# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/121 "2006-10-02T20:33:50Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] That’s fair enough, but if that is indeed the case, and that’s the place whereGod happens to reside, then we can say nothing about him, because we can know nothing about him. [/QUOTE] If you assume that science is the only way to “know” something. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/122 "2006-10-02T20:43:52Z")
[QUOTE=Dob] So… because I believe as my parents did, I am either wrong, or as others said, brainwashed. Nice way to start a debate! Start from a point of view that leaves no space for rational discussion. I actually expected nothing less from you, and everyone who thinks this is a reasoned well thought position, understands neither the definition of “well thought”, or “reasoned”. Cite? Who exactly is forcing you? What are they doing to you when you dont pray like them, or worship like them? What battle? [/QUOTE] First of all, that’s not what **badchad** said. He said “often” wrong. Brainwashed, yes…but not necessarily wrong (though in the case of religion and a belief in god,\* I\* think it is wrong). Hmmm…where should I start? I’m forced to make a statement regarding belief in god every time I buy something. The god reference being added into the pledge of allegiance. School vouchers. God space in public schools. Spending money to get some loser to remove the ten commandments from government buildings. I resent every bit of it. And I resent having to pay for it with my resented god money. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/123 "2006-10-02T20:43:56Z")
[QUOTE=Eonwe] Re: logic The problem with the “I believe in god A with specific properties that exclude belief in other gods, and my belief in god A leads me to disbelieve in god B” argument is that it is used as a reasoning why belief in god A leads to the logical conclusion that god B does not exist. The problem there is that if the only reason god B doesn’t exist (so you believe) is that it would contradict your belief in god A, then why did it make more logical sense to believe in god A and not god B in the first place? In this case the answer seems to be “because I chose to believe in god A, therefore other gods don’t exist.” All you are really saying is that other beliefs can’t be true merely because you hold a contradictory belief. “What I believe is true and other beliefs are false.” While this is probably an accurate description of what a lot of belief is, it doesn’t lead to any conclusions about anything. You and I can both use this ‘reasoning’ and come up with equally valid yet opposite conclusions about any number of things. [/QUOTE] There’s nothing wrong with the logic; the thing to remember about logic is that if it’s not stated, then it doesn’t matter to the argument. The argument simply makes the assertion that A is believed in, and then we move along from there. Your problem seems to be with whether one crazy assumption is good enough reason to dismiss another crazy assumption. The thing to keep in mind is, the person believing in god A doesn’t think it’s crazy to believe in god A. Maybe they have good reason to believe it. Maybe they have information you don’t have. Maybe God came down and talked with them personally. Maybe they hallucinated such a meeting. Maybe they were indocrinated as a child. Or maybe they just worked their way their through a combination of personal experiences and found information. Whichever; it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how they got it, once a person has acquired a strong belief in fact A, it’s reasonable to use it as a deciding factor in whether they believe or disbelieve fact B. They just have to remember that if they ever stop believeing fact A, they have to rethink fact B as well. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/124 "2006-10-02T20:51:14Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Please don’t assume because a person believes that there is divine influence in the universe, that we are uninformed about science. I simply feel that there is a level to which science does not reach. [/QUOTE] You are correct, and I apologize: My incorrect assumption was based on your words “physics mixed with coincidence & chance” which I mistakenly interpreted as an indication of a creationist bent. You have piqued my curiosity: I agree with you there is an area beyond which science cannot reach (or at least does not currently). But why must that area be inhabited by God, especially an involved God with a divine plan and (do I rightly assume) any particular interest in me as an individual? You say you believe wholeheartedly in evolution. How did you arrive at that belief? Chances are through a similar route to myself: by examining the evidence equally available to both of us. You seem to be saying your conclusion on the existence of God is likewise available to me… at least you’ve intimated as much when saying things like “God has already provided sufficient proof… look at creation.” I concede that I have no insight into what happened prior to the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a result, I have no basis to refute the assertion, “God started the Big Bang.” But after those first few nanoseconds, I see no reason to believe the hand of God was involved - there are other more compelling explanations. Let’s grant that God started the Big Bang in such a way that the cosmos formed with particular configurations allowing for Earth to sprout life, and that life to evolve…etc..etc… Even if this was true, how is that relevant to what I do with my life today? Look at the CN Tower. Impressive creation, no doubt. If I were so inclined, I could search for the names of the chief architect and unequivocally identify him or her. I could send letters of thanks and admiration with assurance they would be received. I could receive replies and know they are authentic. If it was important for me to spread the news, I could introduce anyone I meet with unequivocal evidence as to the identity of the architect along with iron-clad metods for their own personal contact. How do I go about looking up the creator of the universe, and by what mechanism do I express my admiration? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/125 "2006-10-02T20:55:03Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] If you assume that science is the only way to “know” something. [/QUOTE] I agree with\*\* Voyager\*\*: > [@](#): > > I’ll take “know” to mean be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, to avoid the extreme skeptic issue. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/126 "2006-10-02T20:56:18Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] There’s nothing wrong with the logic; the thing to remember about logic is that if it’s not stated, then it doesn’t matter to the argument. The argument simply makes the assertion that A is believed in, and then we move along from there. Your problem seems to be with whether one crazy assumption is good enough reason to dismiss another crazy assumption. The thing to keep in mind is, the person believing in god A doesn’t think it’s crazy to believe in god A. Maybe they have good reason to believe it. Maybe they have information you don’t have. Maybe God came down and talked with them personally. Maybe they hallucinated such a meeting. Maybe they were indocrinated as a child. Or maybe they just worked their way their through a combination of personal experiences and found information. Whichever; it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how they got it, once a person has acquired a strong belief in fact A, it’s reasonable to use it as a deciding factor in whether they believe or disbelieve fact B. They just have to remember that if they ever stop believeing fact A, they have to rethink fact B as well. [/QUOTE] Gotcha. That makes sense. But, that logic does not hold up when explaining one’s beliefs to someone who does not share them. “Hey, I believe Jesus was the son of God.” “Well, sorry, but you’re wrong because I believe that he was just a prophet.” If a person starts arguing for the existance of god A and against the existance of god B, then using that sort of logic is non-productive and meaningless. Also, I doubt whether there are truly many people who don’t believe in god B _only_ because they already believe in god A. “oh, sorry, you should have gotten here last week. I didn’t believe in a god then, but god A came by first. So sorry. Come back when I have a crisis of faith.” ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/127 "2006-10-02T20:57:52Z")
Also, in order to avoid a hijack (though I find this conversation to be a good one), I’ve started a thread sprung from one of **begbert2** ’s comments [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=390655) (also Great Debates). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/128 "2006-10-02T21:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrong. [/QUOTE] Three wrongs make a right, yes? (Or was that three lefts?) As you surely noted, my purposes in this post were to refute the silly elitist position that atheism isn’t a religious belief (_regardless_ of which definition of atheism you were using), to correct the incorrect statement about circular logic, and to argue against atheists taking offense over being said to have a “belief system”, since doing so contributes nothing and merely clutters the debate. You seem not to contest the first or third points; and I have previously responded to the second. If you want a more peicewise reply to your response, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![mattwhittall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc79bd/32.png) [@mattwhittall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mattwhittall)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/129 "2006-10-02T21:07:51Z")
well i think the point hes trying to make is that being raised in an environment that encourages absolute faith without evidence is a pretty scary concept indeed. because if a person has the capacity to believe in something absolutely without a shred of proof. then they will be more likely to believe anything else without facts to back it up. vague political doubletalk nonsense for instance. as for the existence of god, well you can either look at it as, the universe is just here, no body necesarily created it, it just is. or that god made it. as for all the different religions, well they only came into existence relatively recently in the grand scheme of things. i mean christianity is only about 2000 years old obviously. so what happened to all the homo sapiens that existed prior to that? they all went to hell i guess. then you have to examine the fact that politics government and religion all went hand in hand until very recently although there is still alot of power in religion. i mean the catholic church pretty much was the government in some places. that was the first turn off for me, on religion. i was raised in a very religious home. then you have to consider the financial aspect of it, there is a huge amount of money in religion you cant deny that, look at the similarities between a great salesman, and a great preacher. look at the televangelists and how well they do. im just throwing these things out there, take a rational look and draw a conclusion. also if you need further proof, watch one of those programs where the televangelist cures some believer of whatever ailment he/she apparently has, and he touches their head and they fall down screaming and convulsing or whatever. i mean that is terrifying right there, they could be your neighbor, your boss, your childrens teacher, and there they are quivering on the ground having been cured of some alleged disease by a preacher. theyre also voters. welp anyway thats my 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/130 "2006-10-02T21:08:03Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] You do realize, I hope, that your extended family does not constitute an unbiased sample. [/QUOTE] Yes, of course, though my extended family doesn’t constitute the entirety of my experience in this regard. [QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] And that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. [/QUOTE] In a large enough sample I think it does. [QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] Some people just aren’t into critical thinking, or thinking for themselves. Maybe they don’t have the natural mental equipment for it; maybe they lack the education; maybe they just can’t be bothered. Maybe they don’t want to grow up. Such people would more likely be drawn to the more authoritarian, everything-spelled-out-for-you religions. [/QUOTE] I agree with all of this. [QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] And maybe that’s not such a bad thing, _provided the religion they follow is a benevolent one_. [/QUOTE] Is there such a thing? [QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] If they _have_ to follow something/someone, better an established, traditional, heart-in-the-right-place church than a charismatic cult leader or their own emptyheaded whims. [/QUOTE] I don’t care what beneficence is ascribed or attributed to a religion, its institutions, or its representatives, more harm than good has come from it, and an unbelievable amount of evil has been committed in its name throughout recorded history, continuing to this very day. I truly see no difference between what transpires in a “heart-in-the-right-place” church and a cult leader’s tent, other than the temperature and volume of the indoctrination. …and anyway abrogation is never a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/131 "2006-10-02T21:09:29Z")
[QUOTE=Eonwe] Gotcha. That makes sense. But, that logic does not hold up when explaining one’s beliefs to someone who does not share them. “Hey, I believe Jesus was the son of God.” “Well, sorry, but you’re wrong because I believe that he was just a prophet.” If a person starts arguing for the existance of god A and against the existance of god B, then using that sort of logic is non-productive and meaningless. Also, I doubt whether there are truly many people who don’t believe in god B _only_ because they already believe in god A. “oh, sorry, you should have gotten here last week. I didn’t believe in a god then, but god A came by first. So sorry. Come back when I have a crisis of faith.” [/QUOTE] Well, I could be wrong, but I think the posted that started this line of debate was merely stating why they wouldn’t believe in god B, for the purpose of refuting the “well, you believe in one silly idea, so why don’t you believe in all silly ideas” attack. I don’t believe they were proposing that athiests use their God as a reason for deciding things. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/132 "2006-10-02T21:10:54Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] I agree with\*\* Voyager\*\*: [/QUOTE] If that’s your only definition, then I don’t even “know” that my mother loves me…because the evidence I have for it would probably not stand up in a court of law as being “beyond a reasonable doubt.” ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/133 "2006-10-02T21:12:28Z")
**Eonwe** , Actually, the most relevant post would be this one: > [@VarlosZ](#): > > Call them what you want, but you do have a set of axioms and conclusions about the nature of the universe, and about the likelihood of the existence of a god, yes? When I say “beliefs,” that’s what I’m referring to. Of course you prefer your set of axioms and conclusions to the other guy’s – that’s why they’re yours. It seems like a bit of semantic slight of hand, however, to denigrate the other person’s set as mere “beliefs” while yours are … what, exactly? My point is this: you can use the same word to label your axioms and conclusions as well as your opponents’ without diminishing at all your ability to argue for the supremacy of your position. To do otherwise, in fact, tends to hinder meaningful discussion. Look at this thread, for example: more people (myself included) are arguing about how they want to use a word than about any of the actual issues themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/134 "2006-10-02T21:14:23Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] I won’t argue with your thesis as stated in the quote, **Skald the Rhymer** ; in fact I’ll heartily agree with it. What I take issue with, however, is your use of the words “pick a fight.” It is inaccurate–no, an outright lie–as well as being needlessly inflammatory and distracting. Moreover, you could just as easily have written “write a succinct OP.” Such behavior demonstates a desire to stir up shit, not a desire to change anyone’s mind What an asshole I’m being, huh, **Skald**? I’m starting to truly dislike all the posters like you who claim to have difficulty with **Badchad** ’s means of expression, which are simply colorful and direct, but whose real difficulty concerns the ideas he expresses. [/quote] Except that I have no difficulty with the ideas he expresses. In fact I agree with a number of them. I _specifically_ said that I agree with the thesis stated in the OP; my quarrel was with the use of the word 'brainwashed." I have a problem with stating arguments–at least those I have sympathy with–in such a fashion that they push people _away_ from the position supposedly being championed. As my best old ex-friend Donny used to say, “Words have meaning, and knowledge has consequences.” Here’s the definition of “brainwashing” from the American Heritage Dictionary: _Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs._ Now I have long since left the church of my youth. I am, in fact, fairly hostile to it, so much so that I feel obliged to point out my lack of objectivity whenever asked my opinion of that Church. But I wouldn’t call the religious indoctrination I underwent every Sunday of my youth “brainwashing,” though it was certainly unpleasant in many ways, any more than I’d call it “rape” if someone posted a story online describing a fictional sexual assault upon me. Because WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. According to **badchad** and a few others, I’m not really a Christian, because I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, or other miraculous happenings, but rather seek to model my moral behavior on the teachings exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount. I’d argue the point if I cared, but I don’t. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Badchad \*\*, as far as I’m concerned, is the truest Straight Doper I’ve seen here yet, who applies the raison-d’etre of this place, fighting ignorance and combatting superstitious bulllying, across the board. Because this board is populated by Christians mainly, there’s this gaping hole in the philosophy of the Straight Dope–we fight ignorance and superstition, except where the majority of us hold lifelong beilefs that are based on obscuring the truth and worshipping an entity that is unsusceptible to reason or logic, and he fights this battle wittily and resolutely, and pretty much alone. > > Since you can’t cope with his steadfast reasoning, people like you, **Skald** , instead to attack him by the most pathetic, puny, weakassed method of combat I can imagine: you nitpick his words, twisting them so that they seem poorly-chosen or inflammatory, What the hell are you talking about? I don’t argue with his reasoning because I largely **agree** with his conclusions, at least on factual issues. “Jesus never rose from the dead, much less raised anyone else from the dead, and as for that whole water-into-wine thing, it’s a crock!” **badchad** asserts. Since I agree, for me to argue with him on that point would be nothing other than perverse. My issue with **badchad** is that his insulting method of arguing is _counter-productive_. When he calls religious education “brainwashing” as he did (by implication) in the title of his thread, all he does is get people’s ganders up; he makes them angry, and in so doing reduces the odds that they will _heed his arguments_. > [@](#): > > Whatever your own beliefs, you’re just enabling the Christian bullies here who claim this gigantic exception to the standards of this place–namely “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”–doesn’t apply to them, and they get away with this hypocrisy because they’re in the majority here. Hey, who was it who pitted **Bible Man** last week? Right after that ridiculously long badchad pitting? I can’t think of his name, but he used to go by **Fabulous Creature** and he’s always ranting about Peter Jackson Oh, right, that was me. I have no problem with requiring extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. But the strident, insulting tone badchad takes all to often _does not help his case_. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/135 "2006-10-02T21:23:58Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] If that’s your only definition, then I don’t even “know” that my mother loves me…because the evidence I have for it would probably not stand up in a court of law as being “beyond a reasonable doubt.” [/QUOTE] Simply not true: A judge or jury, upon hearing credible testimony of the many actions she performed for your benefit, would have no problems finding beyond a reasonable doubt that your mother loves you. Only the unreasonable insists on proof beyond any fanciful doubt. An honest skeptic doesn’t demand absolute mathematical proof of God’s existence. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be spectacularly compelling, I would be more than impressed with a “balance of probabilites” level of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/136 "2006-10-02T21:31:30Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] If that’s your only definition, then I don’t even “know” that my mother loves me…because the evidence I have for it would probably not stand up in a court of law as being “beyond a reasonable doubt.” [/QUOTE] Well, for starters, she _chose_ you. That’s a tangible act. She also fed you, made sure you were as healthy as she could help you be. She offered you education. She made sure you were properly socialized. These are physical efforts that reflect the love she feels for you. There is nothing of the sort that we can indisputably say was given to you by god. There is proof, however, that the things I listed above were given to you by your mother. There are witnesses, signatures, her own admission, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/137 "2006-10-02T22:48:46Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] If you assume that science is the only way to “know” something. [/QUOTE] No, I’m assuming no such thing; I’m responding to the graped section of your statement: > [@](#): > > I am saying that none of us knows what is beyond the reach of science. If no one knows it, they can’t very well say much about it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/138 "2006-10-02T22:54:14Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] No, I’m assuming no such thing; I’m responding to the graped section of your statement:If no one knows it, they can’t very well say much about it. [/QUOTE] Some do, though. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/139 "2006-10-02T23:06:40Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] Some do, though. [/QUOTE] Do what? Say it, or know it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920/140 "2006-10-02T23:22:02Z")
[QUOTE=begbert2] Ergo it’s reasonable to call it a religious belief. . . . And, while the belief that there are no gods is hardly a comprehensive belief system in and of itself, I’ve noticed that it’s also commonly accompanied by a belief in the absence of an afterlife, the absence of a judgement, the absence of non-societal universal moral code, the absence of magic and magical powers, the absence of sporadic events that appear to contradict science, and the predominant reliability of science in general, even thought only the last belief has been demonstrated to a reliable degree. So you should excuse theists for thinking y’all have a shared belief system; sure, you don’t have one, but you do all happen to have a bunch of the same independent beliefs that by sheer coincidence are nearly universal to the lot of you. It’s hard to tell the difference from a distance. [/QUOTE] What, exactly, are your views on the worship of Marduk, Ninsun, Bastet, Chu-bu, Sheemish, or Mana-Yood-Sushai? How does the propitiation of Wotan or Pele affect your daily life? In what way does the drumming of Skarl or the knowledge of Dorozhand guide your decisions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-brainwashed-into-a-belief-is-not-a-good-reason-to-hold-said-belief/374920.md?page=8)