The God Delusion discussion

Tim wrote: "And CS. You're not allowed to respond to what I said until you answer Daniel's question. If you don't I know two really hard-core South African mercinaries living in the UK who will come show you w..."

I won't be making that mistake again.

Tim wrote: "Oh yes, forgot about that little detail. It's amazing how Catholics can be so liberal in some respects and so uncaringly conservative in others. And the 'others' all seem to have something to do wi..."

It is interesting. I also think there's a disconnect between most catholics and the church leadership. I don't think most catholics want the church protecting child rapists. It's just a shame they don't speak up about it.

Hazel wrote: "I think that just says a lot about what the alternatives were near where Tim grew up..."

I don't doubt that at all and I think variance in experience is really important to take into account in situations like this.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "But we always had the 'get out of jail free card', we could go to confession on a Saturday and with a few Hail Mary’s the sin was rubbed out.."

and we finally get a description of christian (or at least catholic) morality... "

In my experience, that description is pretty true across all brands of christianity.

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "It's a bit like this new TV programme I am watching 'Awake'. The cop does not know if his wife or his son were killed in a car crash"

aww, shit, I meant to watch that. How many episodes..."

I think it's all on hulu. Does the UK get hulu?

seeing as I've never heard of Hulu, I'm going to hazard a guess at no, we don't have it.

Daniel wrote: "In my experience, that description is pretty true across all brands of christianity.."

who'da thunk it, all you need to get away with murder is a rosary and a priest to give you hail marys and our fathers. Oh yeah, morality comes from religion.

cs wrote: "Oh, I have read it and re read and I still don't understand what you want me to answer."

It's not about what I want you to say or don't want you to say. You seem obsessed with only answering something if you can figure out some angle about it first. What makes you think there's an angle besides asking an honest question?

cs wrote: "How do I know if I was brainwashed if I don't know I was brain washed?"

I'm not asking you if you know you were brainwashed. You've said several times that you weren't. My question is how you know that.

The experiences you describe are classic brainwashing.

So how do you that your belief is not the result of that cultural/parental brainwashing?

Hazel wrote: "I think I've fallen in love ;P"

Oh sure, now I find out what it takes to get into Hazel's heart: mercenaries and threats of torture. That would've taken forever to guess.

Hazel wrote: "seeing as I've never heard of Hulu, I'm going to hazard a guess at no, we don't have it."

Consider it our revenge for making us wait an extra six months for new seasons of Sherlock.

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "In my experience, that description is pretty true across all brands of christianity.."

who'da thunk it, all you need to get away with murder is a rosary and a priest to give you hai..."

I guess I should clarify. Many brands don't do confession or Hail Marys, but they pretty much all do the whole say the magic words and whatever you did is okay thing.

That is, after all, sorta the whole point.

Daniel wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "In my experience, that description is pretty true across all brands of christianity.."

who'da thunk it, all you need to get away with murder is a rosary and a priest t..."

yeah, I know, but the hail marys make it sound more binding ;P

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Oh, I have read it and re read and I still don't understand what you want me to answer."

It's not about what I want you to say or don't want you to say. You seem obsessed with only ans..."

Those who have been brainwashed know that they have been brainwashed. Since I know that I have not been brainwashed it follows that I also know that my belief is not the result of that cultural/parental brainwashing?

cs wrote: "Those who have been brainwashed know that they have been brainwashed. Since I know that I have not been brainwashed it follows that I also know that my belief is not the result of that cultural/parental brainwashing? "

How would they know? Isn't that sort of the point of the brainwashing? Isn't the whole aim of it to get someone to believe something without knowing they've been made to believe it?

If a brainwashed person knew they'd been brainwashed, then either the brainwashing didn't work or it's worn off. Of course, if it's worn off, a person no longer believes what they were brainwashed to believe.

Or am I missing something?

hey, daniel, have you ever watched Derren Brown? Specifically the one where he creates a sleeper agent who "kills" a celebrity at a given set of triggers.

Hazel wrote: "hey, daniel, have you ever watched Derren Brown? Specifically the one where he creates a sleeper agent who "kills" a celebrity at a given set of triggers."

Never heard of him. Is it a fiction show or is he a stage mentalist?

Edit: Oh my. Right after posting that I realized I just became that guy who acts like he can't Google things for himself. I looked him up. Looks like he has a number of shows. I'll check hulu/netflix and see what's available. Thanks for the tip. I quite enjoy this sort of thing.

Daniel wrote: "Hazel wrote: "hey, daniel, have you ever watched Derren Brown? Specifically the one where he creates a sleeper agent who "kills" a celebrity at a given set of triggers."

Never heard of him. Is it..."

he doesn't like the term mentalist, but yeah, essentially. He likes to debunk psychics and what have you. He did a show that he made in the states, where he trained a guy to be a faith healer, to show how its all done. He's on youtube for a couple of interviews, he does a great one (though with irritating camera work) with Richard Dawkins about cold reading etc, but a lot if his actual shows are only on the channel 4 accounts, or the channel 4 website, which I think you'd have a problem with, as I think they only allow access here... but you could try.

you may be able to watch bits here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialD...

He was also responsible for science of scams, when he put some videos about ghosts, chi energy etc out on the internet, and then after people had got all impressed that these people were amazing and supernatural, he revealed how they were done:

http://www.youtube.com/user/scienceof...

Daniel wrote: "Edit: Oh my. Right after posting that I realized I just became that guy who acts like he can't Google things for himself. I looked him up. Looks like he has a number of shows. I'll check hulu/netflix and see what's available. Thanks for the tip. I quite enjoy this sort of thing. "

meh, we all do it on occasion. I answered anyway, its a flaw of mine, a desire to make other people happy, and so an urge to help out when people ask.

See if you can get hold of "Messiah", and "The Experiments". "Trick or Treat", both series, are fun too.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Those who have been brainwashed know that they have been brainwashed. Since I know that I have not been brainwashed it follows that I also know that my belief is not the result of that c..."

No you are not missing anything.

The meaning of brainwash (I just looked it up) is to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of a person.

A child would not have any ideas and beliefs to change, would they?

Otherwise everything a parent or teacher taught a child could be considered brainwashing.

Am I being brainwashed right now with atheist propaganda?


Although I do believe subliminal advertising works up to a point.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedict...

3rd definition down.

cs wrote: "The meaning of brainwash (I just looked it up) is to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of a person.

A child would not have any ideas and beliefs to change, would they? "

Hazel provided a link to a dictionary above. I know you hate using words' actual meanings when they conflict with what you want the word to mean, but check it anyway.

Even if those definitions didn't support my position on the issue, I'm still not sure your attempt at finding a loophole really works from an ethical perspective. To say that "children are already dumb so it's cool to take advantage" doesn't really clear the ground in my mind and that's essentially what your argument boils down to.

cs wrote: "Am I being brainwashed right now with atheist propaganda?"

Not unless you consider yourself mentally incompetent.

Making an argument is not brainwashing, it's providing a perspective. Whether a person looks at that and gives it thought is up to them. That's not the case with brainwashing.

cs wrote: "Otherwise everything a parent or teacher taught a child could be considered brainwashing."

The difference comes in whether someone is forced to believe things uncritically. If you talk to you your child about gravity, do little science experiments, or just generally encourage critical thinking on the issue, then you are providing information not brainwashing.

If, on the other hand, you tell tell them they will burn in hell for all eternity (or take them to church to be told that by others) for not going to church or not saying the magic words, then it's a whole other matter.

I've already given pretty wide explanations so this one example in this post should be sufficient. If that's not enough to help you understand the difference between teaching and brainwashing then please read my previous posts rather than pretending I'm saying that hell-terror is the only kind of brainwashing.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The meaning of brainwash (I just looked it up) is to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of a person.

A child would not have any ideas and beliefs to change, would they? "
..."

If we are linking to a dictionary, at least link to a well respected one.

Collins: to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dict...

The clue is in the word it's self 'brainwash' 'wash'

Washing away something in a memory and replacing it with something else. This would not apply to a child.

just a note, the definition I pointed to is from Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. Which is a well respected publication.

Though to just end this, lets just use the word indoctrination, and use the same dictionary as cs for a definition:

indoctrinate (ɪnˈdɒktrɪˌneɪt)

Definitions
verb (tr)

- to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically
- rare to impart learning to; instruct

the first one being the relevant definition.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dict...

CS, I'm not sure you have any right to quote dictionaries since you don't believe in them. If you don't accept them as an argument against whatever mumbo jumbo you're selling, then you can't very well use them to try and make your case.

Selective use of resources is awfully suspect and a little pathetic.

Even so.

cs wrote: "Collins: to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty "

Thanks, CS. I appreciate you proving my point for me. Let's break down the definition you showed.

"to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person)"

A person is born believing nothing in particular, so force-feeding a particular belief meets this criteria. Let's see if it meets the other criteria your definition lists.

"esp by methods based on isolation,"

Parents and the other authority figures in a child's life (teacher, pastor, etc) get to decide who you're allowed to be around when you're in their care. If a teacher doesn't want you sitting next to someone, they can punish you by moving you away to another desk. If your parent doesn't like your friends, they can refuse to let you see them. As a child, you have no say. Many parents use time with friends as an incentive or punishment for behavior that they deem appropriate. So we see that this fits the criteria in at least some cases anyway. Let's keep going through your definition. Consider parental commands like "Go to your room." or "You can't play with your friends until you xxx."

"sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain"

Parents determine when you eat, when you get dessert, how much dinner you get, what you eat, when you go to bed, when you wake up. A lot of parents still use some form of corporal punishments, and almost all use forms of emotional pain to get what they want from the child.

"the alternation of kindness and cruelty"

Parents and other authority figures are nice to children when you do what they want, mean when you don't.

If what you're not doing is believing what they want to believe without question, then it's a problem. So we see that the definition you used fits exactly.

All of that said, in my opinion, it is a little broad the way it's written in that dictionary, but I'm not in charge of dictionaries. I've also never heard of Collins Dictionary. Is that a respected one in the UK?

Mosby's Medical Dictionary is respected everywhere as far as I know.

"Indoctrinate" is basically a more socially acceptable word for the same thing. People don't feel as bad about "indoctrinating" someone as they do about "brainwashing" them even though it's essentially the same thing. The only reason I use the former is because I feel it's more honest about what's happening. People should feel bad about doing it.

Collins dictionaries are the ones that tend to get used in schools. All the dictionaries I used at school were collins dictionaries, for both english, and for language lessons too. They're actually a reasonably good brand, I still have my Collins german-english dictionary from school somewhere.

Hazel wrote: "Collins dictionaries are the ones that tend to get used in schools. All the dictionaries I used at school were collins dictionaries, for both english, and for language lessons too. They're actually..."

That's what I was wondering. Thanks.

Over here it's generally Mirriam-Webster in schools, though in top echelons, OED still tends to be considered the final word ("The King's English"). Unfortunately, OED wants $20 per month for online access so it's useless in this discussion.

This is way off topic, but why isn't it called "The Queen's English" these days?

I find the dictionary written by Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff, most useful.

Consider this entry:

Two-mile-borris (n): popular East-European outdoor game in which the first person to the front of the meat queue wins and the losers forfeit their bath-plugs.

Tim wrote: "I find the dictionary written by Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff, most useful.

Consider this entry:

Two-mile-borris (n): popular East-European outdoor game in which the first person to the f..."

Okay, but that only counts because Douglas Adams was the funniest writer of his generation.

Not a word one comes across every day, granted, but how about this:

Kentucky (adj): descriptive of something fitting just nice and so, as in a book that just fits nicely into the last space on a shelf, or a small bag that fits just so into a space in your car boot when you're going on holiday, can be said to fit "just nice and kentucky."

Tim wrote: "Not a word one comes across every day, granted, but how about this:

Kentucky (adj): descriptive of something fitting just nice and so, as in a book that just fits nicely into the last space on a s..."

Well, around here Kentucky is the proud bringer of such geniuses as Muhammad Ali, Hunter S. Thompson, and Johnny Depp. A strange place, but one that tosses out it's share of good folk even if they always move away as soon as they can.

Haha. Adam's idea was to take words that do nothing but sit around on signposts and assign them meanings for the things in life which we have all experienced but for which there are no words. Most words came from England where there are so many absurd and funny-sounding place names, like Tinckleton, Meathop, bishop's caundle, Throcking, budby (a prominent nipple seen through wet or flimsy material), and todber. But some, like Kentucky, came from elsewhere.

It's a really funny book, from the guy who did Hitchiker's Guide, and another guy called John Lloyd. The English have such a knack for making us laugh. They colonized half the world and caused all kinds of shit in the distant past but they've made up for it in how they've made us all laugh.

Tim wrote: "They colonized half the world and caused all kinds of shit in the distant past but they've made up for it in how they've made us all laugh."

Aye, but they also did more than anyone except perhaps the Romans for creating and defining civilization as we know it. Plus Harry Potter.

Sorry, just saw your previous post now. Somehow it snuck in between my two. So you obviously know all about Adams. Are you from Kentucky? I'm from a similar place that throws out great folk who leave, like Mandela, Steve Biko and Athol Fugard.

Hahaha! You could say it snuck in just nice and kentucky!

Tim wrote: "Sorry, just saw your previous post now. Somehow it snuck in between my two. So you obviously know all about Adams. Are you from Kentucky? I'm from a similar place that throws out great folk who lea..."

No, but my family comes from there if you go back a bit. I just like the crazy/brilliant types Kentucky produces. I'm originally from a place that throws out crazy/crazy types called Texas. As far as I know, Texas doesn't really produce brilliant types.

Mosby's was one of the primary textbooks for my degree. I also saw the Medical and allied heath students on campus toting their copies too

I don't know about that. From what I've heard Austin is a cool place with a pretty awesome music scene. Must have thrown out a few geniuses?

Daniel wrote: "Aye, but they also did more than anyone exc..."

Hey I don't know about that. Just looking at it from an art-historical perspective, the contribution of the English compared to the French, Italians and Spanish was pretty minimal. Basically nothing much happens until Turner and Constable.

And the Dutch pretty much invented Capitalism and banking.

But then what would you rather be known for: inventing banking or making people laugh?

Daniel wrote: "This is way off topic, but why isn't it called "The Queen's English" these days? "

it is.

Because I live in York;

York (vb) To shift the position of the shoulder straps on a heavy bag or rucksack in a vain attempt to make it seem lighter. Hence : to laugh falsely and heartily at an unfunny remark. 'Jasmine yorked politely, loathing him to the depths of her being' - Virginia Woolf.

online version: http://folk.uio.no/alied/TMoL.html#an...

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "This is way off topic, but why isn't it called "The Queen's English" these days? "

it is."

Unless you speak American or Australian, which is particularly abysmal as we are a Commonwealth country, :-P

to be frank, Shanna , yer shud all larn to speek propa, like wha' I do

Hahaha. I don't recall that one! Must be from an updated version.

Hazel wrote: "to be frank, Shanna , yer shud all larn to speek propa, like wha' I do"

LOL

Hazel wrote: "Daniel wrote: "This is way off topic, but why isn't it called "The Queen's English" these days? "

it is."

For some reason, that phrase shift never made it over here. It just stuck with the King as far as I've ever heard.

Daniel wrote: "CS, I'm not sure you have any right to quote dictionaries since you don't believe in them. If you don't accept them as an argument against whatever mumbo jumbo you're selling, then you can't very ..."

If you get a few minutes, have a look at this, I watched it this morning. Not all of it but from 52 minutes in. It's Barbara talking about her son.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/...

If I agree with you about children being brainwashed by parents then this has to apply to everything a child is taught. Including an atheist telling their child that there is no God.

But if I go along with you for a minute and agree that a child has been brainwashed, what is your follow up to that?

Atheists don't tell their children there is no god, at least none that I know do, they encourage their child to explore the different religions, and to make their own mind up. My daughters 3, and so not really old enough to grasp the concepts involved, so I haven't even mentioned it to her, I suspect it won't be long before she asks though, at which point I'll explain what some people believe, and leave it to her to decide what she thinks.

cs wrote: "If I agree with you about children being brainwashed by parents then this has to apply to everything a child is taught. Including an atheist telling their child that there is no God.

But if I go along with you for a minute and agree that a child has been brainwashed, what is your follow up to that? "

It isn't me who's saying that, so it's not me you'd be going along with. It's Collins Dictionary. I do think Mosby's Medical Dictionary was a little more precise about the matter, but either one you prefer is fine.

I agree that force-feeding a child atheism is wrong, too. I'm not sure this happens as much as religious types would like to believe, even if it makes them feel better to pretend it does. I'm not in favor of brainwashing. If you go by Collins Dictionary's definition, it's true that it includes many (or even most) of the things a child is taught.

The answer to me is pretty simple. Encourage critical thinking. Encourage a child to question things and not just accept them at face value regardless of who told it to them. One can be perfectly honest about these things. Some things we've made up are arbitrary and we learn them out of convenience. Language is like this. Words aren't magic or anything, we just made up arbitrary rules and all agreed to them so we could communicate with each. Why not admit that?

I don't know about in the UK, but all through school here, each year we had to do science projects. Once we learned the scientific method, we then had to come up with our own experiments and execute them. We'd be judged on how well we designed the experiment and carried it out. In my opinion, this is a good way to teach children to experiment with things, to eliminate possibilities, to draw conclusions based on evidence and so on. This sort of thing is very helpful when you want your child to be able to think clearly.

The thing that differentiates many (or maybe most) households is that there are some things that are simply "not up for debate." There are things you aren't allowed to question or at least aren't encouraged to question. Religion is usually in that category. It goes without saying that whatever the parents think must be correct. But why are religious people so afraid of a little honesty on the issue? Why not teach critical thinking in every area rather than just when it's convenient? If a child has an interest in a religion, use it as a chance to learn better how to think. What is it that is appealing in that belief? What can we learn about that religion from history? What does the religion have to say morally that is good? What does it teach that is not morally acceptable? Does it matter if the stories are true? How do we know if they are true? What if they're not true? What other ideas are out there to deal with similar problems? And so on.

If you raise a child who knows how to use her brain, soon enough she can make up her own mind about whether she wants to be catholic or buddhist or a scientologist. Or none of that.

Teaching a child to question everything, to be curious, to inquire about things is what raising a child should be all about. The results one reaches are usually less important than the methods one used to reach them because the approach applies to understanding and learning about all sorts of things. The results just apply to this one area. If a child learns how to think clearly, critically, to be curious and approach things with an open mind, then you're headed in the right direction.

At least, that's what I think.

cs wrote: "If you get a few minutes, have a look at this, I watched it this morning. Not all of it but from 52 minutes in. It's Barbara talking about her son."

I can't watch the video outside of the UK. One of those licensing things. What's on it?

its The Big Questions, a religious discussion show thats on every sunday. The episode being linked is asking if there is a difference between a cult and a religion. The part that cs said to watch was a woman called barbara who was explaining how her son got involved with a man on the internet who essentially said that to be happy you had to listen to his podcasts to learn the secret of happiness, and read his books, and of course, they can't function without your donations blah blah blah. Anyway, she listened to some of these podcasts, after her son was effected by them, and they were basically saying that your parents were evil, and that any parental/child relationship is an abusive relationship, because its an unequal relationship, that is abusive to expect your child to keep their room tidy and to do their homework etc, and that you can only be truly happy if you remove all relationships that weren't voluntary from your life, and only have relationships with people who you've chosen. I think thats a reasonable summary of what she was saying.

She hasn't seen her son for 4 years, but knows he's still involved in this organisation, but she doesn't know where he is. Essentially, someone has created a cult of personality, and is convincing young people across the world (mostly the US and canada apparently) to give up on their families and devote themselves to this guys cause.