# Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2006, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920 "2006-10-02T02:22:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/621 "2006-11-13T03:52:09Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] I don’t care how you justify it. The fact is that you accused **Bible man** of cherry picking the scriptures to fulfill his needs with little regard for the truth. You do the same. That you may protest that you are less sure in your “certainties” does not change the fact that you cherry pick according to your selfish needs with little regard for truth, at least as far as I can see. [/QUOTE] I realize you can’t tell the difference. I have a high regard for the truth. It is that regard that keeps me honest enough to see my interpretation as just that. It is that regard that keeps me open to other reasonable interpretations. It is that regard that keeps me interested in new facts and ideas. Since I see the Bible as a book written edited and altered by men I really have no need to cherry pick to defend my beliefs. If it appears that way it is only to show folks like you and **Bibleman** that there are indeed other possible interpretations > [@](#): > > If you can’t articulate, or rather don’t have a consistent belief system, don’t go blaming others for failing to understand it. Fair enough. And you won’t mind if I choose to explain them to those who have the will and wit to actually understand. > [@](#): > > Oh, I’m sorry, so you were criticizing **Bible man’s** use of sarcasm for what reason? Whenever he was seriously and often politely challenged to defend statements he had presented as facts, that he couldn’t defend he often resorted to sarcasm and snide insults rather than actually defend his own assertions. When **Tom** warned him about insults he acted as if his beliefs were being attacked. I called BS on him because that’s what it was. > [@](#): > > It was accurate? How so? Please..I know you can read. It was accurate because I said **you missed the point** , and indeed you did. > [@](#): > > You challenged **Bible man** for not following the will of god, but you don’t even know what the will of god is. As much as god’s will is put down in the bible, you and other Christians here profess to follow it to a much lesser degree that **Bible man** from what I can tell. So what point am I missing? My quotes to Bibleman were offered because **he** sees the Bible as the inerrant word of God. I obviously don’t. I wasn’t challenging\*\* Bibleman\*\* for not following God’s will nor was I assuming I know it. I was suggesting to him there were other scriptures to consider, and other interpretations just as valid as his. I’m sure the point was lost on him and evidently it was lost on you as well. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry but again I think you are either being very inarticulate at describing a coherent belief system, or more likely from what I can tell, your belief system is incoherent. My belief system is hard to pin down since it is not in any one discipline but gathered from a lot of reading in various religions. Still, I’ve tried to explain parts of it to you and others. If you haven’t picked up on it by now then you probably won’t. I think that has something to do with your own vision of what a belief system is supposed to be, which is reflected by this comment from you > [@](#): > > So what is god’s will if it isn’t a collection of his laws and commandments? It’s a state of being rather than a set of rules to follow. If you don’t get that and it strikes you as meaningless double talk then so be it. > [@](#): > > You describe yourself as a non-Christian and what you say suggests the existence of a non-personal god that we are all equally part of, which I would say most resembles pantheism, though I don’t know if you consider inanimate objects, animals, etc. as part of god as well. However, sometimes you point to some outside “source” as being god or most of god which sounds mostly like deism. However what screws this up is that you have made a lot of conflicting comments about Jesus, him being no more godly then us, and also of him being above us in some way. You also seem to hold that his teachings are of inordinate value as compared to other humans, which I think is not only irrational from my perspective, but should be to yours as well, since the vast bulk of Jesus’ teachings are commands to worship a personal god, who you claim not to believe in and describe as a metaphor. You can pretend I’m not listening, and maybe even think that others understand you just fine, but I would wager money that no other doper could characterize your beliefs much better than I just did. Not to bad. I make no apologies for seeming conflicts in statements. Statements deal with particular conversations and subjects. Pulled from context they can easily seem to conflict with each other. Even though I use the terms God and Holy Spirit freely that doesn’t mean I consider them an outside source. I do not. You keep saying I see Jesus as no more holy than us which is true but incomplete. It also means we are as holy as he. If he was above us at all it was that he saw and lived the truth of our nature. Perhaps more aware or more awake is a better term than “above us” We don’t really know how much of what is attributed to Jesus in the bible he actually said, or if he said it in exactly that way. His references to worshipping what appears to be a personal God might be metaphors as well based on what he thought his audience could handle. He does say to his apostles that he has other things to tell them that they are not ready to bare. My beliefs are not stagnant. I try to examine them and refine them as new input and experience comes in. That’s why I was interested in what **Godzillatemple** and **Finnagain** had to offer. I found it useful and insightful. > [@](#): > > Well regardless of what you thought you were pointing out, I believe what I believe, because of evidence and reasons, not for what I wish is true. If I were believing something just because I wish it were true, then you should be criticizing me for that because I already got you to admit that believing something just because you wish it true is irrational here… > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7732841&postcount=119](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7732841&postcount=119) > > …and as such you yourself refute half of your Hebrews quote defining faith on your own. Ha..That’s a nice quote. Perhaps you should read it again before you claim any kind of victory. I think you missed something. I in fact did accuse you in detail of believing something without evidence. When I challenged you to present evidence for a specific belief you found some excuse to “clam up” as you put it. Ironic isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I might hold an irrational belief and am unaware of it. For the most part, my beliefs and opinions if stated, and definitely if argued, have been pretty well thought out and are held based evidence, logic, etc. Or at least you concept of it. What you don’t seem to acknowledge is your own bias and how it affects your view of the evidence and what you define as logic. You do however seem pretty capable of criticizing that trait in others. > [@](#): > > The “subjective” part is the part that you tagged onto the end of the verse and not what any Christian reads when they open their bible. Of course it is. It is also key to the point I was making. If you’re going to object or criticize at least address the point I made instead of one I didn’t make, if you expect a response. > [@](#): > > Certainty is what is called for in matters of faith to Christians be it objective or subjective. You seem to be arguing that by applying this to only subjective beliefs that this certainty is necessary, but I would argue again that even for subjective stuff (whatever you mean by that) that certainty in belief where evidence is lacking is still dumb. I don’t think it’s up to you to decide what is called for for Christians. So you’re not sure what I’m talking about but you are sure it’s dumb? How do you expect me to take that statement seriously? > [@](#): > > I don’t either. This “common type of faith” that you describe here seems most in line with what I would describe as tentative belief in things based on a given number of reasons, which is not irrational at all and does not fit with the definition of faith as put forth in the bible. That is why I would say we should not call this stuff faith, else we side track our conversation trying to make two differing concepts similar, and then different again, when more precise terminology, as I have called for, would have eliminated the confusion that **you** are having. I think it does fit the verse I quoted. The problem I see is that atheists like to agree with Sam Harris and remove the special protected status of religious faith but they also want to leave “religious” faith in a separate category so they can dump on it. They often do this by not separating the objective beliefs from the subjective ones. I’m trying to determine the common truth in how people religious or non religious form their belief systems. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone would argue that they are always reasonable or rational all the time. Neither do I but I’m speaking specifically of our belief systems. Both the believer or non believer go forward having faith in things hoped for. > [@](#): > > Believing without or in spite of serious questioning is **faith** , as is taught in the bible, and as most Christians will grudgingly admit. Questioning and changing beliefs based on evidence and logic is **reason**. They are different. I don’t agree with your interpretation of faith “as taught in the Bible”. I do acknowledge that many Christians are taught that. Not all hold or continue in that narrow view. It’s nice to know you thing my beliefs are reasonable and logical. Thanks > [@](#): > > I do not seek a common ground with ignorance. That’s fine if you’re willing and able to acknowledge your own. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/622 "2006-11-15T14:36:02Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I realize you can’t tell the difference. I have a high regard for the truth. [/quote] Not from where I’m sitting. > [@](#): > > Since I see the Bible as a book written edited and altered by men I really have no need to cherry pick to defend my beliefs. So your not Cherry picking when you say that Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven was within? > [@](#): > > Fair enough. And you won’t mind if I choose to explain them to those who have the will and wit to actually understand. Which, apparently is nobody, including yourself. > [@](#): > > Whenever he was seriously and often politely challenged to defend statements he had presented as facts, that he couldn’t defend he often resorted to sarcasm and snide insults rather than actually defend his own assertions. When **Tom** warned him about insults he acted as if his beliefs were being attacked. I called BS on him because that’s what it was. Yeah, sort of like when you’re challenged on a matter, rather than answering clearly and concisely you just use snide sarcasm to suggest your opponent does not have the “wit to actually understand.” > [@](#): > > My quotes to Bibleman were offered because **he** sees the Bible as the inerrant word of God. I obviously don’t. Do you think the words or Jesus as spoken, if not as recorded, were inerrant? > [@](#): > > I wasn’t challenging\*\* Bibleman\*\* for not following God’s will nor was I assuming I know it. I was suggesting to him there were other scriptures to consider, and other interpretations just as valid as his. I’m sure the point was lost on him and evidently it was lost on you as well. Well then you need to learn to write better, because as I read your statement it seems **really clear** that you were chastising bible man for being sarcastic (as you now admit to being) and saying that this went against the will of Jesus, to which you quoted a verse where Jesus said this endangered him of hell fire. See I’ll quote you from post #582: > [@](#): > > In this case you know full well that Tom’s comment to you was not about you quoting scriptures or your interpretation of them. It was about your need to include snide sarcastic comments which were subtle insults aimed at those who don’t agree with you. How do you think those kind of comments fit in with you being a representative for Jesus? While deciding consider this. > > “Matt 15:8 These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.” > and “Matt 7: 21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” > [@cosmosdan](#): > > My belief system is hard to pin down since it is not in any one discipline but gathered from a lot of reading in various religions. Still, I’ve tried to explain parts of it to you and others. If you haven’t picked up on it by now then you probably won’t. I think that has something to do with your own vision of what a belief system is supposed to be, which is reflected by this comment from you No I think your belief system is still just incoherent new age mush. > [@](#): > > It’s a state of being rather than a set of rules to follow. If you don’t get that and it strikes you as meaningless double talk then so be it. Define “state of being” and how a person of a good state of being behaves. Can a person in a good state of being do whatever he wishes? Rob banks, rape women, kill children, cheat on his taxes? > [@](#): > > Not to bad. I make no apologies for seeming conflicts in statements. Statements deal with particular conversations and subjects. Pulled from context they can easily seem to conflict with each other. Even though I use the terms God and Holy Spirit freely that doesn’t mean I consider them an outside source. I do not. When you use the terms “God” and “Holy Spirit” what exactly do you mean? > [@](#): > > You keep saying I see Jesus as no more holy than us which is true but incomplete. It also means we are as holy as he. If he was above us at all it was that he saw and lived the truth of our nature. Perhaps more aware or more awake is a better term than “above us” What makes you think he saw and lived the truth of our nature better than us, or well, me? What makes you think he was more awake than Jim Jones or David Koresh? > [@](#): > > We don’t really know how much of what is attributed to Jesus in the bible he actually said, or if he said it in exactly that way. His references to worshipping what appears to be a personal God might be metaphors as well based on what he thought his audience could handle. He does say to his apostles that he has other things to tell them that they are not ready to bare. So you think Jesus was a big liar? So you think the “kingdom of god is within” quote might just be a metaphor? > [@](#): > > Ha..That’s a nice quote. Perhaps you should read it again before you claim any kind of victory. I think you missed something. What did I miss. I got you to admit (and it took a while) that believing in something that you wish to be true is irrational. Which, as I said, undoes half your Hebrew’s quote. I think you also admitted that it’s irrational to believe things just because you are told they are true isn’t good either, which goes a long way towards undoing the other half. > [@](#): > > I in fact did accuse you in detail of believing something without evidence. When I challenged you to present evidence for a specific belief you found some excuse to “clam up” as you put it. Ironic isn’t it? It’s not that ironic, when one sees that you started playing the game of asking but not answering, and deriding others for suggesting your silence was done out of weakness. Rather than I ironic I see it as, what’s good for the good is good for the gander. Also, as I told you then, I will be more than happy to answer your questions if you answer mine. To which it seems you thought the trade off would not be favorable to you. > [@](#): > > So you’re not sure what I’m talking about but you are sure it’s dumb? How do you expect me to take that statement seriously? I’m sure that having absolute certainty in something that you have little to no evidence for (and perhaps even evidence to the contrary) is dumb, whether it be objective or subjective. Whether it be about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus or the certainty of **Finnagain’s** future love. I expect you to either agree with me or refute me. > [@](#): > > I think it does fit the verse I quoted. The problem I see is that atheists like to agree with Sam Harris and remove the special protected status of religious faith but they also want to leave “religious” faith in a separate category so they can dump on it. “Religious” faith is worth dumping on. So much as a non religious person makes use of that same faith, they should be ragged on too. > [@](#): > > They often do this by not separating the objective beliefs from the subjective ones. I’m trying to determine the common truth in how people religious or non religious form their belief systems. Well, some form their beliefs based on evidence, logic, and reason. This, I say, is good. Some base their beliefs on authority, hope and well wishing, even when it contradicts what evidence, logic and reason would suggest are true. This, I say, is bad. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/623 "2006-11-15T15:14:20Z")
**Cosmos** and **Poly** , my apologies, I’ve been busy as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I’ll respond more this evening to your thorough and polite posts. May I humbly suggest that we work to get the thread back on track, and ignore discusison of who is or is not being “dumb” ? We’ve got a perfectly good Pit for that, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/624 "2006-11-15T18:17:55Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] Not from where I’m sitting. [/QUOTE] um yah…that’s what “you can’t tell the difference” means > [@](#): > > So your not Cherry picking when you say that Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven was within? nope. As I said. My point is not to “prove” anything about Jesus or my beliefs. It’s to show reasonable interpretations to those who only see one. > [@](#): > > Yeah, sort of like when you’re challenged on a matter, rather than answering clearly and concisely you just use snide sarcasm to suggest your opponent does not have the “wit to actually understand.” When you ask about the point I’m actually making rather than one I didn’t then you might get a clear response. When you imply I said or meant something that I didn’t say or imply, then I don’t see any need to defend that. > [@](#): > > Do you think the words or Jesus as spoken, if not as recorded, were inerrant? I really don’t get this question. All we have are his words sifted through many other people. When you down to the truth of it. We don’t even know that Jesus actually existed. As I tried to explain before. Jesus becomes an icon of what is going on inside us. That’s what I found significant about what GT and Finn was saying. > [@](#): > > Well then you need to learn to write better, because as I read your statement it seems **really clear** that you were chastising bible man for being sarcastic (as you now admit to being) and saying that this went against the will of Jesus, to which you quoted a verse where Jesus said this endangered him of hell fire. See I’ll quote you from post #582: Yes, and that fits perfectly with what I just explained to you. I wrote that because of what **Bibleman** believes about the Bible and Jesus, not because of what I believe about it. You certainly don’t believe in the Bible and use a similar technique when arguing with people who do, so whats so hard to understand about my explanation. > [@](#): > > No I think your belief system is still just incoherent new age mush. It definitely lacks a specific discipline. It started with the concept from the Bible James 1:5 If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to **all men** liberally" and “seek and you shall find” IMO all men from different religions who seek the truth with a sincere heart will begin to understand some basic truths. These are filtered through their own background, culture, etc. and those who then seek to translate their teachings. Buddha had a lot to offer and taught things very similar to Jesus 600 years before Jesus existed. I think Gandhi who was Hindu had similar concepts of God, as well as a few others. So I read various teachings to find what resonates within me, the common thread of truth cloaked within their teaching, because I believe they have something valid to offer. My beliefs and my own journey is completely my responsibility. What matters is what happens day to day as we interact with others. All the other tradition and rituals are merely window dressing. > [@](#): > > Define “state of being” and how a person of a good state of being behaves. Can a person in a good state of being do whatever he wishes? Rob banks, rape women, kill children, cheat on his taxes? State of being is what our primary motivation is. What we value and what moves us to make the choices we make and act as we do. Often those movers can be subconscious. The spiritual journey is to become more conscious and to make more conscious choices. It is also understanding the nature of our connection to others and what choices are not only best for us but for those we interact with as well. So God’s will would be lining up our primary motivation to something in harmony with life. IMO it’s about discovering the nature of love and truth. > [@](#): > > When you use the terms “God” and “Holy Spirit” what exactly do you mean? I don’t know exactly. Finding out constitutes the spiritual journey. But, not exactly, , God represents the source of love and truth. The ocean in which we are drops. The Holy Spirit is our common connection to that source. The inner voice that can guide us to become more aware of our true nature if we can learn to listen and have the courage and will to act on it’s guidance. > [@](#): > > What makes you think he saw and lived the truth of our nature better than us, or well, me? What makes you think he was more awake than Jim Jones or David Koresh? That is my image of him based on what I find in the NT and a few other sources. > [@](#): > > So you think Jesus was a big liar? I don’t equate his teaching method with lying. I also allow for the fact that the Bible was put together for political purposes as much as religious purposes. The books chosen and their wording were considered in part for those reasons. > [@](#): > > So you think the “kingdom of god is within” quote might just be a metaphor? Heck no. I believe I have golden streets inside my body. > [@](#): > > What did I miss. I got you to admit (and it took a while) that believing in something that you wish to be true is irrational. Which, as I said, undoes half your Hebrew’s quote. I think you also admitted that it’s irrational to believe things just because you are told they are true isn’t good either, which goes a long way towards undoing the other half. It seems you read the second sentence without comprehending how the first one > [@](#): > > Okay, if you leave it at just this question **without any other details** I’d say Yes. and the last one. > [@](#): > > Most people **do not** hold their religious /spiritual beliefs simply because of a wish. I don’t think that does anything to negate the Hebrews quote in the **subjective** way I meant it. I have repeatedly said that subjective evidence is valid evidence for the individual, which is also what I meant in the quote you linked to. > [@](#): > > It’s not that ironic, when one sees that you started playing the game of asking but not answering, and deriding others for suggesting your silence was done out of weakness. Rather than I ironic I see it as, what’s good for the good is good for the gander. Also, as I told you then, I will be more than happy to answer your questions if you answer mine. To which it seems you thought the trade off would not be favorable to you. As I said. You found an\*\* excuse \*\* to not answer. This is the same one. You tried to change the subject and redirect the conversation which is a common technique for you when things aren’t going your way. Then you simply refused to supply evidence for your stated belief when I wouldn’t play your change the subject game. What Jesus taught about marriage was totally irrelevant to the conversation we had started. It was neither favorable or unfavorable. > [@](#): > > I’m sure that having absolute certainty in something that you have little to no evidence for (and perhaps even evidence to the contrary) is dumb, whether it be objective or subjective. Whether it be about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus or the certainty of **Finnagain’s** future love. I expect you to either agree with me or refute me. I don’t agree with your interpretation of the Hebrews verse or your use of absolute certainty. > [@](#): > > “Religious” faith is worth dumping on. So much as a non religious person makes use of that same faith, they should be ragged on too. Which is why I pointed out that _you_ also believe things without evidence and because you simply want them to be true. > [@](#): > > Well, some form their beliefs based on evidence, logic, and reason. This, I say, is good. Some base their beliefs on authority, hope and well wishing, even when it contradicts what evidence, logic and reason would suggest are true. This, I say, is bad. I agree where religious beliefs deal with objective facts. We should consider the evidence in deciding what we believe. What you and other religion bashers fail to see is that much of religion and the spiritual journey is subjective. Yes many people confuse the two and cling to objective beliefs based on their subjective feelings. That may not be perfect but it is human. I see no reason to dump on it especially considering that those who criticize often fail to see they are doing the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920.md?page=31)