Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Willamena]

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.

That's how it's leading. The answer you are looking for is inherent in the very phrasing of the question.

Some of us do believe in 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.

And we'd all know what form your answer would take from the phrasing of the question.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

The blank would be filled in by "the evidence", as I've said multiple times.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's how it's leading. The answer you are looking for is inherent in the very phrasing of the question.

Some of us do believe in truth.

What can I say. If you want to believe what you want to believe, then it's hard for me to understand what you'd be doing in a debate forum. But maybe that's just me. I'm interested in destroying any of my beliefs which don't stand up to examination, so I will answer any worldview question asked of me. If you ask me why I won't stop beating my wife, I won't duck that question. I'll just answer it. I have no fear of 'leading questions.' For me, integrity of thought is the game. Not protection of (current) thought.

I'm not claiming that's a superior attitude or anything, but I will admit that question-ducking seems out of place in a debate forum.

And we'd all know what form your answer would take from the phrasing of the question.

Yep. If I ask you who stole the last of the ice cream, I'd be looking for an answer in the form of a name.

If you think no one stole the last of the ice cream, you could answer 'no one.'

Then we could proceed with our discussion.

But if you answer, "Ice cream's existence is controlled by forces outside of ourselves," then I would figure you were ducking my question and I'd work to get a straight answer.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The blank would be filled in by "the evidence", as I've said multiple times.

Hehehe... I knew you would find a way to duck it again.

The evidence speaks to you. A disembodied voice comes to you from On High. "I am The Evidence!" it proclaims. "And I assert that this matter is belief rather than fact!"

Oh my.

So many undeclared prophets of God in our world. I hardly see how there's room for them all.

 

[Magic Man]

Hehehe... I knew you would find a way to duck it again.

Nope, no ducking. I answered the question yet again. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

 

[Willamena]

What can I say. If you want to believe what you want to believe, then it's hard for me to understand what you'd be doing in a debate forum. But maybe that's just me. I'm interested in destroying any of my beliefs which don't stand up to examination, so I will answer any worldview question asked of me. If you ask me why I won't stop beating my wife, I won't duck that question. I'll just answer it. I have no fear of 'leading questions.' For me, integrity of thought is the game. Not protection of (current) thought.

I'm not claiming that's a superior attitude or anything, but I will admit that question-ducking seems out of place in a debate forum.

Believing and wanting to believe are different things.

Spotting a fallacy isn't the same as ducking it.

Yep. If I ask you who stole the last of the ice cream, I'd be looking for an answer in the form of a name.

If you think no one stole the last of the ice cream, you could answer 'no one.'

Then we could proceed with our discussion.

But if you answer, "Ice cream's existence is controlled by forces outside of ourselves," then I would figure you were ducking my question and I'd work to get a straight answer.

Whether something is a fact isn't dependent on you or me--that's in the basic meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with the a world outside ourselves.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope, no ducking. I answered the question yet again. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

Don't beat yourself up about it. As I say, it really is the scariest question in all of philosophy.

Anyway, according to your answer, any parent may teach/indoctrinate anything he likes to his children. All he has to do is claim that 'the evidence' declares it to be a fact rather than a belief.

So you seem to have destroyed your own position.

 

[Me Myself]

No statistical evidence so far that raising your children to be religious causes them any harm.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Believing and wanting to believe are different things.

Spotting a fallacy isn't the same as ducking it.

Calling my question a fallacy isn't the same as my question being a fallacy.

It's not. It's just a scary question for those who believe that they can sort 'belief' from 'fact'. It causes cognitive dissonance in those people, which is why they literally can't force themselves to answer it.

 

[Magic Man]

Anyway, according to your answer, any parent may teach/indoctrinate anything he likes to his children. All he has to do is claim that 'the evidence' declares it to be a fact rather than a belief.

So you seem to have destroyed your own position.

Nope. Then the parent would have to present the evidence. If there is in fact sufficient evidence, then yes, it's fine. If not, then nope. For instance, if the parent declares they have evidence that the Christian god exists, and the evidence they present is "He spoke to me", that's obviously not enough evidence for the belief to be considered fact.

 

[Magic Man]

No statistical evidence so far that raising your children to be religious causes them any harm.

You still on this? I guess I'm glad you're secure in your belief, even if it is to the point of ignoring any arguments you don't like.

 

[psychoslice]

No statistical evidence so far that raising your children to be religious causes them any harm.

I suppose these statistics have come from religious people, they will say anything to protect their beliefs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope. Then the parent would have to present the evidence. If there is in fact sufficient evidence, then yes, it's fine. If not, then nope.

You seem almost serious. It's quite curious. As if you really can't see that all evidence needs a human judge.

An extraordinary position -- if you really believe it and aren't just making a knee-jerk defense.

For instance, if the parent declares they have evidence that the Christian god exists, and the evidence they present is "He spoke to me", that's obviously not enough evidence for the belief to be considered fact.

It's not?

Right. Because you say so. Because Magic Man declares that 'The Evidence' sides with him and opposes the parent.

Goodness.

By the way, notice how you are still hiding in the passive voice?

The belief is not considered fact. The Bible is considered the greatest Book in all History. Jesus is considered a god on earth. AmbiguousGuy is considered the smartest and prettiest guy in all the land!

 

[Magic Man]

You seem almost serious. It's quite curious. As if you really can't see that all evidence needs a human judge.

An extraordinary position -- if you really believe it and aren't just making a knee-jerk defense.



It's not?

Right. Because you say so. Because Magic Man declares that 'The Evidence' sides with him and opposes the parent.

Goodness.

By the way, notice how you are still hiding in the passive voice?

The belief is not considered fact. The Bible is considered the greatest Book in all History. Jesus is considered a god on earth. AmbiguousGuy is considered the smartest and prettiest guy in all the land!

It's sad to me how many people lack a basic understanding of what it takes to think rationally. What's even worse is when they're so high on their own ignorance that they get snarky with someone else who's trying to point it out to them.

 

[Willamena]

Calling my question a fallacy isn't the same as my question being a fallacy.

There's that distinction of truth again, the latter being a fact. Just can't seem to get rid of it.

It's not. It's just a scary question for those who believe that they can sort 'belief' from 'fact'.

Yet, you seem to utilize the distinction quite well.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's sad to me how many people lack a basic understanding of what it takes to think rationally. What's even worse is when they're so high on their own ignorance that they get snarky with someone else who's trying to point it out to them.

Thanks for trying to point out my own ignorance to me by refusing to answer my simple question. It's an interesting gambit.

 

[ChristineES]

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

The problem with that stance is just about everything we teach is either a belief, a theory, etc. There are very, very few facts with a plethora of beliefs. And most people, as it has been pointed out, believe that their beliefs are facts.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's that distinction of truth again, the latter being a fact. Just can't seem to get rid of it.


Yet, you seem to utilize the distinction quite well.

I'm sorry, but I really can't make sense of either of your comments.

If you're claiming that I utilize the distinction between fact and belief quite well, you'd be mistaken, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Willamena]

I'm sorry, but I really can't make sense of either of your comments.

If you're claiming that I utilize the distinction between fact and belief quite well, you'd be mistaken, I'm pretty sure.

It's okay.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem with that stance is just about everything we teach is either a belief, a theory, etc. There are very, very few facts with a plethora of beliefs. And most people, as it has been pointed out, believe that their beliefs are facts.

1) That's why I said we should teach each one according to what it is. Teach facts as facts; teach beliefs as beliefs. Although I think you're underestimating how many facts there are.

2) Yes, a lot of people do believe their beliefs are facts, and that's something that would be nice to do away with.