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 ...?

[Tcg]

There was a gallop poll (in 1978) which claimed that of those who left religion for atheism, about 80% returned back to religion, later in life.

Actually no, that is not what it showed:

"One of the best looks at this phenomenon is an analysis of a 1978 Gallup poll of “unchurched Americans.� This study found that 46 percent of Americans drop out of active religious participation at some point in their lives, with the number of dropouts from organized religion peaking in the 1960s. The study also found that 80 percent of those who drop out of organized religion end up returning to their religious institution at some point in their lives, although the religious re-entry rate was highest among 25- to 34-year-olds."

https://theoutline.com/post/1033/no-one ... o-religion

All it shows is that 80% who dropout of organized religion, return to it at some point. This says nothing about atheists returning to religion.

This simply shows that many who got tired of going to church, at some point returned to the habit later on.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 33 by otseng]

Greetings Mr. Otseng,

I would like to bring to your attention a statement I made relating to a topic by StuartJ (Brainwashing). StuartJ quoted: And besides: We are far too fond of wallowing in our sin (post 4). I responded in post 48: This is quite telling about ones' mindset, even if it's only sarcasm. But, it also shows how brainwashing works.

StuartJ seemed to be under the impression that I broke the rules of the forum and replied:

Gotta stay away from the personal (and I promise NOT to take it personally - well, yes I will really, but I double promise not to squeal to the moderators about it because I love turning the other cheek and getting slapped around with the meek love of people of faith) but let's go all hypothetical about a guy called, say, Snikwad (in post 50).

It was not my intent to personally attack someone and I try to word my comments in a way to avoid this. However, if I in any way broke the rules of this forum, please inform if so.

Thank you: FWI

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]

In my experience it's usually a fairly reliable indicator. After all, the atheists we are talking about are usually a minority within the populations they reside in. That means that they displayed some level of critical and independent thinking right there.

Please re-read what I wrote in reply to Tart. I said "If we take someone and the only thing we know about them is they are an atheist (they lack a belief in a god or gods)," (emphasis mine).
You're now talking two points of data about this person. First, they're an atheist, and second, they're a minority within their population. This person I would agree displays some level of critical thinking, but this isn't the same person as what I talked about, at least not necessarily.

One example does not make a case. Secondly, I think you will find that the block list in question is to reduce the absurd amount of harassment he received. It was not necessarily to discourage independent thinking.

Maybe, maybe not, but Twitter is a communication tool, i.e. a mechanism for the transfer of information from one person to another, or one person to many, or many to many, or many to one.
When Shives implemented this block list, it became absurd because it blocked so many more people than were quote unquote harassing him. Thus, any information he could have gotten from these people were prevented from doing so (at least via Twitter). It's extremely difficult to do independent/critical thinking if one doesn't have access to information.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 44 by Tart]

I dont think anyone who believes Jesus is a myth, has thought critically about the subject, and investigated the evidence...

I challenge this claim. Let's take for example Richard Carrier. Would you describe him as someone who has never 'thought critically about the subject and investigated the evidence'? I'm not going to argue you should agree with Carrier's conclusions, but this description you gave for Jesus-mythicists...how does it make sense to say "I don't think ANYONE (emphasis mine)..."?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 52 by FWI]

Nah ...

Just wanted to make sure you weren't going to break the rules.

Happy for you to smack me around ...

But it upsets the sensitive ones.

Please do tell us about Snikwad ...

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]

In my experience it's usually a fairly reliable indicator. After all, the atheists we are talking about are usually a minority within the populations they reside in. That means that they displayed some level of critical and independent thinking right there.

Please re-read what I wrote in reply to Tart. I said "If we take someone and the only thing we know about them is they are an atheist (they lack a belief in a god or gods)," (emphasis mine).
You're now talking two points of data about this person. First, they're an atheist, and second, they're a minority within their population. This person I would agree displays some level of critical thinking, but this isn't the same person as what I talked about, at least not necessarily.

Okay, I concede the distinction (although I don't necessarily agree with it). However, it's not much of a point since when we look at the real world the situation is as I describe it.

One example does not make a case. Secondly, I think you will find that the block list in question is to reduce the absurd amount of harassment he received. It was not necessarily to discourage independent thinking.

Maybe, maybe not, but Twitter is a communication tool, i.e. a mechanism for the transfer of information from one person to another, or one person to many, or many to many, or many to one.
When Shives implemented this block list, it became absurd because it blocked so many more people than were quote unquote harassing him. Thus, any information he could have gotten from these people were prevented from doing so (at least via Twitter). It's extremely difficult to do independent/critical thinking if one doesn't have access to information.

There are other ways to get information. Humans did just fine before Twitter and Youtube came along. What you seem to be suggesting is that Shives should cop whatever abuse is heaped on him in the interests of perhaps encountering the occasional polite and informative opposing view. I'm not sure that this is your call to make. It's his. No-one should have to tolerate abusive trolls. This forum for example has active moderation (I'm not complaining). Is it hypocritical for you to be on a forum which bans people who transgress the rules (regardless of what independent/critical thinking they may have brought to the table)?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 56 by RedEye]

There are other ways to get information.

I agree, but Shives goes out of his way to prevent himself getting information, and to prevent others from getting information. Last year, he tried to prevent youtuber Sargon of Akkad (disclaimer, I've met Sargon in person and been at one of his talks) from giving a talk at Mythcon. If you think about that, that means that Shives would have been preventing those audience members who wanted to hear what Sargon has to say from doing so.
I want to hear what Westboro Baptist Church have to say. If they are invited to give a talk, I want to be able to hear such a thing, even though I'll inevitably disagree with them (to say the least of my reaction...)

What you seem to be suggesting is that Shives should cop whatever abuse is heaped on him in the interests of perhaps encountering the occasional polite and informative opposing view.

Perhaps you fail to understand what I mean. His block list is an internet joke because it blocks plenty of people who do not give what you may describe as abuse. I have heard from plenty of people who report never having interacted with Shives, either via Twitter or elsewhere, but when they try to communicate with him via Twitter for whatever reason, they're already blocked.

I'm not sure that this is your call to make. It's his.

I don't recall saying anything like I was mandating that Shives can't do this anymore...?

No-one should have to tolerate abusive trolls.

My critique is that the method used to not suffer this quote unquote abuse...is to block people innocent of said abuse, which is going too far in my humble opinion.
I have suffered abuse from Christians online, but I don't turn around and prevent people from talking to me online.

This forum for example has active moderation (I'm not complaining).

Neither am I, and I've fallen afoul of this moderation a few times!

Is it hypocritical for you to be on a forum which bans people who transgress the rules (regardless of what independent/critical thinking they may have brought to the table)?

This is a different situation to a person who doesn't critically think and who actively prevents himself from hearing thoughts and ideas from other people.
It would be one thing if I was constantly calling people swear words, and I was the only person banned by otseng for that behaviour.
It would be a different thing entirely if I was constantly sending swear words, and all the atheists on this site got blocked for example.

[Tart]

I will certainly go to another thread to discuss if Jesus is a myth. The point of this discussion is about brainwashing, which has developed to a discussion about critical thinking... I am challenging the idea that atheism encourages critical thinking...

How are you challenging it? By your opinion only?

Id like you to prove you think critically about your beliefs, in this case "Jesus is a myth"... You really believe that, right? And you believe its becuase you think critically about the subject, right?

[JoeyKnothead]

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 ...?

Not necessarily.

Some folks are religious because they came 'em them to their conclusions on it. And they were plenty smart to begin with.

Here we can think about those who were "brainwashed" into a given set of beliefs, only to find out they ended up believing them a whole different set of 'em.

[Elijah John]

I will certainly go to another thread to discuss if Jesus is a myth. The point of this discussion is about brainwashing, which has developed to a discussion about critical thinking... I am challenging the idea that atheism encourages critical thinking...

How are you challenging it? By your opinion only?

Id like you to prove you think critically about your beliefs, in this case "Jesus is a myth"... You really believe that, right? And you believe its becuase you think critically about the subject, right?

Moderator Intervention

Tart was reported for attempting to derail the thread, but Tart is not so much attempting to change the topic, as reverse the presumption of the OP and demonstrate that brainwashing can go both ways. Fair, no foul.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.