Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Willamena]

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.

It sounds nice in theory. But "teaching facts and facts and beliefs as beliefs" makes about as much sense as deliberately wanting to undermine everything you actually believe in.

 

[Magic Man]

It sounds nice in theory. But "teaching facts and facts and beliefs as beliefs" makes about as much sense as deliberately wanting to undermine everything you actually believe in.

Not really. If you really believe in it, I'd think you could make a good case for it.

 

[Willamena]

Not really. If you really believe in it, I'd think you could make a good case for it.

If you can't, then it's no belief of yours.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

Which belief? You believe raising kids on the religion of the oarents is harmful to them.

You have pesented no Statistical evidence about this, just isolated radical cases.

With isolated radical cases I can tell you that even walking is dangerous.

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

Which statistics? I am saying no one has yet presented any study sang raising yours kids with your religion is harmful.

 

[Me Myself]

It sounds nice in theory. But "teaching facts and facts and beliefs as beliefs" makes about as much sense as deliberately wanting to undermine everything you actually believe in.

Pretty much.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And most people, as it has been pointed out, believe that their beliefs are facts.

Hey, you shouldn't teach your beliefs to your kids. That's brainwashing. But it's OK to teach my facts to your kids. That's just education!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

So you define "dangerous" as "more than zero risk"? Why?

 

[Me Myself]

So you define "dangerous" as "more than zero risk"? Why?

Do you think I define it as so or have you considered I may be giving examples to Magic Man about what he is doing when he says he has given "evidence" that bringing kids up with your religion is harmful?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

LewisnotMiller

There ya go. Problem solved.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

LewisnotMiller

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

It is the answer which everyone holds in his heart, though many are too shy to say aloud.

Who is the ultimate judge of fact vs. belief?

Me, of course.

Obviously I am the one.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not necessary to indoctrinate children, unless you use an unnecessarily broad definition of the word "indoctrinate". Even if you want to consider things like "Don't hit your sister" indoctrination, it's still not the same as religious or political indoctrination.

This is the part I don't understand. What precisely is the difference between "don't hit your sister because it's wrong" and "God exists"?

The only relevant difference I really see is that you (and I, for that matter) believe that the former is true, and the latter is not.

And yet you vehemently denied that your beliefs regarding the truth of the statements was the differentiating factor.

So what is?

 

[Willamena]

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

It is the answer which everyone holds in his heart, though many are too shy to say aloud.

I knew it all along.

Who is the ultimate judge of fact vs. belief?

Me, of course.

No, him. LewisnotMiller.

 

[Me Myself]

Here's the bottom line:

It's not necessary to indoctrinate children, unless you use an unnecessarily broad definition of the word "indoctrinate".

Your definition is broader than at of the oxford and the merriam webster.

Also, it is broader than common definition, as people in general wouldnt say raising your kids by your religion is indoctrination.

If you want a narrow definition, we could limit it to beliefs that harm the children.

This would actually be a helpful definition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think I define it as so or have you considered I may be giving examples to Magic Man about what he is doing when he says he has given "evidence" that bringing kids up with your religion is harmful?

I inferred the level of risk you consider "dangerous" from your examples.

 

[Me Myself]

I inferred the level of risk you consider "dangerous" from your examples.

You didnt answer my question, so I dont know what toake of this

The examples were clearly an hyperbole (at least I thought it was clear when I said walking is dangerous )

My point is to say raising your kids wi your religious is harmful you would need to give statistical evidence for it. Nt just a case you found somewhere were it was dangerous.

To the least, we need percentages.

 

[Curious George]

Your definition is broader than at of the oxford and the merriam webster.

Also, it is broader than common definition, as people in general wouldnt say raising your kids by your religion is indoctrination.

If you want a narrow definition, we could limit it to beliefs that harm the children.

This would actually be a helpful definition.

I missed that quote. Broad definition! The irony.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

It is the answer which everyone holds in his heart, though many are too shy to say aloud.

Yeah...I'm rarely accused of being shy. Or hubris.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah...I'm rarely accused of being shy. Or hubris.

I've often been accused of hubris, but only by inferior people who shouldn't even have the right to speak to someone of my profound intellect.

So of course I don't take the accusation seriously.

 

[Magic Man]

Do you think I define it as so or have you considered I may be giving examples to Magic Man about what he is doing when he says he has given "evidence" that bringing kids up with your religion is harmful?

Do you think those examples prove something?

 

[Magic Man]

This is the part I don't understand. What precisely is the difference between "don't hit your sister because it's wrong" and "God exists"?

I didn't say "don't hit your sister because it's wrong". I just said "don't hit your sister".

The only relevant difference I really see is that you (and I, for that matter) believe that the former is true, and the latter is not.

And yet you vehemently denied that your beliefs regarding the truth of the statements was the differentiating factor.

So what is?

Telling your child not to hit their sibling is a practical idea. It doesn't even have to be a way to teach them right and wrong. It could just be a way to keep from having one of your children get hurt, or just a way to keep from having the headache of dealing with kids fighting.

Now, if you are teaching your child that hitting their sister is wrong, that is still different from "God exists". You can teach them why hitting their sister is wrong. There is a logical and reasonable explanation for why acting that way is not a good way to go through life. It's not something they simply have to believe because that's what they're taught. It's also not a supposed fact about the world, but a view of how to act.