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 1 by StuartJ]

Is this an accurate description of religion ...?

I am beginning to understand that it is an accurate description of many group-types, including and not limited to just religions.

As Kenisaw wrote in post #6;

It takes quite the effort to remain open to new information and allow one's viewpoint to be changed.

Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject’s ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into the subject’s mind, as well as to change his or her attitudes, values, and beliefs.

This has become apparent to me in relation to those who should know how to identify nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs through the act of thinking critically, but chose not to do so.
Often this is done by folk who ordinarily promote critical thinking as part of their argument, yet chose to avoid applying such when it comes to arguing with those who proselytize their nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, which can lead to others wondering if critical thinking is behind the motivation to do so, or whether it is simply opportunity to vent against and insult those who are proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, in order to simply appear - at last in their own minds - as if they are the winners of an argument.

Critical thinking should involve the ability to identify proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, and avoid debating such, understanding the key word is "nonnegotiable".

When you KNOW it's nonsense ... and still believe

Or "when you KNOW it's proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based belief...and still assume it is debatable."

[FWI]

The following response is related to statements in Posts: 66, 68, 71 and 74.

As far as I know, none. What about you, which ones do you use?

I am not a member of any organized religion and I don't discuss my beliefs with family or friends (unless requested to do so). The only places where I interact with others, related to Godly beliefs, are forums such as this one. Where, it is my opinion that there are many who are deceived and wrongfully maligning God and His Son. I also interact with my wife.

However, I am no threat to them or her, as related to brainwashing. I don't care if I'm believed or if I'm not…Hence, I have nothing to gain from them in this area. I only seek the approval of God and His Son, but nothing from man. Yet, I would attest that # 9 (excluding the bias related to the statement: creating a false sense of righteousness) would fit me. It is obvious that the person who wrote # 9 has no real idea what righteousness is and how it is attained.

Therefore, what startled me the most about your comment was your apparent approval of statements, which were quite obviously ant-religious (more than half of the ones listed) and is not applicable to almost all, which the bias was intended for…This of course is your right, but I know for a fact that "respect for appearance" (at religious gatherings) is important to almost all appropriate groups (including the JW's) and this "respect" should not be considered brainwashing! Even, if we consider school age children who wear uniforms, there is no apparent attempt to brainwash, but to show that all are equal, except for the differences between male and females, which is clearly under attack in today's societies…

So yes, I'm surprised that you seem to support such anti-religious statements.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 82 by FWI]

I don't think you have to be in a religion to use these techniques, indeed a lot of them don't involve actually talking about God or religion at all. Still if you say you don't use these techniques on others (including your children if you have them), I suppose we have no choice but to believe you.

Of course anyone, including an atheist could be a victim and not know it, which I suppose would render their assessment as to whether they are mindcontrolled unreliable. Rather like asking the lunatics if they believe they have left the asylum.... heyho


JW

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]


Critical thinking should involve the ability to identify proselytizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, and avoid debating such, understanding the key word is "nonnegotiable".
"

Any belief that refuses to acknowledge itself as such, is particularly difficult to negotiate!

But not impossible. We all know what we believe deep down, no matter how we frame it for debate- all our beliefs can be brought into the light and scrutinized! (I believe !..)

[Clownboat]

As I suspected and feared!
No thoughts of your own to justify your words.

Just religious promotional material. You're not defending against the OP question very well it would seem.
Could this be a form of self indoctrination perhaps? (Instead of a person having their own thoughts/critical thinking, they are to refer to religious promotional material for explanations)?

Perhaps you can throw this back in my face and show similar behavior from atheists? You did claim that you think the OP is an accurate description of non-belief after all.

Kind of crazy that people suggest that because you reference something, you dont have your own thoughts and cant think critically....

I don't see how such a suggestion could be considered crazy. I'm going to assume this is just an emotional response.

Its that dang college education of mine kicking in, actually referencing something.... The cons of being educated...

I don't see how your education level enters this discussion.

Actually, you want some of my thoughts on the subject?

Yes! I have read and studied the Bible already, so I don't need you to assist in that area.

Having a foundation for truth and knowledge is a good thing.. Yes, we can actually reference things. We can point to truth, that exists beyond our own thoughts... Something that provides a foundation for all wisdom and knowledge, like purpose, truth, righteousness, law, relationship, spirit, physics, rational thought, logic, logos, faith, goodness, love... We have a valid foundation for these things, and its a good thing we have a valid foundation.. Not a bad thing..

Show that you speak the truth, or acknowledge that this could be nothing more than self indoctrination by making continual proclomations of this assumed truth.

This ASSUMED truth is not unique to Christianity. That in itself should be telling.

Let me ask you, you are an atheist, right?

No.

Do you have any good reasoning or evidence you can point to to provide justification that atheism is valid and true? Like any good positive evidence will do....

Sure. The complete lack of every single religious idea out there being able to show that they are true. Not all religions can be true obviously. So what is more likely, that your preferred one is true, or that all of them were invented. Yes... including yours, sorry.

How would you convince anyone like me, atheism is true and its not just you believing in nothing?

Everyong is born an atheists. You, yourself were once an atheist. You abondoned this position. IMO, people are either indoctrinated or brainwashed into believing in god ideas. If they are not, then they would remain without a belief in any god concept.

[William]

[Replying to post 84 by Guy Threepwood]

Any belief that refuses to acknowledge itself as such, is particularly difficult to negotiate!

But not impossible. We all know what we believe deep down, no matter how we frame it for debate- all our beliefs can be brought into the light and scrutinized! (I believe !..)

My point was specific to nonnegotiable faith based beliefs. Believing such can be negotiated flies in the face of critical thinking. As soon as one believes they can do this, they depart from critical thinking, which is the point I am making.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 84 by Guy Threepwood]

Any belief that refuses to acknowledge itself as such, is particularly difficult to negotiate!

But not impossible. We all know what we believe deep down, no matter how we frame it for debate- all our beliefs can be brought into the light and scrutinized! (I believe !..)

My point was specific to nonnegotiable faith based beliefs. Believing such can be negotiated flies in the face of critical thinking. As soon as one believes they can do this, they depart from critical thinking, which is the point I am making.

Yes, but my point was that even atheist beliefs are negotiable in reality, they can be brought out from behind their nonnegotiable / non-belief framing.

i.e. it's the 'non-belief' claim which attempts to make any faith non-negotiable. is it not?

[William]

[Replying to post 87 by Guy Threepwood]

Yes, but my point was that even atheist beliefs are negotiable in reality, they can be brought out from behind their nonnegotiable / non-belief framing.

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

Where some confusion may be is in those positions where people claim to be atheists but who also tack onto their lack of belief in GODs, the claim that no GODs exist.
That these are nonnegotiable beliefs, one does not know until one asks, but my general impression is that those who make such belief based claims seem to always have the proviso that if they were shown otherwise, then they would drop their belief, which of course means that they at least appear open to negotiation.

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.

i.e. it's the 'non-belief' claim which attempts to make any faith non-negotiable. is it not?

Not if I understand you correctly. Faith based nonnegotiable belief is independent of counter-arguments based upon non-belief. It doesn't matter whether others believe them or not. The nonnegotiable is not-debatable, regardless of what the beliefs are.

Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
What to look out for which is non-debatable...

[FWI]

[Replying to William]

My point was specific to nonnegotiable faith based beliefs. Believing such can be negotiated flies in the face of critical thinking. As soon as one believes they can do this, they depart from critical thinking, which is the point I am making.

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). Which, would fly in the face of critical thinking. 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…Thus, to ignore these nonnegotiable positions is actually against the premise of critical thinking.

[Clownboat]

Yes, but my point was that even atheist beliefs are negotiable in reality, they can be brought out from behind their nonnegotiable / non-belief framing.

You do a disservice by making such a claim. I'm not an atheist myself, but I have taken the time to understand that atheism is a lack of belief (in the gods specifically).

I don't collect stamps.
Do you now consider me to be a non stamp collecter? What does my lack of collecting stamps inform you about myself?

Some people are non god believers. What does their lack of collecting stamps or lack of believing in any of the available gods tell you?

I submit that crying "atheist beliefs" is nothing more than a failed attempt at leveling the playing field. Atheists in general do not belong to any organization. They simply do not collect stamps, I mean, simply don't believe in any of the available god concepts. Full stop.

Religions are mechanism for strife it seems and they love nothing better than to attack other competing religions. Perhaps some victims have been conditioned to view atheism as a competing religion that they can go to war against? That would explain all the 'atheist belief' nonsense we see.