Brainwashed ...

[StuartJ]

Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques.

Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject’s ability to think critically or independently,[1] to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject’s mind,[2] as well as to change his or her attitudes, values, and beliefs.[3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

Is this an accurate description of religion ...?

[William]

[Replying to post 89 by FWI]

You actually make a good point here. Yet, from reading several of your posts it seems that you, as well, have nonnegotiable based beliefs (at this time).

I have no faith-based (or otherwise) nonnegotiable beliefs I am currently aware of. Obviously by what you wrote, you think I do, but without some example, all I can do is reply as I have. I certainly am open to further discussion on that.

This type of rationale is where the agnostic opinions arise from. However, if at some point in the future you changed your nonnegotiable position, wouldn't this new position also become nonnegotiable, at that time?
So, by introducing the term critical thinking as a means of debate, it only opens the door to allow someone to introduce the techniques of brainwashing. Which, seems to be the point of many…

I think you are confusing things. It is okay to have beliefs about metaphysical subjects which are negotiable, which is what mine are. Thus, even as one drops things and adopts other things, one remains open to new information etc...one can have beliefs which are negotiable, even to do with metaphysical ideas.

Simply put, one cannot have both nonnegotiable beliefs (faith based or otherwise) AND adopt any other beliefs which contradict those nonnegotiable beliefs. If one is able to drop beliefs and adopt other beliefs, then the beliefs dropped were never really nonnegotiable, especially in terms of faith-based beliefs.

That is why I wrote in another thread;

[font=Comic Sans MS]This is because, this type of faith itself is nonnegotiable. It gets down to being a purely subjective personal thing, where the individual has all the evidence they require for the faith they hold, period. Ones objections, concerns and questions created to try and get people to drop their faith are pointless if indeed the faith is actually nonnegotiable faith.

Some have argued, for example, that they once had such faith, but were convinced through various forms of argument that their particular type of faith was negotiable, and they eventually dropped it.

This is likely one of the main motivations such folk then have in which to attempt to convince others to do the same, not realizing that a debate setting is not the place to try and accomplish such a thing, as they are not dealing with the type of negotiable faith they once had, but a different type of faith altogether, one which is simply nonnegotiable.[/font]

Thus, to ignore these nonnegotiable positions is actually against the premise of critical thinking.

My argument isn't to be unaware of what ones self or others regard as nonnegotiable per beliefs. That is entirely supporting the practice of critical thinking.
My argument is that one has to drop the practice of critical thinking when one believes they can debate the nonnegotiable.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 80 by Guy Threepwood]

I lack belief in purely materialistic/ naturalistic explanations for the universe and life.

So as an a-naturalist, all the burden of proof and critical thought is now shifted away from me. (semantically) and claiming I still have a belief is a FALSE CLAIM (semantically) my belief has vanished (semantically)

i.e. that works both ways just as well

It does ...

If I had a belief in the first place.

This Atheist does not have beliefs.

I will conditionally accept propositions.

Beliefs are what you have if you have an Indwelling Holy Spirit ...

Or something.

The word "belief" should be left for the exclusive use of faith comminities.

[StuartJ]

Duffy - in the video in the link below - sure looks like he's been brainwashed to me.

And check the attitude of his father ....

And while Duffy's case is at a high level, it highlights how all of us who have been, or who still are, involved in Christianity are manipulated to a greater or lesser degree.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 93 by StuartJ]

Duffy - in the video in the link below - sure looks like he's been brainwashed to me.

There is some difference between brainwashing and indoctrination. I believe it is more accurate to say that religious beliefs are largely the result of indoctrination. What are your feelings about that?

"As verbs the difference between brainwash and indoctrinate is that brainwash is to affect one's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process (ie hypnosis) while indoctrinate is to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology."

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 93 by StuartJ]

Duffy - in the video in the link below - sure looks like he's been brainwashed to me.

There is some difference between brainwashing and indoctrination. I believe it is more accurate to say that religious beliefs are largely the result of indoctrination. What are your feelings about that?

"As verbs the difference between brainwash and indoctrinate is that brainwash is to affect one's mind by using extreme mental pressure or any other mind-affecting process (ie hypnosis) while indoctrinate is to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology."

Where's the line between ...?

I was probably only indoctrinated ...

A subtler form of brainwashing, I suggest.

From what I could tell of the father ...

I think poor Duffy was brainwashed.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 95 by StuartJ]

I think poor Duffy was brainwashed.

Whatever happened to Duffy I would argue that it was also child abuse. That poor kid will never know a normal life, unless the indwelling Holy Spirit somehow decides to take leave.

[FWI]

[Replying to William]

As far as I am aware, there are no nonnegotiable atheist based beliefs. Atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in GODs.

I think you are confusing things:
Since, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then what makes this claim negotiable? This idea would be the death of atheism! Is it possible for a religious person to convince an atheist to believe in gods through the written word? If, this was the case, then the atheist didn't really believe that gods didn't exist in the first place. Thus, they really weren't atheists, but only individuals following a fad…This consensus that belief in gods, to the atheist, is negotiable are only words and doesn't exist in the real world. This is why it is so difficult for atheism to hold its numbers, because fads come and go just like the wind. The reality of this was never expected by the modern day framers of atheism.

So, the truth is: If, individuals are actually atheists (not just in words, but in deeds), the lack of belief in gods is "nonnegotiable" and I suspect that there are several of them interacting on this thread. However, they must keep silent about this…But, why???

Therefore, the brainwashing through education (related to atheism) is only temporary (normally, a decade or two) and several studies have supported this.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 97 by FWI]

Is it possible for a religious person to convince an atheist to believe in gods through the written word? If, this was the case, then the atheist didn't really believe that gods didn't exist in the first place.

I'm confused. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods. So let's say he gets converted, now believes there are gods. He went from lacking a belief in gods...to having a belief in gods. He was an atheist on Monday, but on Tuesday, became a theist.

I'm not seeing where the problem is. He once lacked a belief in the existence of gods, and now he does have such a belief.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to William]

As far as I am aware, there are no nonnegotiable atheist based beliefs. Atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in GODs.

I think you are confusing things:
Since, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then what makes this claim negotiable? This idea would be the death of atheism! Is it possible for a religious person to convince an atheist to believe in gods through the written word? If, this was the case, then the atheist didn't really believe that gods didn't exist in the first place. Thus, they really weren't atheists, but only individuals following a fad…This consensus that belief in gods, to the atheist, is negotiable are only words and doesn't exist in the real world. This is why it is so difficult for atheism to hold its numbers, because fads come and go just like the wind. The reality of this was never expected by the modern day framers of atheism.

So, the truth is: If, individuals are actually atheists (not just in words, but in deeds), the lack of belief in gods is "nonnegotiable" and I suspect that there are several of them interacting on this thread. However, they must keep silent about this…But, why???

Therefore, the brainwashing through education (related to atheism) is only temporary (normally, a decade or two) and several studies have supported this.

Why do you keep harping about atheism dying out? Who cares! Nothing in the OP has anything to do with atheist numbers and whether they are growing or shrinking.

More importantly, demonstrating that atheist numbers are growing or shrinking doesn't represent agnostic, ignostic or those going to other religious, so what is the point? Are you that desperate to change the focus from possible religious brainwashing?

What I find more interesting is how you seem to treat atheism as a competing religion.
Just imagine the silliness of a stamp collector being upset at those that don't collect stamps. What I don't see is stamp collectors telling their children that a being will do nasty things to those that don't collect stamps.

If stamp collectors did this, would you view it as brainwashing, indoctrination or child abuse or just regular healthy behavior?

What about when a Muslim tells their child that a god loves them so much as to send them to a heaven, but hates the Christian so much as to send them to a hell? Is that indoctrination, brainwashing or healthy behavior?

I would be shocked if you answer these questions and predict that you will not?

[William]

[Replying to post 97 by FWI]

I think you are confusing things:

Perhaps...perhaps not.

Since, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then what makes this claim negotiable?

Atheism is not so much a claim as it is a statement of position. Given that everyone is born lacking this belief in GODs, and from there, many decide to believe in one idea of GOD or another, obviously the position is negotiable.

This idea would be the death of atheism!

As long as people continue breeding, atheism will continue to exist.

Is it possible for a religious person to convince an atheist to believe in gods through the written word?

Considering how many types of written words there are, and how many people are of religious persuasion - a quick google reveals;

There are indeed billions. Therefore yes, it is obviously possible - premise being that everyone starts out an atheist.

If, this was the case, then the atheist didn't really believe that gods didn't exist in the first place. Thus, they really weren't atheists, but only individuals following a fad…

Well, on the contrary. It would appear that the fads followed were religious. Most atheists are exposed to religions at early ages, and are quickly converted before their little minds are mature enough, so they are easily under the impression that the have 'always believed in a GOD', when it really has more to do with them having no alternatives in which to contemplate.
Once the alternatives become known to them, some revert to being atheists again, by assuming the default human state of lacking belief in GODs. From these, a number of them develop their position to include believing that GODs do not actually exist.

This consensus that belief in gods, to the atheist, is negotiable are only words and doesn't exist in the real world.

Well I did say in post #87;

If they are hiding behind anything, it would be the fallacy of demand for empirical based evidence to which no such atheist I have ever encountered is able to specify exactly what such evidence would have to consist of.

In that, such belief might be considered nonnegotiable. If that were the case, then this in itself only underlines the illogical compulsion to argue over conditional nonnegotiable beliefs and still means that critical thinking is placed aside in order for this to occur, regardless of which side one may be arguing against.

Not all atheists are concerned with wasting time arguing with folk who have nonnegotiable beliefs, any more that all folk with nonnegotiable beliefs waste their time arguing with atheists who have nonnegotiable beliefs.

Not all atheist or theists have nonnegotiable beliefs.

This is why it is so difficult for atheism to hold its numbers, because fads come and go just like the wind. The reality of this was never expected by the modern day framers of atheism.

I am unsure as to what you are referring to in relation to bringing 'fads' into the argument.

I think though, that those who are not held in place by the rigors of dogmatism -theistic or atheistic - would be less inclined to hold nonnegotiable beliefs, or debate with those who do.

So, the truth is: If, individuals are actually atheists (not just in words, but in deeds), the lack of belief in gods is "nonnegotiable" and I suspect that there are several of them interacting on this thread. However, they must keep silent about this…But, why???

Perhaps they are pondering on something which has never been brought to their attention. To be fair though, the theists appear to be just as quiet.

One has to remember that atheists and theists have literally been arguing in this manner for thousands of years under the assumption of debating, all the while not realizing that if either side holds a nonnegotiable position, it isn't really 'debating'.
And this circular argument continues through the ages, batons passed over to the following generations, always the same basic arguments always the same basic responses. It is as if each side could not feel complete without the other, and requires this egocentric interaction in order for this dynamic to keep both positions alive.

"Meantime life outside goes on all around them."

Which is to say, the dynamics have never, and are likely to never actually contribute anything of value into the world.

Therefore, the brainwashing through education (related to atheism) is only temporary (normally, a decade or two) and several studies have supported this.

The above statement is clearly composed through the lens of some type of theism which I personally take with a grain of salt, as it neglects to inform the reader of the same processes going on through religious institution - and thus the imbalance in expression.

Hopefully when you read post#91 more may become clear to you.