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.
Is that the time to talk to her about God and her religious beliefs? Again no. My focus would be on getting her to safety first and foremost and then seeking to get her treatment to address what is troubling her to the point of considering suicide.
But you won't acknowledge that the cult leader's beliefs about the nature of God, or your daughter's beliefs about the cult leader's supposed special connection with God are the primary cause of the danger? I forgot to mention that the girl was not suffering from any significant mental disorders prior to falling under the influence of the cult leader. In particular, she was not suicidal. And, in fact, in an important sense she is not really suicidal in the usual way. She is not depressed or miserable. She doesn't really want kill herself in order to escape any current misery. Rather, she believes in her special calling via the cult leader and will do what he says because she believes that he has special insights into God's will. But, despite all of this, you would not want to change her beliefs about the nature of the cult leader, or her beliefs about God's desire for her to kill herself?
I'm not going to push this point any further. I'm just having some trouble believing that you really think this way and that you see yourself as putting a high value on critical thinking. Could you list some important basic assumption that you have, or that you think I have concerning your belief that you should never try to convince someone that their beliefs are wrong or dangerous?
...But, despite all of this, you would not want to change her beliefs about the nature of the cult leader, or her beliefs about God's desire for her to kill herself?
I'm not going to push this point any further. I'm just having some trouble believing that you really think this way and that you see yourself as putting a high value on critical thinking. Could you list some important basic assumption that you have, or that you think I have concerning your belief that you should never try to convince someone that their beliefs are wrong or dangerous?
My critical thinking in this scenario is focused on how to get a loved one to safety and address not only her physical safety but her emotional health and well being also.
Your view appears to be telling her what is wrong with her beliefs and trying to get het to change her mind by telling her why they are false and wrong.
In reality the course of action you are advocating / suggesting is destructive and puts her in further danger and places her at risk for even greater harm. What you suggest to do as a course of action is actually what PEOPLE ARE TOLD SPECIFICALLY NOT TO DO.
This from an article on "how to deprogram a religious cult member"
"Be loving and non-judgmental. Being pushy or confrontational may lead to their resenting you and strengthen their faith in the cult. They may consider your efforts religious persecution
"Avoid speaking badly about the cult. Don't use terms like "cult," "brainwashed," or "mind control." This may cause the person to become defensive, instead of being open to listening to you.
"Avoid telling the person what to think, or forcing your ideas on them (even if you are obviously right). Being heavy-handed maydrive them deeper into the cult."
So your approach actually is WARNED AGAINST by medical and mental health professionals. Using my critical thinking skills i determine them to be a more reliable and credible source than you Gaylen in this scenario.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-01-2018 at 11:04 PM..
...
Your view appears to be telling her what is wrong with her beliefs and trying to get het to change her mind ...
In reality the course of action you are advocating / suggesting is destructive and puts her in further danger and places her at risk for even greater harm. What you suggest to do as a course of action is actually what PEOPLE ARE TOLD SPECIFICALLY NOT TO DO.
This from an article on "how to deprogram a religious cult member"
"Be loving and non-judgmental. Being pushy or confrontational may lead to their resenting you and strengthen their faith in the cult. They may consider your efforts religious persecution
"Avoid speaking badly about the cult. Don't use terms like "cult," "brainwashed," or "mind control." This may cause the person to become defensive, instead of being open to listening to you.
"Avoid telling the person what to think, or forcing your ideas on them (even if you are obviously right). Being heavy-handed maydrive them deeper into the cult."
Follow up question for you Gaylen since this is your scenario after all. Are you able to understand now why the approach you had recommended is actually a bad idea? I'm curious to hear your reaction.
Good. I hope Nate is reading this, because notwithstanding your habitual patronizing sighs and wriggling semantic evasions, it is clear that your beliefs and your Synthesis are about your beliefs. Specifically about beliefs about God. And don't try to say that science is not about your beliefs. I have already explained that science is nothing to do with it and you had to escape science that was shown to be wrong to a postulated unknown science that you believed in (1)
I hardly need point up your saucy swiping at atheism as 'irrational'. I know why you think (or say) so - because you dismiss science (as a reliable factual basis for materialist default) and reverse logic, and I will repeat that I understand your hypothesis better than you do. Because you ignore the problems and try to wriggle out of or evade them when they pointed out.
What in the blazes are you talking about? I am beginning to suspect you are creating your own beliefs about my views based on your lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of them. The pomposity and pretentiousness of claiming to know more about a hypothesis than its creator are truly beyond the pale. I dismiss nothing in science. I employ it extensively in my Synthesis. Your antipathy to Theism drives you to focus entirely on my beliefs and ignore my Synthesis because you do not understand the science in it.
Quote:
(1) vaguely related to dark matter at one time suggested as the consciousness of god until that ran into problems - I remember all this even if you choose to forget it.
Dark energy and dark matter like our consciousness are unmeasurable despite the fact that they comprise over 95+% of our reality. Our science is based entirely on the less than 5% of our reality that is measurable. Given the fact that we do NOT know what our reality IS on what basis do you claim that the materialism based on less than 5% of reality is the default? We have tried to explain to you why that is unsupportable given our consciousness and subjectivity but you seem unable or unwilling to understand it.
What in the blazes are you talking about? I am beginning to suspect you are creating your own beliefs about my views based on your lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of them. The pomposity and pretentiousness of claiming to know more about a hypothesis than its creator are truly beyond the pale. I dismiss nothing in science. I employ it extensively in my Synthesis. Your antipathy to Theism drives you to focus entirely on my beliefs and ignore my Synthesis because you do not understand the science in it. Dark energy and dark matter like our consciousness are unmeasurable despite the fact that they comprise over 95+% of our reality. Our science is based entirely on the less than 5% of our reality that is measurable. Given the fact that we do NOT know what our reality IS on what basis do you claim that the materialism based on less than 5% of reality is the default? We have tried to explain to you why that is unsupportable given our consciousness and subjectivity but you seem unable or unwilling to understand it.
You are clearly clutching at straws here.
First you repeat your accusations, then you ignore (twice now) the point about science - you 'employ' it (and it was shown -as I explained - by proper scientists - that your 'science' was wrong) So you 'employ' science the way creationists 'employ' evolution theory.
Second para, you latch onto the mention of dark matter and the claims you made about it and try to make that an arguing point. Wrong yet again. The stuff we don't know about is merely unknown and, you like so many other theist apologists, are irrational in trying to make unknowns part of the debate. They are unknowns.
The materialist default is based on what an be shown to be reliable. The rest is unknown. This is such a easily debunkable and woefully poor but frequent error (in fact the venomfang fallacy (1) that your being unable to see it underlines my point. You may know a lot (much of it shown to wrong) but your theism (thus your beliefs cannot be separated from the 'science' as it invalidates it - the classic reason why they don't mix) skews it all.
"We'? You mean Gaylen and you? I gather that doesn't agree with you. Not for the first time, I would suggest that he won't appreciate being co -opted as a support for your crackpot hypothesis.
So all you are doing is conceited abuse and irrational waffle - for the umpteenth time. It looks to me like you have sunk on every single point, and you are still acting a though you are the teacher and I'm the dunce.
I'm only doing this because of you trying to make me look small, so don't blame me for what you are getting.
(1) atheists (he named a few) are like kids playing in a sandbox, and ignoring all the other stuff. In fact they are explaining and validate what we do know (your 5%) and the rest is as yet unknown or at least unexplained. And if you make claims as fact about it, you are being as irrational and wrong as he was.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-02-2018 at 02:09 AM..
Just another example of how you fail to understand the point being made and so you recast it into the same narrative you THINK you are countering.
Look again: Mystic said NOTHING about "irrational atheism." nor has he ever to my knowledge characterized atheism as "irrational." What he DID talk about is your irrational anti-theism and there is a world of difference. You simply can't see what your "log" is, as much as you have managed to modify it from where you were when you first appeared here.
He did. But if you think about it - it IS the same thing. If it isn't, then all he is doing is accusing me of hostility toward theism. In fact pulling the old 'atheists are biased' trick. I am arguing on basis of what we can rely on through science, mitigating, as Mystic admits, the limitations of our perceptions. All that we know works without a god being involved.
Thus, in considering what we don't know, the way things works as we do know, is the preferred hypothesis. The materialist default. To dismiss that is irrational, and in fact biased.
All that we don't know - proves nothing. Claims made about what we don't know are speculative. To claim them as facts as Mystic does, is irrational. Not me.
So it isn't I and skeptical -materialist -atheism that is biased, and irrational. It is theism. This isn't anti -theism, it is pointing up that theism is not a rational position.
It is very simple and, if you are able to overcome a god -partiality that is evidently making you support Mystic's theory which (I have never denied, is the only one I have ever seen that tries to explain God scientifically) must be attractive to those who have God -belief but nothing much to support it, you will see that this is right, it is very simple and easy to understand without Phd's and Mystic is at the least putting forward a speculative hypothesis dressed up in a lab coat.
At least his 'lab' coat' additions of science and mind experiments have been shown unsound. I suggest you go back and read the posts and see that Mystic has only been able to deny past debunks and ignore the present ones.
P.s I would rather not go back through the history of my long efforts to understand Mystic's Hypothesis, though I may have to to show you how mystic is misrepresenting it for his own ends, but I will try to counter this constant certificate -waving.
The theism/atheism debate revolves not so much about the science but about the validity of the reasoning, given the science as a reliable default.
It of course becomes subject to the believers trying to debunk science where it conflicts with their beliefs (which is what they are, even if they call them "scientific"). Perforce we have to consider whether the science is valid and we are often not experts. This makes it tricky when we come up against someone who is qualified in a field or is at least has expertise in it , but it becomes evident that it is being mangled to support the faith.
We should not have to defend evolution -theory against creationism (Mystic is not a creationist, note), but be able to use it as evidence that Genesis is factually wrong. Similarly, we should not have to support the 'materialist default'. It should be bloody obvious that what science has shown to be the working is every case (and God in none of them) is the preferred potential explanation and speculation of any kind isn't. I should should not have to defend the logic of the burden of proof or the principle of parsimony, but I find myself having to because they undermine Mystic's beliefs and so he tries to debunk them.
I did this in occam's razor and you will have seen how he ignored it and went back to ..denial, really.
P.p.s I have to explain this much at least.
At the time I read the 'Synthesis', iI was clear that it was obscure and speculative. I spent months of effort in trying to understand what the hypothesis actually was. It gradually came together, but there were some moments when a bit of his argument slipped - the reversal of burden of proof, the denial of emergence in connection with evolution (of consciousness as well as life - mind; this was hypothetical not arguing proven science) and the big one - when arguing dark matter I believe, his science (and the figures) was shown wrong, and he then claimed he hadn't intended it as real science abut an 'analogy'. Of what other than an unknown science that is either his speculation or faith -based?
So this accusation of not trying to understand is unfair, Right from the start the idea was to get it as a hypothesis - we didn't have to accept it. But the logic, coherence and in the end the science broke down. and he is still pretending it's all fine. He does it very well - the ct of the sorely tried professor trying to din facts into the thick head of a dunce. But, once you see though this sham, you will realize that his beliefs from cosmic mind to spiritual fossil record (it is all related) are not just speculative but unsound, and his continued refusal to accept this is what makes him irrational and intellectually dishonest.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-02-2018 at 03:08 AM..
My critical thinking in this scenario is focused on how to get a loved one to safety and address not only her physical safety but her emotional health and well being also.
Your view appears to be telling her what is wrong with her beliefs and trying to get het to change her mind by telling her why they are false and wrong.
In reality the course of action you are advocating / suggesting is destructive and puts her in further danger and places her at risk for even greater harm. What you suggest to do as a course of action is actually what PEOPLE ARE TOLD SPECIFICALLY NOT TO DO.
This from an article on "how to deprogram a religious cult member"
"Be loving and non-judgmental. Being pushy or confrontational may lead to their resenting you and strengthen their faith in the cult. They may consider your efforts religious persecution
"Avoid speaking badly about the cult. Don't use terms like "cult," "brainwashed," or "mind control." This may cause the person to become defensive, instead of being open to listening to you.
"Avoid telling the person what to think, or forcing your ideas on them (even if you are obviously right). Being heavy-handed maydrive them deeper into the cult."
So your approach actually is WARNED AGAINST by medical and mental health professionals. Using my critical thinking skills i determine them to be a more reliable and credible source than you Gaylen in this scenario.
In fact this is quite telling in applying critical thinking to cult members. The problem with all those who have bought into a belief, religion or cult -and indeed this is the more usual method of arguing that rational for the generality of bods - is that they will put their points persuasively, but when they are refuted, they will get more hostile and antagonistic.
This was well shown in the Qualiasoup vid.on open -mindedness.
I did read a study on buying into cults and the problems of deprogramming them. It is the same with deprogramming people from religion. As soon as their beliefs come under pressure, they get defensive and hostile. They look to slap the other side down, shut them up and want to shame or bully them into agreement or at least, slinking away.
The use of 'respect' is a very handy card to play in this game, and the accusation of how rude and nasty atheists are (mostly this is taking personally how we show up faulty thinking, and is irrelevant to the soundness of the point being put even if true) is also a favourite. This is why we do not buy the 'respect' argument apart from the respect that humans in general can expect. but not a 'respect' for their beliefs, which pans out as demanding that we not saying anything critical.
In the end, the Theist will refuse to listen or discuss with a variant of 'It's no use talking to you - your mind is closed'. But is is almost always the Believer whose mind is closed and refuses to consider their beliefs rationally.
Thus, we atheists learn early on, that it is really only the believer who, once they start allowing themselves to ask questions - seriously - can then start to dismantle the edifice of unfounded speculative faith -beliefs that will lead in the end to some degree of deconversion or deprogramming, to put it another way.
There is a reason why we think of the methods of faith -conversion as 'brainwashing'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-02-2018 at 03:20 AM..
In fact this is quite telling in applying critical thinking to cult members. The problem with all those who have bought into a belief, religion or cult -and indeed this is the more usual method of arguing that rational for the generality of bods - is that they will put their points persuasively, but when they are refuted, they will get more hostile and antagonistic.
This was well shown in the Qualiasoup vid.on open -mindedness.
I did read a study on buying into cults and the problems of deprogramming them. It is the same with deprogramming people from religion. As soon as their beliefs come under pressure, they get defensive and hostile. They look to slap the other side down, shut them up and want to shame or bully them into agreement or at least, slinking away.
The use of 'respect' is a very handy card to play in this game, and the accusation of how rude and nasty atheists are (mostly this is taking personally how we show up faulty thinking, and is irrelevant to the soundness of the point being put even if true) is also a favourite. This is why we do not buy the 'respect' argument apart from the respect that humans in general can expect. but not a 'respect' for their beliefs, which pans out as demanding that we not saying anything critical.
In the end, the Theist will refuse to listen or discuss with a variant of 'It's no use talking to you - your mind is closed'. But is is almost always the Believer whose mind is closed and refuses to consider their beliefs rationally.
Thus, we atheists learn early on, that it is really only the believer who, once they start allowing themselves to ask questions - seriously - can then start to dismantle the edifice of unfounded speculative faith -beliefs that will lead in the end to some degree of deconversion or deprogramming, to put it another way.
There is a reason why we think of the methods of faith -conversion as 'brainwashing'.
No one is trying to silence you Trans or remove any voices or views from the discussion. Just point out where statements or behavior are irrational; point out double standards; point out where the behavior is identical to that of an evangelist or zealot; and point out the danger of extremist fanatic absolutes (such as "respect is a crock" "all religion is false and irrational thinking.")
In short focus on human behavior and standards for critical thinking instead of proselytizing a religious or irreligious agenda.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-02-2018 at 05:51 AM..
The "log," Transponder, corresponds to the Fundamentalist transformation of criticism of their position into "anti-Christian" rather than anti fundamentalist. There is indeed a difference between "anti-theist" and "atheist" that you will not look at.
This from an article on "how to deprogram a religious cult member"
"Be loving and non-judgmental. Being pushy or confrontational may lead to their resenting you and strengthen their faith in the cult. They may consider your efforts religious persecution
"Avoid speaking badly about the cult. Don't use terms like "cult," "brainwashed," or "mind control." This may cause the person to become defensive, instead of being open to listening to you.
"Avoid telling the person what to think, or forcing your ideas on them (even if you are obviously right). Being heavy-handed maydrive them deeper into the cult."
In terms of applying practical techniques in real-life situations, I would defer to whatever strategies have been empirically shown to have the best track record. I am not emotionally committed, on the basis of faith or personal bias, to any particular technique. I am open to whatever the evidence suggests is best. And, in fact, intuitively the approach that you've pointed out makes perfect sense to me. Even without instructions from experts, this is very likely to be the approach that I would take in a real-life situations.
Hopefully, at this point, you are a bit puzzled. In my previous posts didn't I just babble on and on about the need to change this person's beliefs? Yes I did. And the approach you've outlines is probably the best way to do it. Notice the parenthetical phrase I've put in bold. You can't change a person's mind by scaring them off immediately, nor will it work if they sense that you are planning to force your ideas on them. Parents, teachers, and spouses all know the strategy: Let them think it was their own idea. Or, to but the basic idea in a less manipulative-sounding way: Gently lead them to recognize, using their own instincts and powers of reason, that they have a false belief, and thus they will feel a desire to change their belief on their own accord. One way to do this, of course, is to simply share your own beliefs. This is your approach, and I applaud you for it. But, when all is said and done, the bottom line is ultimately this: Certain beliefs need to be changed because they are dangerously wrong.
If the gentle, supportive approach doesn't work in a situation, what happens then? If they do not at some point somehow come to recognize the problem with believing that the cult leader is God's chosen spokesman, then they will ultimately get on the plane and go drink the Cool-Aid. Unless, of course, you physically prevent them from leaving by tearing up their plane ticket and/or committing them to a care facility where they can be kept safe until, eventually, with enough therapy, they come to see that they were mistaken about the cult leader.
But I'm curious: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the best empirical evidence happened to show that the gentle, supportive approach that you referenced above does not actually work? What if the evidence showed that the most effective way to change a person's beliefs, once they come under the manipulative ideas of a cult leader, is by forcing them into a sort of "boot camp" situation where they are exposed to relentless logic, history, science, etc.? (I share your instincts about the gentle approach, but as I said, I'm open to evidence, so I'm considering the possibility: What if the evidence had been counterintuitive for me?) I'd double-check the evidence carefully and I'd try my best to understand why things come out this way - I'd try to understand what's going on well-enough so that eventually my own intuitions line up with the evidence - but if the evidence is ultimate good, then its good. I'd have to admit that my initial intuitions - my initial beliefs - were wrong. Could you ever do this?
Another thing: You've mentioned in several of your reactions to my scenarios that you would try to get help (emergency response teams, psychological help, etc.). Do you trust that the vast majority of these helpers share your belief that one should never try to change anyone's mind about any religious beliefs (Even in a terrorist and/or cult situation)? Unless you believe that all helping professionals share your views about never trying to change beliefs, then all you are doing is passing along the dirty work to them. You don't want to deal with the nasty problem of dealing with dangerous beliefs, so you let them do it for you.
And finally: Oddly enough, you remind me a little bit of Trans - the "concrete thinker." I'm trying to dig down to a level of basic principles. But principles are abstract and it seems you can't or won't allow yourself to deal with abstracts. But you are, whether you realize it or not, applying principles when you engage in concrete behavior. Words like "all" and "never" are red flags for me. When you say that you never try to change people's beliefs, I become deeply suspicious. I suspect that you are applying black/white thinking to situations that are actually spectrums. I think that even you realize, in some way or other, that the cult leader has some false beliefs and he is using manipulation to get other people to accept his false beliefs. I think you probably also recognize that these beliefs are dangerous and they can literally lead to the deaths of many people. But, as a matter of faith in a particular principle, you would ultimately let your daughter get on the plane, knowing that she will probably never return. (Although, realistically, you're faith would probably not allow you to really believe this. You would probably think that somehow your willingness to let her go will actually lead to her well-being in some way. Either she will willingly change her mind, or she will die and since her soul agreed to do this back before she was even born, all is just as it should be.) But from my perspective it looks like this: Your faith in the principle is worth more to you than the girl's life.
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.
I hope Nate is reading this, because notwithstanding your habitual patronizing sighs and wriggling semantic evasions, it is clear that your beliefs and your Synthesis are about your beliefs. Specifically about beliefs about God. And don't try to say that science is not about your beliefs. I have already explained that science is nothing to do with it and you had to escape science that was shown to be wrong to a postulated unknown science that you believed in (1) 
