Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Yeah, I believe it's because you yourself are confused about it. I can't understand you if you can't understand you.

Try answering my question:

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it is only a belief... is that thing a fact or is it a belief?

If you could ever bring yourself to face and answer that question, I believe you might begin to understand yourself.

 

[Curious George]

Would I tell them what?



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.

Tell them that if people do not vaccinate the virus will come back.

Proven is misleading here. Is any medicine or vacine proven to work 100% of the time? Is there any proof that a vaccine is 100% necessary?

 

[Me Myself]

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

Statistical evidence? Yes, I missed it.

 

[Magic Man]

Try answering my question:

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it is only a belief... is that thing a fact or is it a belief?

If you could ever bring yourself to face and answer that question, I believe you might begin to understand yourself.

I've answered it multiple times. It's a fact if the thing has sufficient verifiable evidence. It's a belief if it doesn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Tell them that if people do not vaccinate the virus will come back.

At some point I would, sure, especially considering how big the antivax thing has become.

Proven is misleading here. Is any medicine or vacine proven to work 100% of the time? Is there any proof that a vaccine is 100% necessary?

Hmm... I could have sworn I mentioned that medicine might not work in a specific case, and that I even said you can tell your kid that. Maybe I just imagined saying it, though. But there is proof that at least some vaccines are 100% necessary, unless we want to have Polio outbreaks, for instance.

 

[Magic Man]

Statistical evidence? Yes, I missed it.

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with statistical evidence. I have provided evidence that religious indoctrination harms children.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with statistical evidence. I have provided evidence that religious indoctrination harms children.

So you dont have evidence then?

Because statistical evidence is the reasonable one to say a behaviouor is wrong.

Without it you hust have isolated cases that dont speak for themselves.

Finding specific cases were a given sport causes damage tells nothing if it is not statistical. Similarly with anything.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've answered it multiple times. It's a fact if the thing has sufficient verifiable evidence. It's a belief if it doesn't.

Amazing. You refuse to answer it even as you claim to answer it.

It really is the scariest question in all of philosophy. You are not the first to refuse to answer it or even to refuse to answer while simultaneously claiming to answer... although I'm still pretty amazed when people do that.

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it is only a belief... is that thing a fact or is it a belief?

 

[Magic Man]

So you dont have evidence then?

Hmm...maybe it's a reading comprehension problem?

Because statistical evidence is the reasonable one to say a behaviouor is wrong.

Why?

Without it you hust have isolated cases that dont speak for themselves.

Finding specific cases were a given sport causes damage tells nothing if it is not statistical. Similarly with anything.

So, the fact that indoctrination of religious beliefs results in harm to children isn't evidence to you. Got it.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure why you're obsessed with statistical evidence. I have provided evidence that religious indoctrination harms children.

Brittanie Cecil of 13 years old died from a puck deflected on a hockey game. So viewing sports is dangerous.

Lee Seung Seop died of fatigue for playing the videogame starcraft for 50 hours. So playing videogames is dangerous.

2007: Humberto Hernandez, a 24-year-old Oakland, California resident, was killed after being struck in the face by an airborne fire hydrant while walking. A passing car had struck the fire hydrant and the water pressure shot the hydrant at Hernandez with enough force to kill him. So walking outside is dangerous

 

[Magic Man]

Amazing. You refuse to answer it even as you claim to answer it.

It really is the scariest question in all of philosophy. You are not the first to refuse to answer it or even to refuse to answer while simultaneously claiming to answer... although I'm still pretty amazed when people do that.

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it is only a belief... is that thing a fact or is it a belief?

If you let me know which part of the answer you're having trouble with, maybe we could make some progress.

 

[Me Myself]

So, the fact that indoctrination of religious beliefs results in harm to children isn't evidence to you. Got it.

Where is the evidence? You havent shown any study. Saying "fact" before saying what you want to say isnt really helping.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Curious George]

At some point I would, sure, especially considering how big the antivax thing has become.



Hmm... I could have sworn I mentioned that medicine might not work in a specific case, and that I even said you can tell your kid that. Maybe I just imagined saying it, though. But there is proof that at least some vaccines are 100% necessary, unless we want to have Polio outbreaks, for instance.

No. No such proof exists. Proof exists that it is highly likely but not 100% necessary.

And is it wrong to tell your kid that the medicine will help, when the truth is that it is only highly likely that the medicine will help?

You made mention of the rational discussion in which we tell the kid about the medicine might work, and while it might not work we have to try. And I suppose one could do this, I find this laughable. First we are assuming the child has the ability to differentiate and understand this dialogue. Second, we are assuming that such a conversation would be necessary for every dialogue as all facts are contingent.

 

[idav]

I've answered it multiple times. It's a fact if the thing has sufficient verifiable evidence. It's a belief if it doesn't.

"Sufficient" can mean many different things to people. Some are easier to convince as their criteria would be less stringent.

 

[Magic Man]

Where is the evidence? You havent shown any study. Saying "fact" before saying what you want to say isnt really helping.

Where is your evidence?

Why bother? If you wanted to see it, you already would have.

 

[Magic Man]

No. No such proof exists. Proof exists that it is highly likely but not 100% necessary.

Proof of what?

And is it wrong to tell your kid that the medicine will help, when the truth is that it is only highly likely that the medicine will help?

Not really. Again, it all depends on the situation. If it's something that might not help them, you can explain that.

You made mention of the rational discussion in which we tell the kid about the medicine might work, and while it might not work we have to try. And I suppose one could do this, I find this laughable. First we are assuming the child has the ability to differentiate and understand this dialogue. Second, we are assuming that such a conversation would be necessary for every dialogue as all facts are contingent.

I'm not sure what the problem is. You're saying "Well, it's not 100% certain that this medicine will help this child in this case". Fine, so tell them or don't. I don't care. If you just want to tell them to take their medicine, go right ahead.

 

[Me Myself]

Why bother? If you wanted to see it, you already would have.

I am really rrying but I just dont see the link.

I also have been googling and I do not find any study saying there is harm on raising your children with reliigion.

If you find it, you may have a case, but if raising kids with religion does not harm them...

Well, I think people have a picture of harm when they pick the word "indoctrination" if there is no harm, then there is no indoctrination.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you let me know which part of the answer you're having trouble with, maybe we could make some progress.

Great! It's a very specific part, so it will be easy for you to fix. I'll even make it a fill-in-the-blank question, as follows:

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it it only a belief, then whether it is actually a fact or actually a belief depends on what _______ says it is.

This is exciting. I can't wait to see whose name you put into the blank.

 

[Willamena]

Great! It's a very specific part, so it will be easy for you to fix. I'll even make it a fill-in-the-blank question, as follows:

If I say a thing is a fact, while you say it it only a belief, then whether it is actually a fact or actually a belief depends on what _______ says it is.

This is exciting. I can't wait to see whose name you put into the blank.

Guy, the question is a leading one. It's no suprise that people would choose not to follow.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Guy, the question is a leading one. It's no suprise that people would choose not to follow.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean. How is it leading?

I do accept that people fear the knowledge of human fallibility and try to deny it by pretending it doesn't exist. That's why people refuse my question, I think. If they answer it, they'll have to admit that their 'knowledge' and 'facts' are merely personal opinion rather than Godly Truth.

But I think that's a positive admission and helps people to grow.

Anyway, if you ask me such a question, I'll simply answer it. Plainly. Directly. Even if I think it's a leading question. It's important to me that no question ever makes me flinch. Most especially in a debate forum.