JCC God Exists.

I know.

I was one of them, once, because I was brainwashed as a child.

 

is it necessary to call it brainwashing though?

 

Well, that is what goes on in most religions, so why not?

 

Rogue's point is that such a description is plainly hyperbolic. "Brainwashing" involves coercion. Sunday schools, bible studies, and other forms of religious instruction are persuasive.

 

Persuasion implies a choice, however. Most children aren't given a choice when it comes to religion; it is beaten into their heads when their minds are young and pliable. That's why the term "brainwashing" is accurate.

 

No, but the creator/author(s) of the film have 'omniscience' over their story.....so if "Absence-of-evidence is not evidence-of-absence" is a get-out-of-jail-free card/Hail-Mary Pass (pun intended) for movies when it comes to 'plot-holes', then that 'card' should get equally applied to religion too.

Anyhow, what I said was in response to timmoishere's 'Internet Skeptic Theology Conspiracy-Theory 101' opus that I quoted in post #540.

Then the poster:

1. "People are afraid of death. Promise them an immortal soul".
Hmm....guess the Old Testament didn't get that 'afterlife' memo.
Btw, the afterlife existing or not existing is independent of what people would like to believe or not believe. It either exists or it doesn't. But one thing I've noticed that Fundamentalists and Religious 'Skeptics'* have in common: they often confuse 'is' with 'ought'.


2. "Sky-daddy, Ha Ha!!!!"
More University of Youtube Theology pablum...

 

There was coercion. We were coerced by our families.

 

The reality is that it is at best an extreme minority of religious recruitments that involve verifiable physical/sexual/verbal abuse, sleep or sensory deprivation, or other mentally caustic methodologies usually encompassed by the term "brainwashing." While, as AG Obama notes, non-voluntary participation is often employed with young children, that's not at all uncommon in child-rearing. Most people join the religion of their parents for the same lazy reason they adopt many of their parents attitudes and outlooks: its normative to do so, and they receive plenty of social support and validation for it.

That's not what brain-washing is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

 

I dont know about brainwashing. But it's beyond persuasion. I would say the above-mentioned coercion is an apt description.

 

Coercion

 

If you're particularly taken with the term, sure. I have neither the intention nor desire to create a taxonomy of opinion-altering interventions with other people. I only mean to point out that the "coercion" here is not the same as the sort of techniques we see in mind-control, but are closer to the "coercion" of making children go to school, eat their vegetables, or hang out with the kid down the street even though he's a huge dork.

 

This is a difference much less profound than you are trying to make it. "Coercion when we think it is in your best interest" is coercion.

 

Excuse me?

Mind control isn't much different from normal child rearing techniques? Really?

 

Yes, really. I can't believe that this is that shocking (SHOCKING!) to you.

 

Can you point to an example (outside of this one) that you think constitutes mind control?

 

It depends on how goal-post-move-y the term mind control is. And I forsee a lot of goal post moving if this conversation is to continue.

Suffice it to say, that I think the whole process of raising a child, while socially necessary, is a lot creepier than most people are willing to consider. People seem to thoughtlessly categorize "bad action controlling choices" as brainwashing and "good action controlling choices" as, you know, not. Therefore, brainwashing is basically a value loaded term that is not THAT helpful in conversations like this.

 

I am just curious for the religious types as to what form God takes.

 

The real work of parenting is all about trying to model the right kinds of behavior while unwittingly transferring all your personality flaws. It's a form of coercion, sure, but happens within a framework of extraordinary ineptitude.

 

Whereas I find the similarities illusory. What is true is that both of that both during childhood, and after being subjected to successful mind control, a person is more persuadable than average. But the child's persuadability is developmentally appropriate. An adult victim of mind control's is not. In order to achieve it, there is a huge cost tallied as lasting physical or mental damage (or both) to the person in question. That is why the latter is frowned upon and the former is not.

 

Whether a child's persuadability is developmentally appropriate is functionally irrelevant if what they are being taught is sketchy. Furthermore, what goes unexamined is how much what the child is being taught is for the child's own good, and not the good of the parent or society. Most adults are unwilling or unable to analyze their ideas and motives deeply or at all.

On the other end, people would have much less of a problem "brainwashing" a devoted SS officer into modern liberal democratic mores than its opposite.

 

You don't think the need to traumatize someone in order to achieve the desired effect is worth any consideration? That cost should never be tabulated in our moral accounting?

 

Somehow I don't think Christians would advocate against homophobia or fundamentalism because of the many kids who grew up messed up because of them.

 

That's a non-sequitur. The mental distress experienced by people who are raised to believe homosexuality is wrong but subsequently become homosexual is because of the gap between their beliefs and actions. Nothing about the actual teaching process was or is traumatic.

 

It is good to know that you have decided that.