality's opinion?

 

[Magic Man]

1 there is no risk if children are not exposed or have a natural immunity

What do you mean by "no risk"? There is plenty of risk, even if the particular child has a tiny chance of getting the disease.

2 both medicine and vaccines are not 100% guarantees. Statistically medicine will help and statistically the vaccine will prevent a disease. These are the facts. So telling your children that the medicine will help or make them feel better is not a fact. The medicine could have no effect, or could have a worse effect such as side effects without benefit or an allergic reaction.

This has nothing to do with anything. You're trying to use getting your kids their shots as an equivalent of teaching your kids that Christianity is mostly literally true. It's not equivalent.

3 yeah, you gave an explanation for Santa by acknowledging that future teaching has a Retro effect on past teachings making what qualifies as immoral, under your beliefs, moral. If this is possible with Santa then it is possible with religion.

No, it's not. That's the problem. Kids stop believing in Santa well before they're teenagers. No adults believe in Santa, so there is no culture of support for the belief that would make it hard for the kid to let go of it. Religious beliefs are expected to inform the kid's worldview for the rest of his life, and plenty of adults still believe them, making it difficult for the kid to break free of them.

 

[Magic Man]

Pretty strange. So can you tell me who speaks for 'reality'?

If I say a thing is a fact and you say it's only a belief... which one is it in reality?

It depends on whether the thing has enough evidence to be a fact.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by "no risk"? There is plenty of risk, even if the particular child has a tiny chance of getting the disease.



This has nothing to do with anything. You're trying to use getting your kids their shots as an equivalent of teaching your kids that Christianity is mostly literally true. It's not equivalent.



No, it's not. That's the problem. Kids stop believing in Santa well before they're teenagers. No adults believe in Santa, so there is no culture of support for the belief that would make it hard for the kid to let go of it. Religious beliefs are expected to inform the kid's worldview for the rest of his life, and plenty of adults still believe them, making it difficult for the kid to break free of them.

1. I mean no risk. It is a fact that there is a chance of exposure but it is also a fact that one was never exposed. I am saying that a kid does not need a shot if they are never exposed. We have no way of knowing, thus the fact that their is a chance they will be exposed. Acting on this fact we tell them they need their shots. But they only need it if they are exposed or do not have a natural immunity. Since needing the shot is contingent on an unknown fact, we cannot know that they need the shot. This is a belief.

2 no. I am trying to show that we do teach beliefs as facts. So if you want to maintain your argument, you should find a better way to distinguish it.

3 those are all variables that do not change the fact that we teach beliefs as facts.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It depends on whether the thing has enough evidence to be a fact.

See what I mean? I've never met anyone yet who could defend your position in debate.

Always the ducking of my direct question about it. The constant use of the passive voice. ("If it is decided that there is enough evidence to determine it's a fact....")

The thing is, Pat Robertson thinks just like you do. He doesn't want his kids taught your unproven belief in evolution, while you don't want your kids taught his unproven belief in creatiionism.

You both know what is true. You both can easily sort facts from non-facts. And neither of you wants 'beliefs' taught to your kids. Only the facts.

I find it seriously unthoughtful.

 

[Magic Man]

1. I mean no risk.

But to whom? It's a fact that if people stop getting some vaccines for their kids, the things those vaccines are supposed to prevent will come roaring back. It's possible that not getting one particular kid a vaccine won't cause any harm, but that doesn't contradict the idea of getting shots for your kids.

Acting on this fact we tell them they need their shots. But they only need it if they are exposed or do not have a natural immunity. Since needing the shot is contingent on an unknown fact, we cannot know that they need the shot. This is a belief.

Not exactly. See above.

2 no. I am trying to show that we do teach beliefs as facts. So if you want to maintain your argument, you should find a better way to distinguish it.

This is what I said. You're trying to equate this with teaching religious beliefs. Getting your kids shots isn't "teaching beliefs as facts". As I've said multiple times and you've ignored, you could simply explain the reasoning to your kid. It wouldn't be that hard.

3 those are all variables that do not change the fact that we teach beliefs as facts.

Sure, a lot of people do teach beliefs as facts to their kids, and I disagree with that method of parenting.

 

[Magic Man]

See what I mean? I've never met anyone yet who could defend your position in debate.

Well, now you have.

Always the ducking of my direct question about it. The constant use of the passive voice. ("If it is decided that there is enough evidence to determine it's a fact....")

The thing is, Pat Robertson thinks just like you do. He doesn't want his kids taught your unproven belief in evolution, while you don't want your kids taught his unproven belief in creatiionism.

You both know what is true. You both can easily sort facts from non-facts. And neither of you wants 'beliefs' taught to your kids. Only the facts.

I find it seriously unthoughtful.

I think the issue here is a lack of understanding of what makes facts. It's pretty easy to distinguish between a fact and a belief once you have that simple and basic understanding. Opinions don't matter when determining facts. Facts are things that have been proven to be true. Proof requires evidence at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

For instance, "Yahweh exists" is a belief because there is just as much evidence for the belief "Allah exists" or "Zeus exists", etc. There is no proof for the claim. In contrast, "Humans exist" is a fact because we have more than enough evidence to prove it, since we are all humans and we exist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, now you have.

Nah. People who can defend their position in debate never duck direct questions.

I think the issue here is a lack of understanding of what makes facts. It's pretty easy to distinguish between a fact and a belief once you have that simple and basic understanding. Opinions don't matter when determining facts. Facts are things that have been proven to be true.

See what I mean? Hiding in the passive voice. It's usual for those who try to defend the existence of facts.

Have been proven to be true. Goodness. Anything but answer my direct question.

If I say it's a fact, and you say it's only a belief, is it a fact or is it a belief?

Scariest question in all of philosophy, I often think. There is no way you'll bring yourself to actually answer it. I can see that now.

Proof requires evidence at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure. And Magic Man is the ultimate and final judge of whether all reasonable doubt has been stripped away such that a thing may be declared a 'fact.'

Unless Pat Robertson is controlling the microphone at the moment, I mean.

For instance, "Yahweh exists" is a belief because there is just as much evidence for the belief "Allah exists" or "Zeus exists", etc. There is no proof for the claim. In contrast, "Humans exist" is a fact because we have more than enough evidence to prove it, since we are all humans and we exist.

If you ever feel ready to answer my direct questions about this issue, let me know.

 

[Magic Man]

Nah. People who can defend their position in debate never duck direct questions.

Very true, but not a counter to my claim.

See what I mean? Hiding in the passive voice. It's usual for those who try to defend the existence of facts.

Have been proven to be true. Goodness. Anything but answer my direct question.

If I say it's a fact, and you say it's only a belief, is it a fact or is it a belief?

Scariest question in all of philosophy, I often think. There is no way you'll bring yourself to actually answer it. I can see that now.

I guess this is the part where I should realize you're not out for an honest discussion and cease trying to get through to you, huh?

Sure. And Magic Man is the ultimate and final judge of whether all reasonable doubt has been stripped away such that a thing may be declared a 'fact.'

This is a common tactic: "Oh, and you're the ultimate judge of that?". It doesn't work here just like it never works. The ultimate judge of whether something is a fact is whether there is enough evidence to prove it. I don't make that determination, reason and logic do.

If you ever feel ready to answer my direct questions about this issue, let me know.

Already have. If you ever feel ready for an honest conversation, let me know.

 

[Curious George]

But to whom? It's a fact that if people stop getting some vaccines for their kids, the things those vaccines are supposed to prevent will come roaring back. It's possible that not getting one particular kid a vaccine won't cause any harm, but that doesn't contradict the idea of getting shots for your kids.



Not exactly. See above.



This is what I said. You're trying to equate this with teaching religious beliefs. Getting your kids shots isn't "teaching beliefs as facts". As I've said multiple times and you've ignored, you could simply explain the reasoning to your kid. It wouldn't be that hard.



Sure, a lot of people do teach beliefs as facts to their kids, and I disagree with that method of parenting.

That is not quite how vaccines work. They come roaring back because of exposure. If your kid was never exposed. Not getting a shot does not cause the resurgence of a virus without exposure.

No, getting shots or medicine is not "teaching belief" but what you say to the kid to get them to cooperate is. Sure there is valid reasoning, but we do not go into detailed conversations that will fly above our children's heads. But if you are using this valid reasoning, despite the fact that it is not employed, then the issue is either rationality or necessity as I said yesterday or the day before. However the issue is not teaching children beliefs as facts because we without question do teach beliefs as facts.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I guess this is the part where I should realize you're not out for an honest discussion and cease trying to get through to you, huh?

Honest discussers answer direct questions.

The ultimate judge of whether something is a fact is whether there is enough evidence to prove it. I don't make that determination, reason and logic do.

OK. I can't force you to answer.

But meanwhile -- since I am the most powerful logician in the history of life -- my determinations will stand as facts while yours and Pat Robertson's must only be considered beliefs.

So please don't disagree with me about what should be taught to the children. They should only be taught facts, not beliefs.

 

[Magic Man]

That is not quite how vaccines work. They come roaring back because of exposure. If your kid was never exposed. Not getting a shot does not cause the resurgence of a virus without exposure.

Except it is how they work, which is why we have seen huge increases in cases of polio in some areas due to parents not vaccinating their kids.

No, getting shots or medicine is not "teaching belief" but what you say to the kid to get them to cooperate is. Sure there is valid reasoning, but we do not go into detailed conversations that will fly above our children's heads. But if you are using this valid reasoning, despite the fact that it is not employed, then the issue is either rationality or necessity as I said yesterday or the day before. However the issue is not teaching children beliefs as facts because we without question do teach beliefs as facts.

Yes, some people teach beliefs as facts, and I don't think they should. I thought that part was established.

 

[Magic Man]

So please don't disagree with me about what should be taught to the children. They should only be taught facts, not beliefs.

Almost. They should be taught both, but each should be taught as what it is.

 

[Curious George]

Except it is how they work, which is why we have seen huge increases in cases of polio in some areas due to parents not vaccinating their kids.



Yes, some people teach beliefs as facts, and I don't think they should. I thought that part was established.

Okay, please explain how you can have resurgence without exposure.

Really you do not think a person should tell a kid that a medicine will make them feel better?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Almost. They should be taught both, but each should be taught as what it is.

But logic and reason have determined that all of my facts are actually facts.

So I have no need to teach my children beliefs. I'll just teach them the facts.

If you would like to teach your kids only facts, you are welcome to ask me to sort the facts from the beliefs for you. Maybe I should write a fact textbook?

It is good to be the Master of Facts and not to have to worry that I could accidentally be teaching a belief as a fact.