brainwashing :S

what does a christian gain from "brainwashing"? i dont believe that someone would brainwash without gaining something and i dont see what christians gain from "brainwashing"; unless, somebody waaaaaaaaay down the road did get a benefit from brainwashing whether it dates back to biblical times or the crusades, and they succeeded in brainwashing their generation to the point that they brainwashed their kids, and their kids brainwashed their kids and so on... 😕

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
what does a christian gain from "brainwashing"? i dont believe that someone would brainwash without gaining something and i dont see what christians gain from "brainwashing"; unless, somebody waaaaaaaaay down the road did get a benefit from brainwashing whether it dates back to biblical times or the crusades, and they succeeded in brainwashing their ge ...[text shortened]... oint that they brainwashed their kids, and their kids brainwashed their kids and so on... 😕

You question wrongly assumes that all Christians have a premeditated intent to fool people into accepting their religion. For most, their faith is based on belief. When they spread the proverbial 'word' they're doing so with no underlying malicious intent, they believe it is right and are passing on the truth. They may be right, they may be wrong; it's up to you to decide if you want to believe or not.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
what does a christian gain from "brainwashing"? i dont believe that someone would brainwash without gaining something and i dont see what christians gain from "brainwashing"; unless, somebody waaaaaaaaay down the road did get a benefit from brainwashing whether it dates back to biblical times or the crusades, and they succeeded in brainwashing their ge ...[text shortened]... oint that they brainwashed their kids, and their kids brainwashed their kids and so on... 😕

Many people even the not very religious believe that religion is the 'right' and upstanding thing. Many people who are basically agnostic, still either go to church or send their children to church either as a cultural thing or in the hope that it will improve their morals.
Several people I have told that I am atheist respond immediately with "what stops you from doing bad things". It seems that they see religion as a moral compass more than as a truth or fact.
A survey of South Africans I read claimed that 33% of Christians in South Africa do not believe in an afterlife.
If that statistic is genuine then the religion would die out really quickly if people who were agnostic or didn't really believe in the teachings of their religion quit going to church etc.

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
You question wrongly assumes that all Christians have a premeditated intent to fool people into accepting their religion. For most, their faith is based on belief. When they spread the proverbial 'word' they're doing so with no underlying malicious intent, they believe it is right and are passing on the truth. They may be right, they may be wrong; it's up to you to decide if you want to believe or not.

im not assuming that, but i have seen people accuse christians of "brainwashing" many times, and im saying they are wrong.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
im not assuming that, but i have seen people accuse christians of "brainwashing" many times, and im saying they are wrong.

Its more often a case of accusing Christians of being brainwashed.

There is a strong tendency amongst religious people to believe everything their religious leaders tell them. I don't know if the result is properly described as brainwashing but I have met a number of people who would swear to a number of totally nonsensical things just because their pastor said so and if you try to explain to them why they are wrong they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its more often a case of accusing Christians of being brainwashed.

There is a strong tendency amongst religious people to believe everything their religious leaders tell them. I don't know if the result is properly described as brainwashing but I have met a number of people who would swear to a number of totally nonsensical things just because their pa ...[text shortened]... lain to them why they are wrong they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la".

it is like accidental brainwash, the kids are taught young long before they are smart enough to have their own opinion, and they grow up believing it and pass it down ignorant of what they are doing.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
it is like accidental brainwash, the kids are taught young long before they are smart enough to have their own opinion, and they grow up believing it and pass it down ignorant of what they are doing.

If you subscribe to the hypothesis of Memes, then it becomes clear that no person need benefit from 'brainwashing', whether religeous or not.

To re-state the requirements for evolution through natural selection...
1. Replication - organisms must reproduce themselves.
2. Variation - the reproduction must not be perfect: offspring must not be exact copies of parents.
3. Competition - There must be limited resources needed for reproduction.

Now thing of 'ideas' as the organisms (particularly in pre-industrial times)...
1. Ideas reproduce - they are passed on from person to person
2. Ideas do not reproduce perfectly - each person will tell the story / descibe the event / teach the process slightly differently.
3. There are limited resources - There are only so many people you can teach an idea and if it's not an idea they are receptive to, they will loose interest and not pass it on themselves.

So it is the ideas (or Memes as they have come to be known) that are the subject of evolution in this case. It is they who benefit from the brainwashing. Whether we benefit or not is another question entirely and is irrelevant so long as we pass on the idea.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
So it is the ideas (or Memes as they have come to be known) that are the subject of evolution in this case. It is they who benefit from the brainwashing. Whether we benefit or not is another question entirely and is irrelevant so long as we pass on the idea.

So the memes are effectively parasites which may or may not develop a symbiotic relationship with the host.
The development of various forms of communication obviously has an enormous effect on Memes. Books and now television for example. Before the development of writing religions and their related practices and beliefs changed much more rapidly. It is no accident that todays religions arose in the centers of civilization and learning where writing started.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
what does a christian gain from "brainwashing"? i dont believe that someone would brainwash without gaining something and i dont see what christians gain from "brainwashing"; unless, somebody waaaaaaaaay down the road did get a benefit from brainwashing whether it dates back to biblical times or the crusades, and they succeeded in brainwashing their ge ...[text shortened]... oint that they brainwashed their kids, and their kids brainwashed their kids and so on... 😕

In most threads on this forum, the term 'brainwashing' is shorthand for "I don't want to understand you, your views or how you arrived at them; I'm just interested in scoring rhetorical brownie points for appearing to look much smarter than you are".

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a strong tendency amongst religious people to believe everything their religious leaders tell them. I don't know if the result is properly described as brainwashing but I have met a number of people who would swear to a number of totally nonsensical things just because their pastor said so and if you try to explain to them why they are wrong they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la".

There is a strong tendency amongst the modern atheist (especially those who have cushy armchairs in developed nations) to believe everything Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et. al. tell them. And I've heard my share of "la la la la la" from them too.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There is a strong tendency amongst the modern atheist (especially those who have cushy armchairs in developed nations) to believe everything Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et. al. tell them. And I've heard my share of "la la la la la" from them too.

Interesting. It must be human nature. I guess the same behavior can be observed in politics and even entertainment where your president or other politician or favorite pop star becomes the source of all truth.

I, however, come from third world country, my arm chair isn't nearly as cushy as I would like and I don't usually take anyone else's claims as "Gospel Truth" without first trying to understand and where possible verify. I am always ready to criticize even my favorite scientists or popular atheist. Actually I haven't read anything of Dawkins work and only know of him from discussions on this site. I haven't heard of Dennett or Hitchens before. I subscribe to Scientific American and often disagree quite strongly with some of the articles in it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interesting. It must be human nature. I guess the same behavior can be observed in politics and even entertainment where your president or other politician or favorite pop star becomes the source of all truth.

I, however, come from third world country, my arm chair isn't nearly as cushy as I would like and I don't usually take anyone else's claims as " ...[text shortened]... to Scientific American and often disagree quite strongly with some of the articles in it.

Good for you. There is hope for you yet 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interesting. It must be human nature. I guess the same behavior can be observed in politics and even entertainment where your president or other politician or favorite pop star becomes the source of all truth.

I, however, come from third world country, my arm chair isn't nearly as cushy as I would like and I don't usually take anyone else's claims as " ...[text shortened]... to Scientific American and often disagree quite strongly with some of the articles in it.

Daniel Dennett is a blowhard from Tufts who thinks that perennial philosophical problems can be solved via the latest results of cognitive science coupled with the logical behaviorism of Gilbert Ryle. Hitchens is a public pseudo-intellectual who hates Christians except for when they attack Iraq.

Originally posted by bbarr
Daniel Dennett is a blowhard from Tufts who thinks that perennial philosophical problems can be solved via the latest results of cognitive science coupled with the logical behaviorism of Gilbert Ryle. Hitchens is a public pseudo-intellectual who hates Christians except for when they attack Iraq.

... and what about Richard Dawkins ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
... and what about Richard Dawkins ?

Dawkins is a wonderful writer and competent scientist but I hear he is a really amateurish philosopher. My colleagues who have read his latest book have told me that the arguments he presents (e.g., the "complexity argument" ) are laughably bad.