Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, brainwashing your kids to get good grades and obey the law...is still brainwashing. Talk about screwing with one's ability to reason...
This is pi radians out of phase.
Telling your kids to get good grades is not brainwashing. It is a command (at least putting in the effort to try to get good grades is). If you don't get good grades, your options for employment become limited. We could tell our kids they don't need to get grades - if they aspire to become strawberry pickers out in Oxnard. There are correlations between studying to get good grades and becoming empowered. It is an "If, Then" situation, where as brainwashing is a "2 + 2 = 5" thing.
Similarly we tell kids to obey the law because if a person doesn't obey the law then there may be consequences.
So, the "If, Then" message is exactly what kids need to reason.
I agree, corrupted christianity & current human-made & gathered bible are against science.
But I ,like Jesus, my choice is to submit to God whose final revelation is devoid from any contradictions.
It's better to retitle thread as :
corrupted religions and science aren't friends !
I'm with you on the corrupted religions part. But, FYI, science is also corrupt and is also subject to politics about what gets studied, and what the results are.
However, brainwashing your kids to get good grades and obey the law...is still brainwashing. Talk about screwing with one's ability to reason...
Coming from a Christian apologist, this is a very interesting remark. I suspect that you don't actually mean it. I experience my love for my wife and my love for my girlfriend as being equally valid, wholesome, and good in every sense of the word. In my experience, non-monogamy is an objectively good way of life; it is the best form of life for me. Are you willing to say that the fact that I experience the world in this way makes my polyamorous love wholesome and best for me? Do my immediate, individual experiences make it true that my love is wholesome and good for me? Or do other factors, beyond my immediate personal experience determine what is good and best for me?
Clearly every experience is real in some sense; even an illusion is real in some sense. But we use the word 'reality' to get at the idea that there is something more to an experience than just the immediate experience itself. We make judgments about our experience. We generally believe that each experience fits into a total pattern of experiences in some way, and we use our cognitive and emotional faculties of judgment to establish, for our selves, in what way a given experience fits into the larger pattern. This is where the possibility of error comes into the picture.
We don't have a clear concept of the total pattern of experiences; we only have a rough working model that we've constructed in our minds for the purposes of making sense of what has happened, and predicting what will happen if we choose alternative X instead of Y. When our model fails to give us good predictability, we have an opportunity to learn from the failure. Sometimes we recognize that failureas a failure, and then we try to adjust our model in some way such that it fits the new data. But sometimes we refuse to see the failure as a failure of our model. Instead of admitting that our model has failed, we insist that our model is correct, despite its apparent failures. Both strategies can be valuable on different occasions.
Changing our model with every apparent failure is impractical and makes us wishy-washy. Refusing to ever change our model prevents personal growth and locks us into a very limited and ultimately pointless life.
Fundamentalist Christians lock themselves into a particular model, then refuse to accept any possibility that their model might be wrong. The mere idea that their model might be wrong frightens the poop out of them. According to their model, anyone trying to show them that their model is wrong must be channeling the Devil, and therefore must be wrong. Period.
Brainwashing occurs when some people instill within a person the idea that a particular concept of Reality must be the one and only absolute right model no matter what. The brainwashed person learns to interpret every experience as if it somehow reinforces their given model, no matter how illogical the supposed explanations become. In most cases they even lose the ability to recognize how illogical their explanations are.
If, by some chance, the brainwashed person does come to recognize that their efforts to preserve their model defy logic, then so much the worse for logic. The answer, for them, always ultimately boils down to some variation of the idea that "God works in mysterious ways" because God is beyond logic. In philosophy, this is called a "self-sealing position."
Brainwashing just is, essentially, the act of emotionally manipulating someone's mind into a self-sealing position. This is easiest to accomplish when a person is young and/or in pain and/or desperate for love and acceptance. The leaders of fundamentalist religions have mastered this art.
The law tends to deal in absolutes--you are either in violation, or you are not. I feel that I am above such laws and can determine for myself what is best for ME. I don't need "help" from "society" to do that for me.
They are completely real for the person experiencing them--if you cannot, then that is your failing, and has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
As is commonly asked, if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Sound is something that causes vibrations in your eardrums, so if you're not there to hear it, no sound is made.
If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Sound is something that causes vibrations in your eardrums, so if you're not there to hear it, no sound is made.
Yes, a falling tree makes a sound.
The definition of sound isn't "something that causes vibrations in your eardrums". The definition of sound is "a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard"
Just because you didn't or couldn't measure or detect something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Deaf people have eardrums that vibrate and they don't hear sound.
For deaf people, there is no such thing as sound. Reality only exists in its perception. If it is not perceived, it is not real.
I like to bring up the movie Rashomon. Each of those people had a different reality, there was not one objective reality.
That is nonsense. My brother was deaf, yet he still enjoyed music and was a good dancer. He "heard" the beat of music through the vibrations it caused in his upper body..It had to be loud, mind you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
