Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief.

[Kalhoun]

Originally posted by Skald the Rhymer:

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.

How does forcing a child to attend religious classes, forcing a child to submit to hours of church and prayer, or taking the BASIC CONVICTIONS AND ATTITUDES (i.e. no religion) and replacing it with an alternative set of fixed beliefs (religion) not fit the definition of “brainwashed” you posted here? You’re right. Words have meanings. Some people may not like the definition, but that doesn’t change the fact that forced religious indoctrination is brainwashing.

[Lilairen]

@tomndebb

What, exactly, are your views on the worship of Marduk, Ninsun, Bastet,

Brief ignorance-fighting trivia hijack: Her name is Bast. The ‘Bastet’ modern rendering came about because in Late Period Egypt, a lot of final Ts stopped being pronounced due to linguistic shift, so the spelling shifted from (bas)-T to (bas)-TT, with the doubling indicating that the T was to be pronounced.

[Nature_s_Call]

@Lilairen

Brief ignorance-fighting trivia hijack: Her name is Bast.

See? See Mrs. Call? THAT’S why I love SDMB… There’s someone around here who knows something about everything!

[Voyager]

@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.”

Oh, come now. Assuming your mother didn’t leave you on a doorstep somewhere, I’m sure it would.
My point came from the experience of attending a Theory of Knowledge class with a bunch of people whose reaction to any point was “how do you really know that. Perhaps an evil entity is fooling you.” This is a problem for strict knowledge, but not knowledge as conventionally used in normal life.

I don’t know if our observations are “scientific” or if our knowledge of love for another or another’s love for us is scientific - but I think it is silly to say we don’t know these. Now, your contention that a deity must have arranged the universe is something you believe but don’t know. Agree?

[Voyager]

@begbert2

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.

No, the point of the “one more god than you” argument is to cause a theist to examine why he rejects other gods - something he considers a major barrier for his god.

Sure. one can just not believe in the other gods, but we usually are looking for some sort of unjustified belief. One can just not believe in all gods too, but we’d hope an atheist has more reasons to not believe than feeling like it.

He reasonably not believe in all the other gods, the theist must both give a good justification for his belief, and a good justification for belief that his god is exclusive. After all, god may exist and be lying about being the only god, or those passages in the Bible may not be inspired. But I can certainly imagine a theist being unable to go beyond simple, unjustified belief, and not thinking that anyone can do better.

[Sarahfeena]

@Kalhoun

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.

Well, you know, she didn’t exactly choose ME. She chose to adopt a baby because she wanted one. It’s not like she got to take a bunch of babies home to try out and chose the one she liked the best! She really had no more say over what she got than when she gave birth to my brother & sister…she pretty much had to take what she got in each instance! I would certainly agree that she gave me all of the things you say, and from that I think we can prove that she was a good parent. But knowing what her motivations were? This we can’t prove.

Of course, I do believe that my mother loves me. But can I prove it? I don’t really think I can.

I didn’t mean to imply that this is a perfect analogy for God, because as you say, it can be proved that my mother raised me reasonably well (except for that pesky Catholic indoctrination, which I forgive her for), and I can’t prove anything that God has done for me. I was just trying to make the point that humans can have assumptions and beliefs that can’t be proven, and that doesn’t make these assumptions and beliefs unreasonable.

[Sarahfeena]

@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.

Oh, I don’t know if that’s true. Seems to me that the less science has to say about something, the more can be supposed about it, and therefore, the more there might be to say about it.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I’d love an example of someone becoming an atheist due to peer pressure. I’ve actually been in primarily atheistic environments, and while belief was not given a lot of credibility, it did not come up all that often. MIT had (and maybe still has) one tiny chapel shared by the entire campus, and my dorm floor used to gather around to make fun of Children’s Bible Hour. I’d suspect a fundamentalist would feel negative peer pressure, but someone not accepting evolution would be unlikely to make it into MIT anyhow. Besides that, I don’t see it. Ditto for my research group in grad school. We were irreverent, but we’d never pressure anyone not to believe.
If you mean by peer pressure an environment where religion is not accepted as the norm, then maybe. But that’s about as far as I’ve ever seen it go.

I wasn’t implying someone pressured by someone else to give up their beliefs. I was thinking more of someone choosing to give up there beliefs in order to gain acceptance. Wouldn’t that still be considered peer pressure.
I wish I had a real example. I’ll try an imagined one. You described the atmosphere at your school. Isn’t it reasonable to think a believer might want to be accepted by the group and disavow his or her beliefs to accomplish that? What if they were simply impressed by the intellect around them and decided that all these smart atheists must be right, without much critical thinking about the issues. Wouldn’t that be a form of peer pressure? So I guess your last sentence is what I was thinking of. Given the percentage of atheists vs Christians I know it would be extremely rare but I can’t believe it has never happened.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Onomatopoeia

Of course I understand and agree that children of parents who adhere to no mythological belief system will themselves, at least initially, adhere to none. After all, when you’re a child Mommy and Daddy are gods to you, and they have the answers to everything in your world. However, I don’t believe someone can become atheistic through peer pressure. I just don’t see adherence to a faith based system being lost so cavalierly.

I can imagine one being gained and lost in such a fashion. Check out my response to Voyager

I’m sorry, but I discount your contention because I simply don’t believe that real atheists can become believers. …of course then can eat quiche if they desire, but why oh why would they. Have you actually tried quiche? The horror.

It surprises me that you maintain this. It really doesn’t make any sense to me. Does that mean if a believer becomes an atheist he was ever really a believer as well?

Hah! So we do agree on something. Extra kudos for your admiration of the great Sam Harris.

What he wrote needed to be said.

I disagree here. Atheism is not a system of beliefs.

Not what I said. I said atheists have a system of beliefs the same as believers when we look at it without the “religious beliefs” status. They have concepts of right and wrong behavior. We all have a set of subjective truths and untruths we live by. That’s what I mean.

I agree with this statement. I would love that.

But not with quiche…sigh
Seriously, I think challenging people’s beliefs is acceptable and even necessary but lets remove the ridicule and blanket statements implying anyone with spiritual beliefs must be some kind of gullible fool. By asking more specific questions and really listening to the answers we might accomplish a lot more just in the people understanding each other with a little more compassion. “I’m asking because I’m really interested and want to understand” seems more effective than “I’m asking because I think you’re a moron and can’t wait to point that out.”
Some beliefs are pretty dam outrageous or even offensive so I understand a lack of restraint concerning them.
If we can patiently but consistently challenge beliefs with logic and evidence perhaps we will bring about some positive changes in a generation or two.

Yeah, but it’s probably neap.

Excuse me…neap???

[tomndebb]

@cosmosdan

Excuse me…neap???

If believers are only swimming against a neap tide they have less struggle than the atheists who (presumably) have to swim against the high tide.

[Suburban_Plankton]

Whoa! It seems I’ve arrived a bit late to the party!

Unfortunately, it seems the thread has taken a bit of a change in direction since last night, but since I was the one that specifically asked for it to be started, I guess I’d better put my 2 cents in regardless. So, back to badchad’s original thesis:

@badchad

It is often wrong, and frequently dangerous, to accept beliefs simply because they have been handed down through the years, no matter how many years it has been, from the get go. It is really wrong, when you continue to hold these beliefs even when your own reason and experience would tell us they are wrong.

As stated, I agree completely with the above statement; however, I fail to see what these statements have to do with the arguments being made in the previous thread.

The specific issue in question that began this discussion was the divinity of Jesus. I stated that I believed that Jesus was God, despite the fact that I had no logical evidence to support that belief. I was told that I was being “non virtuous” for believing things which did not make sense, and that such beliefs without proof were “contemptible”.

Nowhere did I mention that either a) my belief was based solely on the fact that “that’s what I was taught”, or b) that I have any reason to believe that I was wrong. I find it interesting that you would insert these premises into your thesis. The fact that, in this case, they are both false does no good for your conclusion.
In fact, my Christian beliefs are the result of many years of “soul searching”. I was raised in an “areligious” household; that is, a household in which religion was not a topic of discussion. My parents held “basic Judeo-Christian values” in high regard (as do the vast majority of people in this country, regardless of their professed religion), but the topic of faith was never discussed, as far as I can recall.

I did go to the local Catholic parish school, because the public school system in my city at the time was “undesirable”. While there, I was taught/indoctrinated/brainwashed (I really don’t care which word you want to use), was baptized Catholic, went through First Communion and Confirmation. I then went to a Catholic high school (Christian Brothers), where a Comparative Religions class my sophomore year exposed me to other ideas about the nature of the universe than I had previously considered.

From that point on, I went on a “search for truth” that took about 10 years. The first thing I did was reject my Christian faith. I decided right away that there must be something “more true” somewhere among the thousands of years of human existence. Over the years, I explored just about every mainstream and near-mainstream belief system I could find. In the end (skipping a *lot *of detail in order to keep this post from being even longer), I came back to Christianity. In the end, I decided that Christianity was “right”, when it came to explaining the nature of existence.

I’d say that I have reasons for my beliefs that are slightly more substantial than “That’s what I was taught”. Exactly what those reasons are are not relevant to the discussion (and would take far too long for me to type). And thus far, I have seen absolutely nothing, ever in my life, that has shown me that my beliefs were wrong.

I believe that the universe was created by “God”. I believe it was created in an almost infinitely dense, superheated state, and then rapidly expanded (in a sort of “Big Bang”) to eventually form the universe we see today. After several billion years, I believe that “God” cause a change in some spontaneously formed molecules, and created “life”. I believe that life evolved slowly over the next few billion years. I believe that “God” then caused another change in only one out of the many, many thousands of species that had live on this planet, and thus created “man”. I believe that many. many thousands of years after that, “God” lived on this planet as a man for 30 or so years, and was executed by the Romans.

I can’t explain how the universe was created. I can’t explain how life formed on this planet from “non-life”. I can’t explain how humans gained “consciousness” unlike every other animal on this planet. And I am not alone. Nobody, not a single person, can answer any of these questions. There are many theories, but no facts. No evidence. No logical reason *why *any of it should have happened.
There are really only two possible explanations: there is some supernatural force at work in the universe that is responsible for these happenings, or it all happened by random chance.

I cannot believe that all of this “just happened”. I choose to believe that “God did it”.

As soon as someone can show me evidence that my beliefs are wrong, I will stop believing them. To do otherwise (to believe that which one knows to be untrue) is the definition of insanity. But no one will ever be able to prove that my beliefs are untrue. It is the nature of “faith” that it cannot be proven or disproven. This was the point that I made back at the beginning of the other thread which started this whole ruckus.
The problem I see with your argument is that you are confusing “lack of proof” with “evidence to the contrary”. If one has reason to believe that something is false, then of course they should not believe it. But the lack of evidence to prove a point is not the same as evidence to disprove the point. If we reword the thesis to more accurately reflect the original argument (my argument), we get:

@badchad (as edited by Suburban Plankton)

It is often wrong, and frequently dangerous, to accept beliefs that have been handed down through the years, even after careful consideration. It is really wrong, when you continue to hold these beliefs even though your own reason and experience cannot prove they are correct.

Still nothing that is patently false, but I think this position is a bit harder to defend.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Suburban Plankton

The problem I see with your argument is that you are confusing “lack of proof” with “evidence to the contrary”. If one has reason to believe that something is false, then of course they should not believe it. But the lack of evidence to prove a point is not the same as evidence to disprove the point.

You are now obliging me to steal an argument from the late, lamented Carl Sagan.

@Demon Haunted World

A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose … I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

:

You have no evidence to counter the above assertions, so, by your logic, there is no reason not to disbelieve in the invisible dragon.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I wasn’t implying someone pressured by someone else to give up their beliefs. I was thinking more of someone choosing to give up there beliefs in order to gain acceptance. Wouldn’t that still be considered peer pressure.
I wish I had a real example. I’ll try an imagined one. You described the atmosphere at your school. Isn’t it reasonable to think a believer might want to be accepted by the group and disavow his or her beliefs to accomplish that? What if they were simply impressed by the intellect around them and decided that all these smart atheists must be right, without much critical thinking about the issues. Wouldn’t that be a form of peer pressure? So I guess your last sentence is what I was thinking of. Given the percentage of atheists vs Christians I know it would be extremely rare but I can’t believe it has never happened.

I can imagine that someone might be convinced - though the discussions never got that heavy. I assure you, in that situation no one really talks about religion, it just doesn’t matter that much. And no one particularly wanted to convince anyone of anything. The only way I could see a “conversion” happening was if someone who had never encountered people who didn’t believe was so shocked that his world was altered. Not very likely.

[Voyager]

@Suburban Plankton

I believe that the universe was created by “God”. I believe it was created in an almost infinitely dense, superheated state, and then rapidly expanded (in a sort of “Big Bang”) to eventually form the universe we see today. After several billion years, I believe that “God” cause a change in some spontaneously formed molecules, and created “life”. I believe that life evolved slowly over the next few billion years. I believe that “God” then caused another change in only one out of the many, many thousands of species that had live on this planet, and thus created “man”. I believe that many. many thousands of years after that, “God” lived on this planet as a man for 30 or so years, and was executed by the Romans.

I can’t explain how the universe was created. I can’t explain how life formed on this planet from “non-life”. I can’t explain how humans gained “consciousness” unlike every other animal on this planet. And I am not alone. Nobody, not a single person, can answer any of these questions. There are many theories, but no facts. No evidence. No logical reason *why *any of it should have happened.
There are really only two possible explanations: there is some supernatural force at work in the universe that is responsible for these happenings, or it all happened by random chance.

I cannot believe that all of this “just happened”. I choose to believe that “God did it”.

Which God? Why your God, and not Zeus or Odin, or Krishna, or the god of some other world? If it was your God, how come he got the creation story so wrong in the Bible?

It’s a perfect example of the point, actually. Because you grew up in a culture with a particular deity, you just assume that if there was a creator god he looks like the one you’re familiar with. There isn’t a shred of logical justification for this position.

It’s also a classic god of the gaps argument, but others can handle that.

[Voyager]

@begbert2

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.

Numero Uno - atheism, despite the claim in your post, only has to do with belief, not knowledge.

Numero Two-o - Someone who lacks a belief in any god, while not actively believing they don’t exist, is a weak atheist, so atheism is not a belief system.

Numero Threeo - Even those who have a belief in no gods share no other beliefs. That’s a pretty reductionist belief system, and is like saying all those who have a belief in at least one god share a belief system.

Your saying “I’m right” is not much of a response. You might want to try an actual response this time.

[Suburban_Plankton]

Skald the Rhymer: If you truly believe in the invisible dragon, and you aren’t showing any signs of mental instability relating to your belief (e.g. trying to kill me as a sacrifice to the dragon), then I see no reason to quarrel with you over it. Go ahead and believe. Just because you believe it does not mean that I have to also.

On the other hand, if you have a few hundred other million other people who also believe there is a dragon in your garage, then I might have to give the matter a bit more thought.

Voyager: Why not my God? It’s my belief, isn’t it?

Actually, I have given the matter some thought. I don’t personally have a problem believing on other gods. After all, there are plenty of references to them in the Bible. I don’t claim that Zeus, Odin, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist. I just happen to believe that there is one God who is above all, who is responsible for kicking off the whole thing, as it were.

And as for him getting the story wrong in the Bible…that’s simple. God didn’t write it. It also didn’t happen literally in the fashion in which it is written down. Or so I believe.

[Mangetout]

@Sarahfeena

Oh, I don’t know if that’s true. Seems to me that the less science has to say about something, the more can be supposed about it, and therefore, the more there might be to say about it.

Well, if something is not known, then all that can be said about it is pure conjecture, of which, yes, there is a huge range of choice, but so what?

[mattwhittall]

well what about the poor neanderthals, fossil evidence indicates that they lived alongside homo sapiens for around 20000 years, and that was 100000 years ago, they even borrowed tools. like your neighbor might borrow yours. however they probably didnt have much language back then, or the ability to write, or form laws and such that eventually lead to manipulative belief systems and such.

and since christianity surely wasnt invented yet i suppose they went to hell too. and since they arent even our species i suppose they go to the same hell that our pets go to. lets call it dog hell.

but on a serious note, how can you rationalize all the people who existed before we were even able to articulate such abstract thought?

what about intelligent life on other planets, do they go to dog hell too? or are all animals who arent homo sapiens, just get smote out of existence permanently, since they dont have souls?

and back to the old dog, just because he doesnt have the capacity to understand the concept he deserves to go to hell? and look in his eyes, and tell me he has no soul!

[jjimm]

I am seriously waiting for the monotheists to come back with a decent argument that supports polytheism too.

[Kalhoun]

@Sarahfeena

Well, you know, she didn’t exactly choose ME. She chose to adopt a baby because she wanted one. It’s not like she got to take a bunch of babies home to try out and chose the one she liked the best! She really had no more say over what she got than when she gave birth to my brother & sister…she pretty much had to take what she got in each instance! I would certainly agree that she gave me all of the things you say, and from that I think we can prove that she was a good parent. But knowing what her motivations were? This we can’t prove.

Of course, I do believe that my mother loves me. But can I prove it? I don’t really think I can.

I didn’t mean to imply that this is a perfect analogy for God, because as you say, it can be proved that my mother raised me reasonably well (except for that pesky Catholic indoctrination, which I forgive her for), and I can’t prove anything that God has done for me. I was just trying to make the point that humans can have assumptions and beliefs that can’t be proven, and that doesn’t make these assumptions and beliefs unreasonable.

But you can ask her if she loves you. Not only can she report directly to you (you don’t know if she’s lying…but for our purposes here, let’s assume she’s not). Not only could you *not * ask god (and get an answer), but his actions here on earth would not support a positive response.