Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

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

Maybe you didn't understand what was said. If parents stop getting vaccines for their kids, the diseases they're supposed to prevent will make a comeback.

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

Not unless it will, no. I wouldn't recommend telling a kid that drinking salt water will cure their chicken pox, for instance.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Was verifiable evidence part of it?

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

Well, you'll probably still end up teaching them beliefs, too, so just make sure you know which are which.

 

[idav]

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

Oh goodness, are we to let down our children letting them know that their parents don't know everything. They might not believe it, or worse, they might believe some other adults opinions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Was verifiable evidence part of it?

Of course. All of my beliefs are actually facts, backed by verifiable evidence and justified by logic and reason.

So it would be a mistake for you or anyone else to disagree with me about the facts. That would just demonstrate your inability to use logic and reason properly.

Well, you'll probably still end up teaching them beliefs, too, so just make sure you know which are which.

Only the foolish can tell their facts from their beliefs. The deluded.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course. All of my beliefs are actually facts, backed by verifiable evidence and justified by logic and reason.

So it would be a mistake for you or anyone else to disagree with me about the facts. That would just demonstrate your inability to use logic and reason properly.

Well, as long as they are supported by enough verifiable evidence, it would be a mistake to disagree with them, although obviously this doesn't apply to all of your beliefs, nor does it apply to all of mine.

Only the foolish can tell their facts from their beliefs. The deluded.

I believe you meant "Only the foolish cannot tell their facts from their beliefs. The deluded".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, as long as they are supported by enough verifiable evidence, it would be a mistake to disagree with them, although obviously this doesn't apply to all of your beliefs, nor does it apply to all of mine.

You still seem confused. I finally got you to say who decides what is a fact and what isn't. You declared that 'logic and reason' make that decision.

But since I am the absolute master of logic and reason, it means that all of my beliefs are actually facts. If you disagree with me, you are simply demonstrating your inability to properly use logic and reason.

Sorry. I know that might bite a little.

I believe you meant "Only the foolish cannot tell their facts from their beliefs. The deluded".

Nah. Only the deluded know the truth of things. We wise guys understand our own fallibility.

 

[Magic Man]

You still seem confused. I finally got you to say who decides what is a fact and what isn't. You declared that 'logic and reason' make that decision.

But since I am the absolute master of logic and reason, it means that all of my beliefs are actually facts. If you disagree with me, you are simply demonstrating your inability to properly use logic and reason.

Sorry. I know that might bite a little.

I'm just wondering how long you can continue to spew this nonsense.

Nah. Only the deluded know the truth of things. We wise guys understand our own fallibility.

Which part of knowing the difference between fact and belief implies to you an inability to acknowledge one's fallibility?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm just wondering how long you can continue to spew this nonsense.

I think I'm done. Our exchange has proven that I can teach anything I want to the kids (since all of my beliefs are actually facts and you agree that facts may be taught but not beliefs.)

But you should not teach your beliefs to the children, not unless you ask me first whether they are facts or only beliefs.

Which part of knowing the difference between fact and belief implies to you an inability to acknowledge one's fallibility?

Logic and reason imply your inability to acknowledge your fallibility.

 

[Mycroft]

It is morally and ethically wrong to furnish children with a belief system presented as fact when they have no way of knowing, or being able to select, what actually is fact from what you tell them is fact. It's a violation of the child's innocence and is, therefore, child abuse.

 

[Curious George]

Maybe you didn't understand what was said. If parents stop getting vaccines for their kids, the diseases they're supposed to prevent will make a comeback.



Not unless it will, no. I wouldn't recommend telling a kid that drinking salt water will cure their chicken pox, for instance.

1) would you tell your kids that?

2) I am not talking about things which are certain or even likely to have no effect on a illness. I am talking about taking medicine which is designed specifically to treat a condition.

 

[Curious George]

It is morally and ethically wrong to furnish children with a belief system presented as fact when they have no way of knowing, or being able to select, what actually is fact from what you tell them is fact. It's a violation of the child's innocence and is, therefore, child abuse.

Are you distinguishing belief from belief system here, or are you also saying that to teach children beliefs as facts is wrong.

If you are so distinguishing belief from belief system, what constitutes a belief system?

 

[Mycroft]

Are you distinguishing belief from belief system here, or are you also saying that to teach children beliefs as facts is wrong.

If you are so distinguishing belief from belief system, what constitutes a belief system?

Sorry, I should have said religious belief system!

But yes, to teach it as a fact before they're capable of making that determination for themselves is immoral and unethical.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, I should have said religious belief system!

But yes, to teach it as a fact before they're capable of making that determination for themselves is immoral and unethical.

So it is okay to teach non religious belief systems as facts?

What constitutes a religious belief system?

 

[Mycroft]

So it is okay to teach non religious belief systems as facts?

What constitutes a religious belief system?

Let's say you teach your kids christianity. That god created the universe and everything in it and that jesus came again to die for one's sins. A kid has no way of knowing the difference between a verifiable fact and what you're telling them. But they do trust their parents to care for their wellbeing so, ultimately, believe that what they're being told is true. This is a morally and ethically reprehensible thing to do and should, I believe, be punishable by law. Responsible parents should wait until a child has a good understanding of the world and being able to think for itself before discussing their beliefs or teaching them whilst presenting all other viewpoints and allowing the child to make its own determination.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So it is okay to teach non religious belief systems as facts?

What constitutes a religious belief system?

That is, of course, the essential question.

I find that the easiest fix is to teach the little tykes anything we like and then simply deny that we are teaching a 'religious belief system.'

I only teach my kids actual facts.

 

[Curious George]

Let's say you teach your kids christianity. That god created the universe and everything in it and that jesus came again to die for one's sins. A kid has no way of knowing the difference between a verifiable fact and what you're telling them. But they do trust their parents to care for their wellbeing so, ultimately, believe that what they're being told is true. This is a morally and ethically reprehensible thing to do and should, I believe, be punishable by law. Responsible parents should wait until a child has a good understanding of the world and being able to think for itself before discussing their beliefs or teaching them whilst presenting all other viewpoints and allowing the child to make its own determination.

But this is for "religious " beliefs. How are they distinguished from other beliefs?

 

[Me Myself]

I think it's less bad than God because it's something you expect them to grow out of relatively early.



Statistical evidence? I don't know. I have plenty of evidence that it is, though, namely the fact that you're imposing your views on someone else simply because you have power over them.

Tell them the views as they see them as all parents do, so you dont have any evidence that it is harmful to do so with religion?

Merely your opinion then?

 

[Magic Man]

I think I'm done. Our exchange has proven that I can teach anything I want to the kids (since all of my beliefs are actually facts and you agree that facts may be taught but not beliefs.)

Yet you still are confused as to what I'm saying. Interesting.

But you should not teach your beliefs to the children, not unless you ask me first whether they are facts or only beliefs.

I will only teach my beliefs to my children as beliefs, so luckily I don't have to worry about this little misunderstanding of yours.

Logic and reason imply your inability to acknowledge your fallibility.

Umm...huh?

 

[Magic Man]

1) would you tell your kids that?

Would I tell them what?

2) I am not talking about things which are certain or even likely to have no effect on a illness. I am talking about taking medicine which is designed specifically to treat a condition.

Then what's the issue? You can get them shots that are proven to work. You can tell them that whatever medicine they're taking will probably help them. You can also tell them that it's possible that the antibiotics they're taking won't help, but they should be tried, at least.

 

[Magic Man]

Tell them the views as they see them as all parents do, so you dont have any evidence that it is harmful to do so with religion?

Maybe you missed the parts of the thread where I did provide evidence, as did others.

Merely your opinion then?

Nope, and this would be clear had you been paying attention.