Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

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.

You still haven't given a good reason for this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, him. LewisnotMiller.

Not if I can snatch the microphone away from him. In that case I become the decider of all facts.

Just as each parent is the decider of fact vs. belief for his/her own children. It's why society sometimes butts heads with parents, when things get serious, when a parent's fact is that modern medicine isn't necessary to save their child, for example.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

So you'd be OK with it if the parent backed up 'God exists' with an ontological proof of god's existence... so the kid would have a reasonable and logical explanation for the teaching?

 

[Magic Man]

So you'd be OK with it if the parent backed up 'God exists' with an ontological proof of god's existence... so the kid would have a reasonable and logical explanation for the teaching?

If there was such a thing, yes. Unfortunately there isn't, which is why presenting it as a fact is a problem.

 

[Willamena]

Not if I can snatch the microphone away from him. In that case I become the decider of all facts.

Just as each parent is the decider of fact vs. belief for his/her own children. It's why society sometimes butts heads with parents, when things get serious, when a parent's fact is that modern medicine isn't necessary to save their child, for example.

No offense, but I'll take LewisnotMiller's word over yours. :}

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No offense, but I'll take LewisnotMiller's word over yours. :}

I think you're like everyone else: You'll only take your own word.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If there was such a thing, yes. Unfortunately there isn't, which is why presenting it as a fact is a problem.

Sure. You are the ultimate decider of all facts -- even whether or not the ontological arguments are rational. I knew that from the beginning.

 

[Willamena]

I think you're like everyone else: You'll only take your own word.

Yes. That's my take.

The facts are another matter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes. That's my take.

The facts are another matter.

My facts or your facts?

 

[Willamena]

My facts or your facts?

The facts.

I have a take on facts, and I have a take on beliefs. My narrative is not your narrative, you have your own take.

Your narrative, however, would have facts be meaningless in the face of beliefs.

My narrative wouldn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure. You are the ultimate decider of all facts -- even whether or not the ontological arguments are rational. I knew that from the beginning.

Nah, I'm not the ultimate decider. Objective review of the evidence using logic and reason is the ultimate decider. I'm just able to perform that review in most cases.

 

[Falvlun]

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



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.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

My question, of course, wasn't about those two specific beliefs. My question was "What is the difference between things that you think are acceptable to tell your children and which aren't?"

It still appears to me that the difference is "I believe that This is true, and I don't think That is true.* Therefore, This is allowed, but That isn't." You have denied this, but everything you have said-- particularly how you have decided to call acceptable things "facts" and unacceptable things "beliefs"-- fully supports this reading.

*You can, also of course, change this to be "I believe that This has good reasons to support it, but I don't think That has good reasons to support it. Therefore, This is allowed, but That isn't." "Good reasons" appears to be how you distinguish "fact" from "belief", and therefore determine "truth".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The facts.

I have a take on facts, and I have a take on beliefs. My narrative is not your narrative, you have your own take.

Your narrative, however, would have facts be meaningless in the face of beliefs.

My narrative wouldn't.

It's your perspective and I can honor that. But my perspective is that a person who believes in 'facts' is burdened with a terrible arrogance. Sometimes that arrogance is invisible to the fact-believer, as we often see here on the forum. It's not that a debater has interpreted the evidence. No, it's that objective rationality and logic have interpreted the evidence and the debater is merely observing what rationality and logic have decided.

Which is the same way that a literalist sees the Bible and God. He is not interpreting the Bible and forming an opinion about God's Will. No. He is merely observing God's obvious Will in the words which God has written.

It still takes me breath away sometimes, to realize that some people can be so oblivious to the workings of the human mind.

 

[Falvlun]

Nah, I'm not the ultimate decider. Objective review of the evidence using logic and reason is the ultimate decider. I'm just able to perform that review in most cases.

There's no such thing as objective review, unless you have access to some objective source outside of yourself.

Sure, we can agree that there are bad ways and better ways to go about reviewing evidence, but even that is a belief. It's just one we happen to agree on.

Heck, it will even be a belief over whether we decide that a particular piece of evidence is good or not.

And it will be a belief when we decide that there is enough of this evidence.

In regards to evidence, everyone has their own gauge of what they find convincing, what they find acceptable, and how much of it they need before they are willing to commit to a concept. Your claim that there is some standard, objective, set level for everyone seems rather naïve at best, and magical thinking at worst.

 

[Willamena]

But my perspective is that a person who believes in 'facts' is burdened with a terrible arrogance.

No. Just a lesser miracle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nah, I'm not the ultimate decider. Objective review of the evidence using logic and reason is the ultimate decider. I'm just able to perform that review in most cases.

I don't believe in magic. Sorry.

 

[Magic Man]

You are missing the forest for the trees.

My question, of course, wasn't about those two specific beliefs. My question was "What is the difference between things that you think are acceptable to tell your children and which aren't?"

I understand, and answered it after the first paragraph. I answered it using the specific example, but the thinking would be the same for other instances, too.

It still appears to me that the difference is "I believe that This is true, and I don't think That is true.* Therefore, This is allowed, but That isn't." You have denied this, but everything you have said-- particularly how you have decided to call acceptable things "facts" and unacceptable things "beliefs"-- fully supports this reading.

*You can, also of course, change this to be "I believe that This has good reasons to support it, but I don't think That has good reasons to support it. Therefore, This is allowed, but That isn't." "Good reasons" appears to be how you distinguish "fact" from "belief", and therefore determine "truth".

I'm still not quite sure how you're getting this. It's not about what I believe and don't believe.

1) The entire point was that in one case you can make a good, objective case for something. Not hitting your sister being wrong has reasoning behind it that's more than just "Because I said so". "God exists" really doesn't.

2) You're also talking about a supposed fact and a view of how to handle yourself/treat others. In the case of how to treat others, there is no absolute answer. With the existence of something, there is, even if we don't know it for sure yet. It's a question of fact: does X exist?

3) In that case, I can teach the kid that some people believe one thing and some believe another (which I've repeatedly said is fine). I can do the same for morality questions. I can teach the kid what different people believe.

 

[Falvlun]

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

And just to be pedantic, I changed it because "don't hit your sister" isn't a fact or a belief. It is just a command.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't believe in magic. Sorry.

OK, but next time, if you're going to respond to one of my posts, maybe say something relevant to what you're responding to.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your claim that there is some standard, objective, set level for everyone seems rather naïve at best, and magical thinking at worst.

I swear I posted my Msg #1776 below before I read this one of yours.

It seems like nothing so much as belief in magic.