Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Cultism and child abuse

Pages: (5) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 >

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:32    Quote Unfortunately the US refuses to ratify it.   Conservative opposition and our insistance on being allowed to sentence minors to death have gotten in the way. Penny: do you think the refusal of the US to ratify the document itself makes the arguments contained therein moot from a US legal standpoint? I keep wondering if anyone in the US has tested the arguments in court somewhere.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:43    Quote How is this not, by anyone's definition, child abuse? The speaker has: 1. Invoked the ultimate, omniscient, invisible authority 2. Demanded unquestioned self-abasement and servitude to that authority 3. Insisted that irrational delusion replace observed reality which in turn can only harm the ability of the listener in question to function 4. Threatened not only harm, but eternal, unspeakable torture as the only alternative to #2 and #3 above hmm. Lou, have you ever considered following this up legally? It would seem, based on our admittedly armchair analysis so far, that you might have a case for a civil suit. It might be fulfilling to approach a lawyer with this and see if you might make it to plaintiff status. Also would be a great way to explore the legal arguments involved. Please do note though: -I'm no lawyer (I don't even play one on TV ), and can't really say one way or the other whether there is a real legal argument here; this is all just "mental masturbation" at this point -I'm also no psychologist, and you might be far better served exploring what happened to you with a professional therapist before attempting any legal avenues. Either way, don't think you're alone. as you note, there are entire educational systems and institutions devoted to the kind of brainwashing you document here.  You might actually be able to contribute to knocking them down a peg, AFAICT. You might try locating others who are in the same boat as yourself.  there's bound to be many "graduates" from the same places as yourself that feel exactly as you do. It would be very worthwhile if you could contact them and speak with them about the issues as well. ... A giant class-action child abuse civil suit.  I wonder how well they would swallow that, eh? cheers

nmatzke Posts: 3 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:15    I am not deeply fascinated by this topic, since it seems to me that there is no way that parents merely teaching their children young-earth creationism or even flat-earthism can qualify as child abuse.  Everyone has some wacky beliefs, and everyone thinks everyone else's beliefs about religion are wacky, and there is no way politicians or courts are ever going to take the dangerous steps into controlling what parents teach their kids. Therefore, raising the issue within the evolution/creationism context is only going to start fights, make the evolutionists look like zealots, etc. I will offer some random thoughts, though: * I know nothing about the law in the areas of child abuse, psychological abuse, cults, brainwashing, etc.  However, I read Jon Krakauer's book Under the Banner of Heaven, which is about the murder of a mormon woman and her baby by (IIRC) two of her brothers-in-law.  The family was part of a mormon fundamentalist splinter group and somehow or other the brothers got the idea that God was telling them to kill the woman.  Demons and possession, tied up with some weird homoerotic stuff, were a piece of this also. When they were arrested and went to trial, one of the questions that came up was, Could the brothers use an insanity defense?  Were their beliefs so crazy that they weren't morally responsible for their actions?  Expert witnesses were called on both sides.  The eventual answer was basically that, no, these ideas are not obviously any crazier than some of the well-known beliefs of many well-known religions, many of which seem bizarre to outsiders.  If the court gave these guys a pass for their religious beliefs, it would have to do the same for every other "God told me to do it" type of excuse.  Thus the insanity defense was excluded. So, I think the law has a strong tendency to focus on regulating actions rather than beliefs, and I suspect this would apply to any attempt to call simple beliefs "child abuse."   Emotional abuse and brainwashing might be different, but it would have to me much more than simply "you are going to #### if you say/believe X."  Cults tend to control every aspect of a person's life in a very rigid way, which gets us back to actions. * Another random thought is that I keep noticing weird parallels between cults and anti-cult groups.  Scandals, lawsuits, etc.  Is it just me or is there something here?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:18    What nick said.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:31    Quote Therefore, raising the issue within the evolution/creationism context is only going to start fights, make the evolutionists look like zealots, etc. We don't necessarily have to raise the question in the context you specify. Indeed, one of the main reasons i wanted to punt the idea about outside of PT was for this very reason. ATBC itself isn't necessarily the ideal place to address it either, but it's a place to start, anyway.   Quote since it seems to me that there is no way that parents merely teaching their children young-earth creationism or even flat-earthism can qualify as child abuse.   I think it's been clearly established so far that the issue isn't necessarily the beliefs themselves, but the WAY they are taught that could fall under various mental abuse statutes. this goes directly to the argument of actions you present. as to courts addressing the issue, please check out the link from thefamily.org site I noted above. seems the ideas to some extent have already been bandied about in the courts.   Quote If the court gave these guys a pass for their religious beliefs, it would have to do the same for every other "God told me to do it" type of excuse.  Thus the insanity defense was excluded. I think you are missing the next step implied by this case.  the murderers were tried on their actions, not their beliefs, as you rightly note. If the methods used for coercion of beliefs are considered to be "actions", how is that not related to supporting the case for child abuse; completely aside from the beliefs themselves?   Quote Emotional abuse and brainwashing might be different, but it would have to me much more than simply "you are going to #### if you say/believe X."  Cults tend to control every aspect of a person's life in a very rigid way, which gets us back to actions. yup, and is pretty much the direction the discussion seems to be headed.   Quote Another random thought is that I keep noticing weird parallels between cults and anti-cult groups.  Scandals, lawsuits, etc.  Is it just me or is there something here? hmm, I'm not sure if this is a real or simply a perceived phenomenon, resulting from the kinds of counter-suits filed by those charged with abuse to begin with. again, take a gander at the few cases listed here: http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book3/chapter3.htm Quote What nick said. uh, you wouldn't care to elaborate on that profound statement, would ya?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:37    "what nick said" is shorthand for "I agree with what Nick said."

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:42    You should wait until i put up the official poll then. In the meantime, perhaps you could explain to me why it is so much more fascinating to argue the value of gay marriage with bigots that have bricks for brains?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:51    I don't know. I don't argue gay marriage with those bigots. When you're so crazy you're saying that the people who don't want to discriminate against gays are bigots, you're as bad as any creationist.

nmatzke Posts: 3 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:55    It seems to me that that webpage shows: * Legal theories based on brainwashing have occasionally been introduced in court, often to defend anticult people/groups that are accused of kidnapping when they forcibly extracted someone from a cult * These legal theories sometimes work and sometimes fail in court * The accused cults (apparently "The Family" is one of these?) play the "freedom for religious minorities" card immediately when the brainwashing accusation is leveled. It seems to me that at most this page tells us is that the defense "I kidnapped her to get her out of that brainwashing cult!" sometimes works with judges and juries.  But I strongly doubt that this tells us much about the likelihood of such an argument working as a plaintiffs' argument. You might look up cases involving conflicts between government child welfare departments and various religious groups.  I think the best-known conflicts arise over medical issues -- vaccinations, refusing medical treatment, and the like. E.g., should parents be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter/criminal neglect or whatever, if their religion says that they should pray rather than seek modern medicine when their child gets sick with something easily curable?  I would say clearly "yes", but my understanding is that state law and court cases go both ways on this.  Many states have exceptions written into the law specifically for these religious groups, I think.  And even if the law is clear, juries will sometimes refuse to convict if the parents appear holy enough. If this is the situation with literal life-and-death issues, there is little chance that there is much of a legal case to be made with milder issues.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,12:58    STJ, I'd be lying if I said I'd never thought about any of what you've mentioned.  But honestly I see several problems/issues. 1.  I'm sure whatever statutes of limitations in place at the time have run out. 2.  There's no way this country is ready to see such things as child abuse.  Freedom of religion is still seen as freedom to be a christian, although I think there is a very gentle eddy in this stream that may one day become a full strength back-current.  Look at the soldier's widow still fighting to get a wiccan symbol on his tombstone.  Even if she succeeds, I am willing to bet that tombstone doesn't remain undefaced for more than a month.  "Can't have them evil devil worshiping symbols in our Christian Country's Military Cemeteries, you know.  Damage for Jesus." 3.  I'm much closer geographically to the previously mentioned Blow Job U than when I grew up, and have a genuine safety concern for my family.  I won't even put an FSM logo (man I want one of those) on my car here.  Humor and respect for others is beyond the comprehension of a fundy.  I'm not willing to be so publically "out" as it were, as an irreleventist.  (Seems to me, labeling me as an atheist is about as dumb and about as relevent as labeling me as an atoothfairyist.  Technically true, I suppose, but completely meaningless.)  I'm sorry if that sounds irrational or offensive, but I was there, and I know better than to put anything at all past a fundy.  There is simply no depth to which they will not stoop to achieve a complete theocracy. 4.  I don't know that I'm willing or ready to really revisit that whole part of my life just yet in that way.  I wonder if there's an AA analog somewhere for this. So although it's probably too late to do anything legal in my case, I'd be thrilled to see it go to court eventually, when a case actually had a chance to win. Since leaving all that behind, I've bumped into exactly one of the 23 other students with whom I graduated high school.  Turns out, she was the one girl I really had the hots for back then (in a purely platonic way, of course...eh yeah).  She was married when I bumped into her, couple o' kids, working as the school secretary.  Still very cute.  We were chit chatting and she even asked why I never asked her out.  She'd have said yes.  But I think I might have used a very slight profanity in the course of the conversation, at which time the conversation sort of faded out and I could see she was still all wrapped up in all that.  I don't hold out much hope for any of the others.  It's just not that easy to escape from. As for actions, Nick, and please understand I hold you in the highest regard, this IS an action.  If witholding medication from a child because of some freak superstition is child abuse because it's physically damaging to a child, why wouldn't f'ing up their head because of some freak superstition be child abuse because it's mentally damaging to the child? And as for STJ's question, I'd posit it's much easier (and more entertaining) to verbally body slam an obvious blockhead.  The conversation in this thread is much less simple, has genuine room for gray area, and is much more likely to tread on taboos that are still deeply head by our society.  It was a very long time after leaving all that before the little nervous wince went away that occurred whenever I uttered the g-d word. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:23    Quote (sir_toejam @ May 27 2006,16:32) do you think the refusal of the US to ratify the document itself makes the arguments contained therein moot from a US legal standpoint? I keep wondering if anyone in the US has tested the arguments in court somewhere. IANAL,  but I do think that it makes the Convention moot under US law.   While the arguments themselves may have validity under our law, I do not know of any cases of them being tested. As I understand it, until ratified by the US, the Convention is not relevant to US law --  one of arguments against ratification is that if we ratified it, we would then have to abide by it.   Here is a good run down of some the standard objections: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000021.asp -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

nmatzke Posts: 3 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:24    An interesting article in the journal Pediatrics: Quote Seth M. Asser and Rita Swan (1998). "Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect." Pediatrics Vol. 101 No. 4 April 1998, pp. 625-629. Objective.  To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable. Design.  Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care. Participants.  One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death. Results.  One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help. Conclusions.  When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect. Key words: child abuse, child neglect, child fatality, Christian Science, faith healing, medical neglect, prayer, religion and medicine.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:24    Quote You might look up cases involving conflicts between government child welfare departments and various religious groups.  I think the best-known conflicts arise over medical issues -- vaccinations, refusing medical treatment, and the like. that sounds like a productive area to research. thanks.   Quote When you're so crazy you're saying that the people who don't want to discriminate against gays are bigots, yeah, I really couldn't fathom that one myself. Lou: Quote I wonder if there's an AA analog somewhere for this. I bet these guys would know: http://www.factnet.org/Children.html

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:47    Quote (nmatzke @ May 27 2006,17:55) You might look up cases involving conflicts between government child welfare departments and various religious groups.  I think the best-known conflicts arise over medical issues -- vaccinations, refusing medical treatment, and the like. E.g., should parents be prosecuted for murder/manslaughter/criminal neglect or whatever, if their religion says that they should pray rather than seek modern medicine when their child gets sick with something easily curable?  I would say clearly "yes", but my understanding is that state law and court cases go both ways on this.  Many states have exceptions written into the law specifically for these religious groups, I think.  And even if the law is clear, juries will sometimes refuse to convict if the parents appear holy enough. If this is the situation with literal life-and-death issues, there is little chance that there is much of a legal case to be made with milder issues. The poster child faith for abuse through medical neglect is Christian Science (The Church of Christ, Scientist).   Due largely to the lobbying of Christian Scientists in the 60's and 70s, 44 states currently have religious exemptions to child abuse and neglect laws.   Court cases brought against CS parents have, as Nick points out, varied in result - it is un-common for CS parents to be convicted,  and in many cases where they are, those convictions are later over turned (often on the basis of religious exemption laws). I agree with Nick that while such egregious abuses are permitted in the name of religion, there will be no censure for anything lesser. For more information on this issue see:Death By Religious Exemption and Childrens Health Care is a Legal Duty -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,13:52    Nick,   Excellent catch with the Pediatrics article --  Rita Swan is a former Christian Scientist, whose son died due to medical neglect.  She's one of the founders of the CHILD website I linked too.  I think that her case provides a tragic example of how one can wake from religious fanaticism to find themselves deeply injured. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,14:53    Quote I bet these guys would know: http://www.factnet.org/Children.html Checked out their message boards...  Overrun with fundys ie..."America is a Christian Nation", "Ban the ACLU", "Christians are persecuted because we can't force our superstition on everyone else", "Bush has a brain", and other  such nonsense.               Quote In 1876, the congress passed a bill that the Bible should be the standard for all morality. Our Laws are based on the 10 Commandments and the mosaic law. It is time for some lawmaker to introduce a bill to confiscate the properties of ACLU under the statutes of RICO. Please contact your cognressmen and senators over this. This is long due. We must get this done for the future of America. I'm going to keep poking around there for a while, but there seems to be a stance of "this is what defines a cult...unless it's Christianity, in which case shut up and do what Pastor Bob says Jesus said." There is rebuttal going on, but it's all beside the point of what I'm looking for. This page at that site looks a little more promising. Thanks for that link, STJ. I'm not sure I really see a distinction between letting your child die for lack of medical attention because of your superstition, which is apparently legal in 44 states (unless I'm misreading what PennyBright says about the extent of the religious exemption), and shooting or blowing up a planned parenthood medical professional because of your superstition.  In fact, I would argue that the former offense is even more morally reprehensible than the latter.  In a backwards-logic-insane kind of way, at least the crazy with the rifle thinks that he's saving lives.   Quote I agree with Nick that while such egregious abuses are permitted in the name of religion, there will be no censure for anything lesser. I would agree with this statement, again because I think fundy christians get a pass on the whole cult thing. Hey, is the proper spelling "fundys" or "fundies"?  I'm thinking it's the second, but I like the first. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,14:58    ahh, I saw this: http://www.factnet.org/cris.htm linked on that page and thought maybe it was  a legitimate support group kinda thing. sorry. from your description, it sounds like it's one fundamentalist group trying to save folks from the rest? Is this accurate in your opinion? I haven't checked these, but if you find any useful resources feel free to share them: http://www.factnet.org/orgspubs_list.html they might all be related.  I don't know. It's just the first place i ran into when I thought about the AA thing.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:10    No, actually they actually might be what they purport to be, it's just there's a large amount of fundy commenters on the christianity section of the boards, no real discussion about recovering from fundyism, or the harm it causes. Instead of "Can christian fundamentalism be cultish, and if so, what should be done for victims?" there's a lot of "The Christian god is the one true God" and various agreement and rejection of that. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:22    as a related, but side venture, I'd like to take a look at something Steve said:     Quote When you're so crazy you're saying that the people who don't want to discriminate against gays are bigots, you're as bad as any creationist. One of the reasons i started this thread was that based on many conversations with, looking at writings of, and watching the behavior of creobots on this forum and in many other places, they do seem to share a fundamental similarity in psychology. -irrational rejection and denial of even basic evidence -tons of projection -inability to recognize basic flaws in logic. You can see this if you look at the arguments of Behe, or AFDave.  Dembski, or Thordaddy. The point is, after spending YEARS attempting evidentiary argumentation to refute creobots, I see little traction gained with the creobots themselves. This ISN'T saying that evidentiary arguments have no value in these "debates"; obviously they do, hence we have Kitzmiller, etc. However, when looking at the results amongst the creobots themselves, I see little progress being made. 40 + pages of essentially the same arguments over and over again in the gay marriage thread; even more than that in AFDave's threads. has there been any support that an evidence based argument is affecting the arguments used by T-diddy or AFDave? any support that evidentiary argument has been successful in changing what Behe has to say? nope.  none. why is that? i kept asking myself. well, steve points to it, but I'll spell it out: You can be successful with an evidentiary argument when debating an idea, but not when your arguing against a psychology. If a schizophrenic tells you that there are blue bugs crawling up the walls behind you, it really doesn't matter WHAT evidence you present to them to the contrary.  they will think you simply can't see the obvious, and wonder why you are so blind you can't see the #### bugs crawling up the wall. so while it was a half-assed question i posed to steve, the answer says volumes about exactly what I think we are dealing with here, and why i think that evidentiary argument will not be productive in obtaining any positive conclusions to these "debates". Religion is an idea that can be debated.  I don't see any religion presented by AFDave.  I see a psychological pattern very reminiscent of aspects of schizophrenia. so, bottom line, one of the reasons i posted this was in fact, to seperate the psychology from the idea; to seperate the religion from the "fundamentalism"; to seperate the creobot from the Xian. This is of value not just to the issue wrt science, but also from the viewpoint of religion as well. not a new argument, I know, but I felt it needed to be made here regardless. feel free to prove me wrong.  I have no personal stake here; but if you can explain the behavior of AFDave, or any of the other rampant creobots anybody has seen here or elsewhere, I'm all ears.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:33    Quote it's just there's a large amount of fundy commenters on the christianity section of the boards, no real discussion about recovering from fundyism, or the harm it causes. non-moderated forums are no place to spend your time with an issue like this. I would search the links for professional support groups instead. look for something moderated by an accredited psychologist if you insist on trying to do this in an online medium. However, I would hope the links would somewhere point to an "in person" support group network, much like the AA to which you referred earlier. In fact, you might not go wrong contacting AA itself, to find out if there are support groups in your area that deal with issues relating to your own. here is the main AA site; perhaps if you contact them they will have some better ideas than myself. http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org keep us posted.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:34    Relatedly, what's the difference between someone who can get out, and someone who can't?  I'm now wondering what made me different than anyone else. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:37    can you explain what you mean by can and can't get out? did you mean forced coercion by use of some physical restraint?

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:39    STJ, Yeah, I wasn't going to deal with it online, I was just looking for information, and perhaps a lead. And feel free to posit that I'm just really brilliant for a reason I managed to get out.  I'm pretty good with that one. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:40    I look at it, as how one uses their thinking. We tend, unfortunately, to use our reasoning skills to justify beliefs we already have (edit: and this is not always a bad thing. You want people to justify that murder is wrong, you don't want somebody starting from scratch and concluding that murder is fine, and then acting on it. You want them to justify the accepted norms). Then since we have a stake in getting to the preexisting conclusion, we'll overlook shaky parts to our reasoning.  That's how I see the bigot thing. Nobody, thinking logically, would argue that bigotry is in not discriminating against someone, since that's the opposite of what it means. But if the argument seems to get you where you want to go, you'll overlook that. The value in getting a science education is that by getting answers wrong, you are forced, over and over, to go over your reasoning and find the errors and suck it up and change your belief. You learn to be less attached to your desired conclusions. Conversely, the problem with religion is it demands you commit to certain conclusions at all costs. The dogma of the faith is absolutely true, no ifs, ands, or butts. And so people will go to great lengths, overlook horribly broken reasoning, to keep those demanded conclusions. It causes people like Dembski to waste their lives trying to square the circle.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:43    Quote And feel free to posit that I'm just really brilliant for a reason I managed to get out.  I'm pretty good with that one. ok, consider it posited. with the caveat that it's posited by someone who has no real background to say such

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:46    Quote can you explain what you mean by can and can't get out? did you mean forced coercion by use of some physical restraint? Nope.  Physical restraint is unnecessary to keep the faithful in line.  That's the point of this thread, in a way, isn't it? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:50    Quote We tend, unfortunately, to use our reasoning skills to justify beliefs we already have. agreed, but let's focus on one phrase here: Tend to. It could be argued that the difference between a religious person and a creobot is one of degree, yes? while we all "tend to" use our reasoning skills in a similar qualitative fashion, there is a great difference in how that relates quantitatively. for example, let's take AFDave again. You can see a difference i trust, in the degree to which AFDave "tends to" use his reasoning skills (if you can even call them that) to justify his beliefs, vs. the others who post in his thread, yes? would you qualify the overusage of the tendency to rationilize your belief structures "normal" or "abnormal" from a psychological perspective? Quote Conversely, the problem with religion is it demands you commit to certain conclusions at all costs I'm not at all certain that can be qualified as a blanket statement. but then that's kinda the core of my argument.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:54    Quote Physical restraint is unnecessary to keep the faithful in line.  That's the point of this thread, in a way, isn't it? yes, but I'm still unsure how to answer your original question.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:54    Oh, yeah, well, the religious person, in your example, has a small and remote set of required conclusions. So they're not going to run into much conflict. Whereas creobots like Dave have huge sets of concrete conclusions, such as the set of all sentences in the bible, and the odds are great that some real knowledge, in science, will conflict, and Dave will have to back-justify why it must be wrong. It's an awful position to be in. You see the lengths to which he must go to deny reality, to try to preserve all those religiously-required beliefs. Quote would you qualify the overusage of the tendency to rationilize your belief structures "normal" or "abnormal" from a psychological perspective? Oh it's absolutely normal, it's a 50-year-old theory in social psychology that people will rework their set of beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:58    Quote It's an awful position to be in. You see the lengths to which he must go to deny reality, to try to preserve all those religiously-required beliefs. exactly the kind of thing that causes cognitive dissonance. Quote Oh it's absolutely normal, it's a 50-year-old theory in social psychology that people will rework their set of beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance. and do you see AFDave doing that? I sure don't. It's my position that the level of cognitive dissonance exhibited by AFDave has already caused significant damage. I don't see him trying to do anything rational to reduce the level of dissonance, i see projection and denial as mechanisms to deal with it instead. normal? natural, maybe, but it wouldn't qualify as "normal" in any pych text I've ever perused. oh, and glad to see the subject has garnered your interest.

Pages: (5) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard