Hijacking Eloise for Atheism (or... BRAINWASHING!!!!!)
Offline In another thread, Eloise responded to one of our mailbag posts:
Sarah, you're wrong and being deceitful about your knowledge of brainwashing. It requires more control over someone than can be exerted or has been exerted by anyone here. Here's a list of a few things which are pretty much essential to the act of brainwashing ranked 1-n in order of importance:
1. A threat, usually of physical harm or endangerment to life.
2. Extreme Social Isolation
3. Control over the persons basic daily and most personal activities - you need to take control over when and how they respond to their most personal bodily urges, such as when they pee, how they eat, what they wear.
4. Systematic frequent assault on the persons most Basic sense of identity in order to replace it with a substitute sense of identity.
Omitting any of these essential parts is akin to not really brainwashing at all. For instance you can continuously assault a persons sense of identity, but if they can get away from you physically, mentally and emotionally then you can't brainwash them, you can only be an aggressive blip on their radar. To effectively brainwash you need all of these tools at your disposal.
You might notice also that your religion does have these tools, all of them. That's not to say religion necessarily brainwashes people, but it most certainly demonstrates that any religious group wanting to brainwash is well equipped to do so. The RRS web forum, OTOH, is ill-equipped and therefore really cannot brainwash anyone.
K?
I'd just like to expand on this a bit, and I think it's fair to do so, since Eloise herself said, "You might notice also that your religion does have these tools, all of them."
Anyway...
1. A threat: Hell, anyone? This one is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning, but I've overestimated people before, so here it is. The ultimate threat. Side with us or BURN HORRIBLY FOR TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF YEARS WITH NO HOPE OF REDEMPTION OR RESPITE!!!!!!!!!!
Granted, hell is not the only threat in Christianity (or Islam, for that matter). For anyone old enough to remember Michael Jackson's album, Thriller, you might remember that preachers all over the country warned (threatened!) children everywhere against watching the video. If we did, we were told, we would become POSSESSED BY DEMONS!!!!! Oooogy Booogy Scary!!!
The followers of Christianity are good emulators. Abortion clinics anyone? Threatened boycotts of companies? Actual boycotts? Christians are very good at threats. They should be. Their god is the ultimate threatener.
2. Extreme Social Isolation. This one may be a little harder to grasp, but think on something for a minute if you're a theist. How many hard core atheists are among your friends? Even among the most moderate churches, the flock is encouraged to stay away from atheists and other non-believers for fear of tainting their precious faith.
The more fundamental churches make it much more obvious. The flock won't go to R rated movies. They won't go to bars. Their only social outlet is church. They are encouraged not to even speak to non-Christians, except where they have to for business. They are told to be "In the world, but not of the world." (Seriously... do a google search for that phrase. It will shock you how many times it comes up. (I got 47,800 hits with that phrase in quotes. There are many more variations running around.
Colloquially, when we think of extreme social isolation, the first thing that comes to mind is solitary confinement, but we need to realize that even in the most conservative psych texts, the definition is much more broad, and includes in-group isolation -- that is, not allowing (or severely discouraging) contact with anyone outside of the group.
3. Control over personal habits. Can we think of anything here? Something really personal that Christians are obsessed with? Something they spend tons of their time trying to censor? Something they want to regulate? Something they want to make into a constitutional amendment, perhaps?
Duh. Sex is the most personal of personal habits, and also the one that makes us uniquely human. (SEE: Female Sexuality and Origins and What Science Says About Human Sexuality) Not at all coincidentally, Christianity is obsessed with controlling every aspect of human sexuality, and reducing it down to its bare minimum social functions.
4. Systematic frequent assault on the persons most Basic sense of identity in order to replace it with a substitute sense of identity.
Repeat after me:
We are sinful creatures, not worthy of anything of our own making. We are nothing without Jesus. Life has no meaning if we don't have Jesus. Without Jesus, morality is impossible. Without Jesus, happiness is impossible. Jesus is my everything. God is my hope in all things, and without him, I can do nothing.
So... yeah... Christianity = Brainwashing.
Oh... and one more thing...
QED.
Thanks, Eloise, for the inspiration for this post.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Oh dear. He doesn't even understand how Scientology is a good example of brainwashing / isolation.
*Pats Rhad on the head*
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I was responding to a characterization of people of which I was included. At least it was my understanding that I was included..
My autobigraphical notes were meant to point out that perhaps the characterization was incorrect.
To make it more simple so that you can understand.. here is an analogy.
Hamby said "humans have ten fingers." I respond, "I am a human, and I have 11 fingers."
It's called a counterexample.. there was no intended subtext.. even as if by saying "I have 11 fingers" does not have the subtext "only true humans have 11 fingers."
See above.
You missed a spot behind the ear. Please scratch.
Except that this clearly isn't what you meant at all. You repeatedly referred to 'us' (as in, a general body) rather than exceptional cases.
Nice try, though.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
See Uses of Strawman Argument When Accusing Someone of Falsely Accusing that One of Using Strawman Arguments.
Since you have failed to actually quote what you contend you are responding to, I will do so for you.
This statement has two possible meanings: (1) you are not capable of being intellectually honest in all cases; or (2) in all cases, you are not capable of being intellectually honest.
Now, if I had meant the latter, I would have written it in that way. Seeing as I didn't, I believe it's safe to say that I didn't mean it. Especially since, if I did mean (2), I would have used the word "any" instead of "all"--which would have made meaning (2) more clear if that's what I meant.
Once again, you stretched, grabbed something that wasn't there (or, very little was there), then argued against it.
Yes.
Now... when you say "You repeatedly referred to 'us'," are you speaking from the same mindset that led you to say "You accused me of 'not once being intellectually honest'" in an earlier post?
Because if it is.. then I would appreciate if you quote me.. seeing as the former was a Strawman, I can only assume that this one probably is as well.
Perhaps I'm wrong though.. maybe "us" did slip in there on this thread.. but let's see you actually quote the sentence--it would add more credence to your argument.
Edit: After doing my own little research.. I found this:
Which I did say, but if this is what you are hanging your hat on.. then once again, I crown you the strawman king.
Analogy:
Hamby says "humans have 10 fingers." I respond, "Pretty broad stroke you paint us with. I am human, and I have 11 fingers."
"Us," in both cases, is used to refer to Hamby's catergory of Christians in the OP, or Humans in the analogy.
There is no subtext in either case that what is meant by "us" is "Wow, you paint us with a pretty broad stroke. Those are fake christians. Us, the REAL christians, are not like that at all."
Instead, what is clearly the meaning, is "Wow, you paint us with a pretty broad stroke. I am a Christian, and what you characterize all christians as being like, certainly hasn't been my experiences in the churches I have attended."
Which is why I followed it up the "us" comment with:
Want to go fishing some more?
That's right, kids. This phrase:
you have shown yourself to me not to be capable in all cases
Doesn't actually mean what it says! Of course he wasn't accusing me of never being intellectually dishonest; he had a different meaning in mind!
It's such a typical trend:
'Theist: <vague statement>'
'Atheist: <argument>'
'Theist: 'HA! YOU FELL FOR MY SEMANTICS WORD GAME TRAP! I HAZ MUTLIPLE MEANINGS IN THAT STATEMENT, AND U PICKD TEH WRONG ONE LULZ! NOW I ACCUSE U OF STRAWMAN!' '
It's like the rules-lawyer hating DM's worst nightmare.
Whatever, Rhad. I'm going to do what I did in our last discussion and simply ignore this tangent from here forward, since I don't care to get derailed into semantics arguments.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
...Or were there more magical 'multiple meanings' hidden in these, too?
(...I think I now understand why Deludedgod prefers the language of mathematics).
...And even in the instance of this analogy, you're making a No True Scotsman fallacy. Humans do have 10 fingers; 11 fingers is an abnormality. Arguing that humans do not have standard morphological traits because you can find anomolies is fallacious; chaotic systems breed anomolies.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Since.. you have failed to do the whole quote again, I will do so again:
Geez. In no place has it been more apparent to me how important intonation is.
If it's vague.. ask a question.. don't make an argument against what you interpret the supposed vague statement to mean. That's just dumb..
If, however, you only read one possible meaning from it.. then either my writing left only one possible conclusion to the common reader (a shortcoming of the writer).. or it had two and you just failed to see the other one.
If it is the latter explanation.. then that would be a failing on your part.. not mine.
No.. more.. you read a X meaning from Y statement and argue against X meaning even though X meaning wasn't necessitated by Y statement.
But I like your use of the caps.
Okay. You're free to do whatever you want.
You wrote:
'I would rather you be intellectually honest..but seeing as, from my experiences with you on this board, you have shown yourself to me not to be capable in all cases.'
You should have wrote (assuming I bought your absurd backpedalling story):
'You are not being intellectually honest here. In my experience, you aren't intellectually honest very often.'
See the difference? Either you can't write worth shit, or you're being intentionally vague so you can bail on your claims and yell 'STRAWMAN!' whenever someone 'misinterprets' what you're trying to say.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Explained: See Above.
The meaning was so clear when using this statement that you using it is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.
Here was the full quote:
Next:
Here is the quote:
Wow.. the same quote. Could "the church" possibly be referring to the church I grew up in? Probably.. considering the sentence preceding your exampled quote was "Speaking for myself.. and what I remember growing up in."
Geez.. you're really reaching.
Here's the full quote:
Wow.. the same section again?!!
Could this being referring to "our faith" as in.. the faith of those I grew up with? Seems reasonable considering the sentence was preceded by "speaking for myself.. and what I remember growing up in."
Next:
The fuller quote:
Wow.. preceded by "speaking for myself and what I grew up in."
Is it possible that the quote you gave was limited to my experience as was making not implication regarding "true christians" as you have accused?
Probably. More than likely. Positively?
Geez..
Next:
The fuller quote:
Now this one, out of ALL of them, is perhaps the only one that carries weight.
And so.. I will apologize for the way I stated this. A more statement, more accurate to what I had intended, would have been "It had always seemed to me, based upon what I believe to be a central tenet of Christianity, would be at odds with isolating yourself from the world."
Yet, even this would be a little bit harsh. I do not wish to disparage other christians.. and monks that isolate themselves from the world I respect in some ways.. e.g., for their discipline.
So. I apologize, I was wrong to have stated this. Nevertheless, the observation remains true. I am surprise, and it does "seem to me," e.g., I believe.
Nevertheless, this is not a "true scotsman fallacy" since I did not claim that these people were not christians and that "my group" was the TRUE christian.
Instead, it was an expression of opinion, "seems to me," regarding Christian beliefs. I don't think the concept of "hell as a place of eternal torment" fits in with the whole "God is love," idea.. but that doesn't mean that I contend that those that hold both those ideas are "not true christians."
Geez.
Mathematics are nice.
Umm... really Kevin? Are you really saying that a person with 11 fingers is not a human? Or are you making a "semantical argument"?
Because if you are making a "semantical argument" that would be hilarious considering previous posts.
Your rewrite would have probably been a better sentence to get across my meaning as well. Magically, however, there are multiple ways of writing things.. one of which I used to get across the same idea.
Although, vaguely.
Really? Isn't this called a false dichotomy?
Either you're intellectually dishonest or dumb.
To respond, rather simply, assuming I did write vaguely, that does not mean I did it intentionally.
Assuming I did not do it intentionally, that does not mean I wrote it incorrectly or, e.g., "worth shit."
My statement was still correct, and still contains the meaning which I intended.
Try again.
And everyone knows that Australia is full of criminals, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
[i]Yup. Nevermind that 'Not part of our faith' is appended in brackets to (No Hell), a central tenet of SDA. You just meant you, of course! And nevermind that the route your now backing into renders your argument moot anyway; if you're just arguing for your little special case, then Hamby's point still stands, and there was hardly any point in even opening your mouth.
You don't have to literally say the word 'true'. It simply needs to be implied. You were using special pleading in favor of your group, based on personal anecdotes. That's a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No. I'm saying that, 'Humans have 10 fingers' is an accurate statement. There are humans who have more or less than 10 fingers, but this is a deformity.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It's called 'Kevin's opinion / hypothesis as to why theists use vague language.'
EDIT: See: Pessimism.
Give them an inch, they'll take a mile...
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
So.. just to make sure I'm get this straight, what you are saying is: "If you are a Christian, there is no point in using your personal experience as a counterexample to a characterization about all Christians?"
Do I got that right?
Secondly.. those are parenthesis.. not brackets.
Thirdly, you're right.. I was referring to "our faith"--i.e., the SDA faith--i.e., the church I grew up in.
No, I was using personal experiences as a counterexample.
It really is that simple.
It depends on how you define "human." Your argument, some would call, a "semantical argument."
Nevertheless, assuming you are right, if someone like you would rather have another analogy thats concept was simply inferred from my previous analogy:
Suppose Hamby said "Humans have brown hair." If I responded, "I'm human, I have black hair" or "In my experience, our community had black hair," neither of these responses would be fallacious in anyway.
This is called a counterexample. The same thing I did in response to Hamby.
Geez.
If you say so.
I like peanut butter, can you swim?
Kevin, you sly dog, you've some how got me to waste some hours in responding...
So, whatever you may say in this thread, I will no longer respond.
Idol worship is worse than a waste of time. It is pollution, every bit of it.
Sharing the "awe" and the want for a loving better world will not be achieved by speading idol worship. The message of all wise ones is the same, " The Golden Rule".
This is not to mean appeasement of egos seeking fame, glory, separation.
(fix my words, said a buddha )
David Bowie - "Fame"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpOlaLTXP4E
A little better sound ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFH-N2Nz6k&feature=related
YOU are GOD ..............
FUNKY 
Atheism Books.