CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is religious belief a choice?
Religious people often speak about choosing to accept God into one's heart, but is this really a choice? Is whether or not someone believes dependent on things they can't help, like the way their brain is built, the environment they were brought up in,knowledge, or indoctrination, or is there an element of choice? This could also extend to a free will debate, if your mind is set to work a certain way, then you are set to respond to things a certain way, you have no say in the mind you are born with, so perhaps you have no free will, just an illusion.
If the correct answer is no, belief is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?
Edit: I didn't intend for this to be an argument about indoctrination, I meant for it to be about free will in the way that Galen Strawson theorizes. Your mind is set a certain way, so perhaps your beliefs (and actions) are too, only being affected by other circumstances you cannot control.
It is more a choice than beyond your choice. Although it is true that parents and society do their brainwashing to promote certain beliefs the fact that some individuals opt out or choose something else is evidence real choice is still involved.
Personally, I think most people aren't so much choosing yes/no I'll hold a particular believe as they are choosing in which ways do they want to shake up their world. Because let's face it, the easiest thing to do in life is to go along with the flow. The hardest thing is to make a change against the norm, whether that is changing religion, moving far away, marrying someone different then you're expected, getting an abortion, taking an unusual job, etc. When people surrender to the socialization to belong to a particular religion it doesn't always mean they're all in, it also can just mean it wasn't a priority for them to challenge that which they can easily just pay lip service to. So ironically, not addressing their religion is in and of itself a choice. Why fight with your parents (or with religious conservatives on this site) when you can just not talk about it, and meanwhile exercise your choice in some other way more important to yourself.
I can see an argument here for it being a choice as to whether or not you research the facts about religion, as you said "Not addressing their religion is in and of itself a choice," but that's not really a choice in belief.
After choosing to research religion, and seeing the arguments, do you think one has a choice as to whether or not to accept the arguments, or do you think that the function of their brain at the time, in response to the arguments, is out of their control, and whether or not they find the arguments convincing enough to change their beliefs is therefore out of their hands, and not a choice?
Look at Galen Strawson's argument against free will if my point doesn't make sense.
It makes sense. And in fact the answer for whether or not it's free will may depend in part on each individual: whether their nature tends toward independence or compliance, their level of education and/or of intelligence, the random luck of which religion they were most familiar with to start with, etc.
As always, the anti Christian bigots swarm to any debate that gives them a forum to spew their anger and hatred. It's a reunion of bigoted judgmental hatemongers.
So why not tell us all why you have developed such hatred? Some so called Christian must have tortured you to develope such hate?
Now I want you to always blame Christianity for the actions of a few false Christians. Show us all the logic of bigots. Remember, all Black people are bad because of the color of their skin. Remember, all Christians are bad because of their beliefs.
You speak of people growing up brainwashed and having no choice to what they believe?
So tell us all, do you have a choice in your hatred towards Christians? Or were you brainwashed into it.
It matters not because people have the ability to change and replace their hatred with love and forgiveness.
It's up to you if you want to choose God's forgiveness, or the world's insecure hate.
It's all a choice. It's a choice such as supporting the killing of viable unborn babies when you vote for the Democrat Party, and it's a choice where you spend eternity.
I'm not sure if you're speaking to me, but I'll act as of you are.
This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination, at least not as a main focus. The question about choice is this (adapted from the words of Galen Strawson):
You believe what you believe, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you believe, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you believe.
In other words, belief is not a choice.
If brainwashing was the only factor I would see belief as a choice, but brainwashing isn't the only factor, and it certainly isn't always present.
If you weren't addressing me, you might have a fair point with regards what some people are saying about indoctrination.
This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination,
There are atheists even on this site who admit were brought up as atheist.
There is an irish father on this site who trains his kids in atheistic manner(not 100% for his religiois wife sake) and makes his children believe in the unproven evolution theory as fact
So don't come here being all hypocrite. Like you are not aware of that.
Atheism indoctrinates so why are you attacking religion only.
"Is religious belief a choice?" is the title of this debate. That goes both ways, so I'm not only talking about belief, but lack of belief too.
Me saying "This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination," doesn't imply that only religious people indoctrinate at all.
I'm not attacking anything there anyways.
In the debate description, where I said: "Religious people often speak about choosing to accept God into one's heart" that was merely to give some context, and I've never heard an atheist talk about choosing not to believe.
When I said in the debate description: "If the correct answer is no, belief is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?" Perhaps that was an argument against religion (on the assumption that there is no choice) but I only said it to match the context at the beginning, and I don't see anyone disputing it rationally.
Dispute it then. Saying something is blind and faulty proves nothing but your arrogance. If God makes people who have no choice in what they believe, then blames them for not believing in him, then that is unfair, and therefore unjust, which is inconsistent with the God that most Christians believe in. What is wrong with that logic?
Saying something is blind and faulty proves nothing but your arrogance.
It is blind to the other complementing side(which is atheism indoctrinates also) and faulty when 1. you say therefore God cannot blame one for being atheists.
2.Not all christians(specifically) were indoctrined in childhood. Some converted as adult atheists, muslims,pantheists, humanists etc. a good example is constantine.
I didn't say anything that would imply that atheism doesn't indoctrinate. I agree that atheism can indoctrinate in the same way as religions.
Why is it faulty that God couldn't blame one for being an atheist? If there is no choice, then what is he blaming them for. (Remember, the point I asked you to dispute was assuming that there is no choice, so your not allowed to make an argument as to why there s choice to dispute it.)
I agree that not all Christians were indoctrinated into childhood, and that has nothing to do with what you are supposed to be attempting to dispute.
Here again is what you are supposed to dispute: "Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?" Argue why my reasoning is wrong, or accept it as a valid point.
"Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?"
You already accepted my answer here....
"I agree that not all Christians were indoctrinated into childhood, and that has nothing to do with what you are supposed to be attempting to dispute."
And it has everything to do with what i am to be disputing because it implies freewill to choose right from childhood and God can blame atheists for being atheists.
Some on here say they became atheists at age 7+, though from a christian doctrined home.
And at age 15 my pastor converted from catholic(mexican background) to penticostal without even meeting the preacher earlier. He had a choice. Catholics are anti penticostal indoctrinators. He had to fight his family for a long time till he became an independent man(eventually his grandma and father converted to penticostal after more than a decade).
There is always a choice to every indoctrination , atheistic, catholic, christian, budhist,~ child or adult, free or prisoner and God will blame you(especially a well thinking adult).
Your point is therefore not valid.
Be real and stop assuming, there is a choice.
If you don't intend to make realistic debates then this contributes to nothing just a waste.
You still haven't even come near to refuting the logic. How could I have accepted an answer you never gave? The whole point of that statement is what if the correct answer to the original question is that there is no choice for atheists, and you're trying to refute my logic by ignoring the 'what if' at the beginning. It's a hypothetical question. To answer a 'what if' question you have to begin with an assumption, in this case that there is no choice in becoming an atheist. You can't say mt logic is bad because of the assumption at the start because that's the whole point,it's an assumption which you have to accept to refute the logic. You can't just say that there's a choice and therefore it's not valid, because you have to work from the assumption that there is a choice, and then refute the logic. It's like me saying to you, "If there was no moon, it would be darker at night." You can't just say; "Well there is a moon, so your wrong." That misses the point entirely.
I will ask again then; "Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him (because they had no choice) ?"
"Be real and stop assuming, there is a choice.
If you don't intend to make realistic debates then this contributes to nothing just a waste."
I'm allowed to make whatever debate I like, you don't have to participate if you think your time will be wasted.
There are atheists who were brought up as atheists ? So what ?
I'm Irish and what is an ' Atheistic manner ' ?
How can you bring someone up in an ' Atheistic manner ' but not 100 per cent ?
I never believed in ' making ' anyone believe in something .
Evolution is accepted as fact by 93 per cent of scientists and is proven ; if you have a counter theory that disproves Evolution why are you not revealing it , fame awaits you .
As usual, never address the points that make your argument look stupid.
I asked what created your bigotry against Christians? Was it a choice to be so judgmental?
Were you abused as a child, were you raised by strict parents? Did you have a choice for being so insecure with people who shine a light on your inhumnity towards others such as with abortion.
Bigotry = intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Tolerance = the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with.
I tolerate the existence of your beliefs and behavior, at least the behavior that isn't detrimental to society. Therefore I'm not bigoted against Christians who do not harm society, which means I'm not bigoted towards most of them. The ones I am bigoted to are the ones that do, or try to do things detrimental to society, like attempt to put creationism in more schools. I see no problem with being bigoted against those people, so call me a bigot all you like.
It wasn't a choice to be judgmental, I was just born with a brain that can see through bullshit, not my choice.
I wasn't abused as a child, and my parents weren't particularly strict. I'm not insecure with people who criticize abortion, I just like to have a reasoned debate with them about why it is wrong.
You were born with a brain but you are clinically mindless not to see through all the inhumanity with the so called compassionate Left.
You have swallowed the coolaide. You have bought into the Leftwing lunacy either because your parents taught you to, or you lack the common sense wisdom to understand that killing a viable baby for any reason up to birth is inhuman!
When you start voting for Democrats, you might as well dismember those children yourself.
You deserve no respect for your inhumanity and YOU ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE LIVES OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS!
YOU TOTAL HYPOCRITE!
You call it detrimental for people of faith to want their children also hearing creation theories if the schools are gong to push their evolution theories on their children.
Many Christians say speak to both theories or speak to none.
I would prefer they speak to neither and get back to teaching our children the basics.
One side does not get to preach their evolutionary God with little proof and no clue how the first living cell magically appeared.
You call another person's right, to not want their children indoctrinated by the Left, as being detrimemtal, but you have no problem with NO RESTRICTON ABORTIONS?
It's a choice. Perhaps as a child it may not be but as one grows and gains independent thinking it becomes a choice. If they choose to stay with it because that's what is expected, that's a choice. If they choose to stay with it because they believe in it, that's a choice. If they choose to research others and practice others or leave what belief they grew up with all together, that's a choice.
"If they choose to stay with it because they believe in it, that's a choice"
But that's the same thing... do they choose whether to believe in it, or does belief just happen because of the way their brain is built, and what that brain has to work with?
You almost make a convincing argument, but it seems a bit circular, as you begin by saying that they choose with "If they choose..." being repeated.
does belief just happen because of the way their brain is built, and what that brain has to work with?
Growing up, they may not have a choice, it may be ingrained by their family and the lifestyle they have. But as they get older and move into adulthood a different world is open to them. They get their independence and what they do after that is their choice. There are enough people who have questioned the teachings of their families particular faith to where it's not an oddity that they move to either a different belief or drop their belief all together.
Them choosing to stay within the teachings of their initial religion is their choice, I stand by the statement because ultimately what they do as an adult, with their freedoms and their access to information, is up to them.
But as an adult has no choice as to what their brain is built like, then even though they seem to choose to question the teaching of their families , their brain was set to work in a way that they would have done that anyway. And even if they did 'choose' to question their family's teachings, it wouldn't be their choice as to whether or not what they found was convincing enough to make them change their beliefs, as they can't choose what standards of evidence their brain requires.
So it's not their choice, right? (They may have the illusion of choice)
The brain set up thing you talking about includes atheism , you know right? so why are you so keen on religion instead of removing the log in your own eye which is atheism so you see clearly to deal with the speck in a religious indoctrined man's eyes.
The more you try to describe a religious person's mind set up the more you describe youself(atheism).
You are playing idiotic politics to make you feel better about yourself.
You are not the right person to be coaching us through this debate because you do not speak from neutral grounds(no matter how much you will deny it).
You want to talk about belief indoctrination(involving or denial) and you fail to address the other side convenience sake because that is where your seat is located.
You set up a debate "is religious belief a choice"? then you pretend to play neutral.........when if indeed you desire to do so it would be "is religious belief and atheism a choice"?
Some christians(by family tag) became atheists at 7 but isaac newton was christian till death, are trying to imply the 7yrs old had a more liberative , intelligent and open mind(ed) than isaac newton?
But that wouldn't be the case for you if it happened to be the opposite which is atheist becoming christian?
Because you're pretending to be intelligent?
This debate is over...this stupid shit you doing here.....
"The brain set up thing you talking about includes atheism , you know right?
Of course it includes atheism, that's why I said "whether or not to believe." Stop putting words into my mouth, and talking about everyone's beliefs or lack of beliefs.
"The more you try to describe a religious person's mind set up the more you describe youself (atheism)."
What on earth are you talking about. I'm not trying to describe what goes on in religious people's minds, I'm just saying that different people have different minds that will do different things. I'll say again, do not put words into my mouth.
"You want to talk about belief indoctrination(involving or denial) and you fail to address the other side convenience sake because that is where your seat is located."
But I don't want to talk about indoctrination, read the debate's description. I edited it a while ago, because everyone was talking about indoctrination, and that is only a small part of the issue. You're putting more words into my mouth. Also I am addressing the other side, in my other debate about whether it's okay for a public school
to put up pro atheism posters, and I'm saying no it's not, for exactly the reason that it qualifies as indoctrination.
"You set up a debate "is religious belief a choice"? then you pretend to play neutral.........when if indeed you desire to do so it would be "is religious belief and atheism a choice"?"
Is religious belief a choice covers all religions, and the lack of belief in any religions. I don't need to say atheism, it's just basically the rejection of religious belief. Atheism comes under the title.
"Some christians(by family tag) became atheists at 7 but isaac newton was christian till death, are trying to imply the 7yrs old had a more liberative , intelligent and open mind(ed) than isaac newton?"
No, what are you talking about. I'm not implying anything, I'm just saying that different people will be convinced by different sides because of the circumstances they are in and the way they are, regardless of which side is correct.
"This debate is over...this stupid shit you doing here....."
I will say the exact same to you, and for your continued dishonesty through misrepresenting what I've said, I will ban you. i suppose that means you won't be able to answer the question I posed you elsewhere in this debate, but I don't think you would have been able to answer it anyways, so bye bye.
It is a choice but your choice also varies on how you were brought up. For example, you are not forced to believe in a specific religion even if you were forced to be part of it. You can control how you feel about different religions therefore it is a choice.
Though you are not forced by anyone to believe in something, doesn't make it a choice. The argument I'm using for why it isn't a choice is related to one about free will, Dermot explained this better than I could elsewhere in the debate, so I'll just quote what he said, which he may have gotten elsewhere:
"The Philosopher Galen Strawson puts together a basic argument as to why we do not have free will .......
You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do."
(Back to me talking now) It follows then that you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you believe. This is, for me anyways, the crux of the question.
You said: "You can control how you feel about different religions therefore it is a choice."
I'm not entirely sure that one does have control over their emotions, and even then, you could feel good about a religion - I like Buddhism (not technically a religion) - but that doesn't mean I'm convinced by it. I can't control the standards that my brain holds for evidence for religion being correct, so I can't control what convinces me, and therefore can't control what I believe.
Dermot explained this better than I could elsewhere in the debate
Dermot is less intelligent than a soggy bag of McChicken Nuggets, so please feel free to plagiarise his opinion to prove how wrong you are.
The Philosopher Galen Strawson puts together a basic argument as to why we do not have free will .......
We are specifically debating whether religious belief is a choice. If you want to expand the parameters of the debate to whether we have free will then please start a debate called: "Do we have free will?" Free will is the dominant philosophical position, so for the purpose of this specific debate we should assume it to be real.
You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
This is laughable pseudo-intellectual bullshit. It can be disproved immediately and with ease.
Strawson's sentence can logically only apply to decisions in which the input variables are known to the participant and in which the participant holds a bias towards them (i.e. Do I want steak or sprouts for dinner?). When the input variables are unknown to the participant, and/or when there is no bias towards them (i.e. odd or even, Neptune or Pluto, black or dark) then his theory obviously cannot apply. If someone has no direct experience of the choices then it cannot be said "the way they are" causes them to pick a certain choice. Therefore, the participant must necessarily make a decision.
Furthermore, even when the input variables are known and there is bias, it still doesn't preclude a participant from choosing the opposite of their bias. If this were not true then there would be no such thing as a surprise decision.
In sum, you are wrong and what you are arguing is logically indefensible. Have a nice evening.
Your opinion matters little to me ; regards intelligence your failure to solve my little brain teaser has you in a fury .
Your ridiculous 9/11 debate shows exactly why no one takes you seriously on here , and also displays the level of your intelligence .
How is Mack guilty of plagiarism when he mentioned my piece and named me ?
Telling someone there wrong is not an argument and is rather childish .
Incidentally you do not run or own this site ; Mack or others can expand the parameters of the debate if they wish .
You accuse one of the worlds best philosophical theorists of spouting ' intellectual bullshit ' you tell Mack what he's defending is logically indefensible ; and of course everyone is wrong except you ; powerful argument indeed .
I dislike bullies you're a bully . Boring is your middle name .
Well you did read what I said as you just gave your ' opinion ' on my piece ..... there's that logic tripping you up again .
I mentioned 9/11 so others can gauge the level of you idiocy and thus avoid you . You don't debate you force your ridiculous opinions and when challenged resort to insult
Nothing I say is true ? This coming from a twat that thinks 9 /11 was an inside job as he knows the ' real ' truth .
Regards saying stupid things I think you also have that covered ..... refer to above 👌👋👋👋👋👋
That is another deliberate lie. You are the bully, which is why you keep writing two hundred word replies containing nothing but insults and empty rhetoric.
I mentioned 9/11 so others can gauge the level of you idiocy
A perfect case in point. Go and get an education you aggressive little retard. You mention 9/11 at least twice per post and never have any argument or point. Why are you so desperate to sell people your 9/11 narrative?
Nothing I say is true ? This coming from a twat that thinks 9 /11 was an inside job
I have demonstrated to you umpteen times that there is an absolute wealth of evidence 9/11 was an inside job. If you want to respond to that evidence by sticking your idiotic fingers in your ears and calling me a twat then that is your prerogative -- PROVIDED WE ARE DEBATING 9/11 IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
A new report accuses the State Department of STAGGERING lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.
The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that ALL OF THEM should have been denied entry to the country.
You've proved you're a bully and a coward attacking a woman for merely asking you a question.
😂😂 my 9 / 11 narrative 😂😂😂 you stupid dummy all your 9/11 bullshit was destroyed by me and others ; you failed to even answer questions put to you and resorted to banning your last desperate option .
Yes it is my prerogative to call you a twat that's why I called you one , 9 /11was not an inside job except to idiots like you who possibly think Einstein was killed by the mafia because he knew too much 😂😂👏👏👏👏👏👏
I don't think anybody with an iota of intellect takes your opinion seriously, but thanks anyway.
9 / 11
9/11 again? What a refreshing change.
9 /11was not an inside job
Again, I don't think anybody with an iota of intellect takes your opinion seriously. Especially when it opposes the evidence I have just linked that it was.
Here's some more. Peer-reviewed science this time:-
So I have hard scientific evidence and you have name calling? Awesome. Very even debate.
Try this it puts all your bullshit theories to bed
Clearly you are much too stupid to critically examine your own sources of information, and instead are only concerned with validating your own rabid confirmation bias. The acronym of the organisation you have linked (CSICOP) stands for: Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
It is not a scientific journal and it contains no peer-reviewed scientific study. It is run by its lifetime chairman Paul Kurtz, who by some strange coincidence also happens to be one of the main 9/11 terror suspects:-
No you have bullshit masquerading as science Niels Harrits bullshit has been discredited more than once .
It's actually the CSI .........
It's incredible that you try and smear a society which had the great Carl Sagan , Issac Asimov , Martin Gardener , James Randi on its committee and to say it's not scientific is beyond hilarious
About CSI
The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee:
Maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education
Prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims
Encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed
Convenes conferences and meetings
Publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal
Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully
The Committee is a program of the Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit educational organization. The Committee was launched in 1976. The Skeptical Inquirer is its official journal.
Some of the founding members of CSI include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others. A list of CSI fellows is published in every issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.
CSI, encourages careful, rational, critical examination of unusual claims. One of the best guides is a short piece by Ray Hyman, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, titled “Proper Criticism”.
Skeptical Briefs newsletter
You are invited to subscribe to the Committee’s quarterly newsletter, Skeptical Briefs. Subscriptions to Skeptical Briefs are independent of your Skeptical Inquirer subscription. Subscribe today!
Contacting CSI
You can contact CSI for more information
The article i cited is from the National Inquirer and of course ithe site is run by yet another one in your ' conspiracy theory ' scenarios .
No you have bullshit masquerading as science Niels Harrits bullshit has been discredited more than once .
I'm not interested in your empty rhetoric, you mentally retarded child. Harrit's work has been peer-reviewed and independently scrutinised more times than the theory of relativity (i.e. in relative terms). No scientific study has yet emerged to challenge his conclusions and his paper is now eight years old.
It's actually the CSI .........
Your own link shows that it was originally CSICOP, you insufferable troglodyte:-
They are paranormal researchers and nothing paranormal happened on 9/11.
About CSI
The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee:
Maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education
You pulled all of your text direct from the CSICOP website you fucking idiot. How about a slightly less biased source? For example:-
A Critical Look at CSI, (formerly CSICOP), a Pseudo-Scientific Skeptic Organization
What they do very, very well is pretend to be scientific. They are basically an atheist marketing organization dedicated to the systematic debunking of all psychic research through pseudo-science, talking points, ridicule and lobbying. In particular, they lobby real scientific organizations, using their list of well educated fellows to discourage any active interest in any parapsychological studies. (link here) They maintain the pretense of objectivity, but in reality, they are anything but. As George Hansen writes:-
"In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors."
Again, it is a paranormal research society and nothing paranormal happened on 9/11. Its opinion is irrelevant in isolation and less than irrelevant when in opposition to qualified experts who have investigated and written literature on the subject.
It's incredible that you try and smear a society which had the great Carl Sagan
What is incredible is that you are deliberately confusing smear (i.e. what you tried to do to Professor Harrit at the beginning of your post) with the series of facts I posted about CSICOP. Professor Harrit is an expertly qualified chemist who has conducted an exhaustive analysis of the WTC dust, and that analysis has been extensively peer-reviewed by other scholars in the field. Posting an opinion piece written by PSICOP, a committee which has conducted no scientific investigation of its own, and which was set up as a paranormal investigation society, does absolutely nothing to refute Harrit's conclusions.
Listen you dummy you can continue ball licking Haririt but his claims have been destroyed more than once ....
“Nano-thermite and military-grade explosives were found in dust from the towers. Tons of melted steel were found in tower debris.”
thermite burningThe thermite reaction is very hot, but it is also very slow compared to high explosives.
Real controlled demolitions commonly use explosives to topple large buildings. However, the hallmarks of actual demolitions (the characteristic “boom-boom-boom-boom” sounds and the flashes of high explosives) were completely absent in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001. Many 9/11 Truth advocates, including architect Richard Gage, insist that high explosives must have been used to bring down the Twin Towers, as they say this is the only process that can possibly explain the “ejection of debris hundreds of feet from the towers.” However, they simultaneously insist that thermite or a derivative (thermate, nanothermite, etc.) was used instead, so as to topple the towers quietly. (This is but one of many instances in which 9/11 Truth claims flatly contradict each other.) Thermite itself fails as an explanation for the destruction of the Towers on many levels:
The thermite reaction, which takes place between iron oxide (rust) and powdered aluminum, is practical for welding train tracks in the field and for destroying engines of vehicles that must be left behind during combat operations. The self-sustaining reaction, once initiated with heat, produces significant volumes of molten iron, which can melt and cut iron structures beneath it. For thermite to melt through a normally vertical steel beam, however, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from simply dropping straight down uselessly. The thermite reaction is very hot, but it is also very slow compared to high explosives. Thermite is simply not practical for carrying out a controlled demolition, and there is no documentation of it ever having been used for that purpose.
Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failure—even in the optimum (horizontal) configuration, the layer of nanothermite produced lots of flame and smoke but no actual damage to the massive I-beam tested. However, Ventura’s TruTV Conspiracy Theory show slyly passed it off as a rousing success (Thomas 2010a).
Niels Harrit and Steven Jones, along with several coauthors, published the “peer-reviewed” paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit 2009). This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11. The paper examined “distinctive red/gray chips” found in WTC dust (unfortunately, with no chain of custody for the dust), and these were claimed to be thermitic because of their composition (iron oxides and pure aluminum) and other chemical properties. However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite, because iron oxide and aluminum are found in many common items that existed in the towers. Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006). Finally, the scan of the red side of the “thermitic material” of Harrit/Jones is a dead-on match to material Jones himself identified as “WTC Steel Primer Paint” in his Hard Evidence Down Under Tour in November of 2009 (“Sunstealer” 2011).
Harrit’s article describes the red portion of the chips as “unreacted thermitic material.” But while thermite may be slow, it does not stop its reaction once it has begun. Because thermite supplies its own oxygen (via iron oxides), it can even burn underwater. Suggesting that the samples show partially reacted thermite is preposterous. Claiming that thermite would explain molten pools of steel weeks and months after the attack is equally preposterous.
The article’s publication process was so politicized and bizarre that the editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal that featured Jones’s article, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned in protest (Hoffman 2009).
Thermitic demolition should have created copious pools of melted steel at Ground Zero, but nothing remotely like this was ever found. Truthers say iron microspheres found in the rubble indicate thermite; since hot fires and spot-welding do produce very tiny spheres of iron, though, these “microspheres” are not unexpected. Pictures of cranes holding red-hot materials in the rubble are said to show molten steel. Had this been the case, however, the crane rigs would have immediately seized up (Blanchard 2006). No reports of “molten steel” in the tower basements have ever been credibly verified (Roberts 2008). Some Truthers claim that a few pieces of sulfidized “eutectic” steel found in the towers proves thermate (thermite with sulfur) usage, but this occurred because sulfur, released from burned drywall, corroded the steel as it stewed in the pile for weeks (Roberts 2008).
The link shows it was CSIOP 8 years ago you dunmb brute so fucking what ?
The CSI research claims from 'truthers ' you don't like that do you ?
The CSI investigate all sorts of claims including your type as in conspiracy theories , get over it ?
Harrits claims I've just destroyed , ' truthers' like you see conspiracy everywhere Truth org and its owner have been exposed as liars as have your much loved janitor who changed his story several times .
When are you posting up your evidence for your so called cover up ?
Listen you dummy you can continue ball licking Haririt but his claims have been destroyed more than once ....
Harrit released his paper in 2009 and to date, no peer-reviewed refutation of his conclusions has been put forward by anybody, in eight years, and with his paper having received a comparable level of scientific scrutiny to Einstein's theory of relativity. You are an egregious liar and as such your sentences neither encourage or require rational responses.
Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to show how nanothermite can slice through a large steel beam. The experiment was a total failure
Thermite has been used in demolitions since the 1930s. Nanothermite is simply an advanced military grade form of standard thermite.
The Sky Ride was demolished at the conclusion of the fair. The west tower was brought down using 120 pounds of dynamite.[3] The east tower was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs.
I sent you the piece de-bunking this chancers nonsense ; what are you babbling on about I've rubbished your nonsense several times now ... away with you and lick your wounds ,after you finish with Hairlips balls 😂😂👌
I sent you the piece de-bunking this chancers nonsense
Harrit is a 30 year doctor of chemistry with a professorship at the University of Copenhagen. Calling him a "chancer" isn't going to make his qualifications go away, and your empty, rhetorical claims that you "debunked" him do not constitute a peer-reviewed refutation of his peer-reviewed scientific analysis.
Harrits is a 'chancer ' and interesting that people with qualifications never lie or distort the truth ; I gave you the facts about his claims typically you ignore them as it doesn't support your narrative
By the way demonstrate where and who peer reviewed him ?
A chancer and a liar and his nonsense is seen as such except by loonies like you , read it and weep .... from International sceptics
I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.
I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.
The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)
'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)
No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.
The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.
So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.
He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.
And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.
He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.
There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.
Just for the record - Niels Harrit also believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" (can´t link it yet). In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.
Clearly an archetypal truther with a bunch of strange ideas.
Do you have any tricks other than making demonstrably false allegations and then repeating them over and over and over to try to get them into people's heads and brainwash them?
and interesting that people with qualifications never lie or distort the truth
Interesting that you are now comparing your own empty, infantile rhetoric with peer-reviewed science.
By the way demonstrate where and who peer reviewed him ?
So you can randomly accuse all of his peer-reviewers of being "chancers" too? Sounds legit buddy. I'll get right on that for you.
A chancer and a liar
Repeating the word "chancer" over and over and over like a retarded Nazi propagandist does not constitute a peer-reviewed refutation of his analysis of the composition of the WTC dust. Please try to understand that you are psychologically unwell.
I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there
But you are purposefully throwing emotive words around like "rubbish", "chancer" and "liar" because you are a mentally ill Nazi with no logical refutation to anything Professor Harrit says. Empty rhetoric and personal attacks do not constitute a debate. They constitute you being mentally unwell.
Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?
They demonstrably had nothing to do with them, and this is supported by other peer-reviewed analysis. For example Professor of Physics Stephen Jones released a detailed paper in 2006 which explicates poignantly why your conspiracy theory defies basic Newtonian mechanics. You may read it here:-
Alternatively, you could simply keep using purposefully emotion-driven rhetoric and words like "fires", "impacts", "chancer" and "liar" to help people forget that your completely unproven conspiracy theory defies the laws of physics and simply did not happen. I suspect that is what you will do because you are an infantile neo-Nazi liar who believes he can make wildly assumptive claims about "fires" and "impacts" and then throw the burden of proof onto other people to disprove them. And then, when they do, simply call them all "chancers" and "liars".
In closing, you are mentally unwell, you have no argument other than smear, logical fallacy and personal attacks, and I frankly have no idea why you are still replying to me given that you cannot produce any scientific (i.e. peer-reviewed) refutation of Harrit's paper.
The truth can hardly be called a 'trick ' , though self deception as in what you do would fall under that description.
Incorrect again Harrits lies were exposed on Danish television, again who peer reviewed Harrit?
Bet you won't 'get right on it '
Repeating the words 'peer reviewed ' over and over and over like a retarded Nazi does not constitute debating print your sources up you Nazi troll
Refer to above
Stephen Jones has been discredited with the Chancer Haritt and your constant bleating about being ' peer reviewed ' for both these chancers is hilarious 😂😂😂
In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer , the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level, and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.
That's gotta hurt buddy 👌Read it again and weep , a pair of fucking chancers 🙀🙀🙀
In closing , you are mentally unwell , you have no argument other than support a chancer who's lies I posted up in my last de -bunking of your nonsense ; you cannot post up who peer reviewed the chancer and like a typical ' truther ' you accuse those who de -bunk your nonsense of being conspiracy theorists
Repeatedly calling a 30 year professor of chemistry a "liar" and a "chancer" when you have provided precisely no evidence that he is either is not "truth". It is more of the same transparently false rhetoric which defines your disturbing and intellectually empty posts.
Incorrect again Harrits lies were exposed on Danish television
You are making a complete idiot of yourself. Either provide a peer-reviewed refutation of Harrit's analysis like you were asked to do three days ago or shut your lying neo-Nazi mouth.
The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned
If Professor Marie-Paule Pileni is "an expert in explosives and nano-technology", then please explain to us why she claimed the paper "lies outside my field of expertise"?
The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".
Like I have said from the beginning, all you have are political smear attacks and guilt by association tactics. You have no scientific rebuttal and are simply an absolutely massive liar on the scale of Adolf Hitler.
No, you proved that you are a liar. Proving Professor Harrit is a liar requires you to debunk his peer-reviewed scientific analysis of the composition of the WTC dust, not call him mean names.
I'm still waiting for you prove who peer review him
Why don't you simply research this information for yourself?
are you denying his lies were exposed on Danish tv ?
I am saying you have called him a liar approximately 12 times over the past three days and provided not a single shred of evidence that he has lied about anything, at any time. This is the second time you have claimed "his lies were exposed on Danish TV" and the second time you have failed to support your accusation with anything at all, let alone anything of substance. Your rhetoric is transparently false.
I have watched two of them already and he does not lie in either.
That's 8 times I've asked you .... respond please
I believe you are asking me this question because you know that the scientific peer review process is anonymous unless the peer reviewers give specific permission to have their details released. It is another in a long line of your poor attempts to misdirect people.
However, one of the peer-reviewers did get a little bit annoyed that pathological lying bastards such as yourself kept insisting not knowing who the peer reviewers were means the paper was not peer-reviewed, and kindly provided his full details:-
The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom. Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS. I quote a brief excerpt from his blog and encourage you to read all of it:
The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."
Your lies I've exposed several times yet again here are the lies from Harrits own mouth on Danish TV
I came across a Danish interview of Niels Harrit today, from the program 'Good Morning Denmark' April 07, 2009.
I could not believe the total rubbish that he was putting out there. Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?! he behaved like a person untouched by reality.
The most astonishing and disturbing statements he made were these: (according to the translation)
'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)
No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.
The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.
So who is crazy here?' He asks in response to the interviewer's question.
He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed, who I think was at the top of the FBI's most wanted list.
And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.
He seems oblivious to a great deal of truth and reality. Must be nice being a leader in the 9/11 truth movement - you can just say whatever you like without any real evidence, and the truther cult laps it up like warm milk.
There's not much truth in 9/11 truth it seems.
Just for the record - Niels Harrit also believes that the Pentagon hole has a size of 4.6 x 5.5 meter and he recommends DRGs "New Pearl Harbor". Read his "9/11 - A roadblock or a shortcut to peace and democracy?" (can´t link it yet). In a german interview at gulli.com he also states that the bomb-sniffing dogs at WTC were removed two weeks before 9/11 and UL certified the WTC steel.
Regarding being peer reviewed here is the truth of the matter Harrit and Jones both caught red handed lying ..,.....
In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned. She received an e-mail from the Danish science journal Videnskab asking for her professional assessment of the article's content.According to Pileni, the article was published without her authorization. Subsequently, numerous concerns arose regarding the reliability of the publisher, Bentham Science Publishing. This included the publishing an allegedly peer reviewed article generated by SCIgen (although this program has also successfully submitted papers to IEEE and Springer , the resignation of multiple people at the administrative level, and soliciting article submissions from researchers in unrelated fields through spam.
Since all your claims have been rubbished victory you have to admit is mine ..... the crowd rise as one to applaud the winner 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏��👏
Starting with a complete denial that the plane impacts and fires had anything to do with the WTC tower collapses !?!
You appear to be confusing where the burden of proof lies in order to load your language with more deliberately false rhetoric. Nobody has proven that the plane impacts or the fires caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. You are simply hoping people assume this must have been the case. Indeed, WTC 7 was not even struck by a plane yet collapsed at free fall speed just like the other two towers. Hence, Harrit hasn't "denied" anything. He's simply proven that your theory about how the towers collapsed is wrong.
he behaved like a person untouched by reality.
Absolutely epic Freudian projection. You insist the plane impacts and office fires caused the 415 metre tall, 500,000 kg WTC buildings to collapse symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed, but you have absolutely no evidence of this, and yet you are using distortion and abuse of language to attack a professional scientist who has written a peer-reviewed paper which proves that you are wrong.
The evidence proves that neither fires nor plane impacts caused the collapse of the WTC buildings. It's as simple as that. Instead of producing a qualified refutation of Harrit's work as you were asked to do three days ago, you have instead simply repeatedly attacked the man with transparent appeals to emotion and fallacy.
'There has never been a forensic investigation of this event. (9/11)
This is absolutely true. Ruling out the use of explosives should have been standard protocol for a suspected terrorist attack, but no forensic tests for explosives residue were conducted on the WTC buildings. It actually gets even worse than that, because there were no physical tests of any kind. For every single person in the world with credibility and intellect, this is a spectacular red flag.
No evidence has been put forward. No one has been formally charged.
Also a (half) true statement. Nobody has ever put forward any evidence that either bin Laden or al Qaeda were in any way involved with the 9/11 attacks. In fact, after the FBI had finished investigating the matter, the director went on the record to say:-
In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.
It is not true that no one has been formally charged, but since the only person to be formally charged was charged in complete secrecy in 2008, and Harrit was speaking in 2009, it is very likely that Harrit was unaware of this.
The police and FBI have not charged anyone, and no-one is 'wanted'.
This is true. Neither the police nor the FBI charged anyone, and bin Laden, the head of the organisation the US government claimed was responsible, never appeared on the FBI wanted list for connection with that particular attack.
So who is crazy here?'
You are crazy, because you are attacking a professional scientist's use of language during a TV interview instead of refuting his peer-reviewed proof that there were explosives in the WTC buildings. You are using transparent political smear attacks in precisely the same way the representatives of the fossil fuel industry do when they are confronted with inconvenient climate science.
He seems unaware of Khalid Shiek Mohammed
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is dead. He died in a police raid in Karachi in 2002. The man in US custody, whoever he might be, is not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
As reported by the Asia Times, 30 October, 2002:-
The FBI, still keen to take Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistan Rangers entered the flat, where they found Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair.
Later, the Pakistani press carried pictures of a message scrawled in blood on the wall of the flat, proclaiming the Muslim refrain of Kalma, in Arabic: There is no God except Allah, Mohammed is his messenger). An official who was present in the flat at the time of the shooting has told Asia Times Online that the message was written by Shaikh Mohammed with his own blood as his life drained from him.
Subsequently, to their surprise, the raiders learned that Ramzi Binalshibh had been netted in the swoop. And nothing further was said of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed's body as their husband and father. The body was kept in a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a graveyard in the central district of Karachi.
And oblivious to the trial of Zacharias Mousawi, the '20th hijacker'.
As pointed out by political scientist and Guardian columnist Nafeez Ahmed:-
"Curiously, according to motions from (Zacarias) Moussaoui unsealed in Federal court, he wished to testify before both a grand jury and the US Congress about the 9/11 attacks, claiming to possess information that the US government permitted the attacks to happen. That request has so far been refused." (Ahmed 2005, p204)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, P204, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
"New Pearl Harbor"
You have now progressed from distortion into outright lying. "New Pearl Harbor" is a reference to a 2001 white paper released by far right wing think tank Project For A New American Century, in which they recommended an aggressive American foreign policy in the Middle East, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and concluded by saying the American public will never support it unless there is an event amounting to a "new Pearl Harbor". This phrase has quite literally nothing to do with Niels Harrit, so you are exposing yourself as a complete and total liar.
John Pilger reveals the American plan: a new Pearl Harbour
Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was a "catastrophic and catalysing event".
The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology,resigned.
You are repeating the same information over and over again and completely ignoring my refutation of it. I am using reason and you are using persuasion.
If Professor Marie-Paule Pileni (who works for the French military-industrial complex) is "an expert in explosives and nano-technology" then why did she claim Harrit's paper was "outside her field of expertise"? As I posted for you earlier:-
The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".
So this is the second time you have been given the same proof that Professor Marie-Paule Pilen did not resign because of the article's content (i.e. "I cannot judge whether it is good or bad"), but rather for political reasons. And yet you keep repeating the same debunked smear attack.
You cannot win this debate for the simple reason that you are absolutely, exhaustively, and unequivocally wrong. I believe that you are fully aware that you are wrong, because you are not even attempting to debate the facts. Instead you are making appeals to emotion, abusing language, launching smear attacks and repeating the same debunked talking points over and over and over again.
Your goal here appears to be persuasion instead of truth.
You keep going over the same ground and repeating the same nonsense which I've already destroyed ; why are you repeating yourself ?
Why do you keep appealing to authority as in Harrit ?
He lied several times on Danish TV which you now hilariously call a ' professional scientists use of language ' ...... yes lying .
Where was he peer reviewed and by who ? 14 times now and no answer .
Here is a real scientist destroying Harrits nonsense ; you've been destroyed in this debate , take your medicine like a man ..........
nanothermite paper
[See latest (January 10, 2011) on Harrit et al. paper HERE.]
A Second Editor in Chief Resigned: "in no way do I agree with its conclusions"
by Denis G. Rancourt
I was asked by 911 Truth movement researcher and radio host Kevin Barrett to debate Niels Harrit about nanothermite in WTC dust. I agreed and a two-hour live debate was held on November 9th, HERE.
In preparation I read the 2009 paper of Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31). I found many scientific errors and concluded that the editorial and/or peer review had been done very poorly. I tried to address some of my concerns with Harrit during the radio interview. Those concerns which I had time to express were mostly confirmed rather than alleviated.
Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed" and Harrit himself as a scientific authority with relevant expertise. Anyone using "appeal to authority" arguments must expect that the authority in question can be questioned.
Even more boldly, some 911 Truthers, including Kevin Barrett, advance that since the Harrit paper has not formally been contested in any peer reviewed scientific article then its methods and conclusions must be valid. I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested. This relates more to the social careerism of science than anything else.
I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper HERE.
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.
There are a lot of very bad peer reviewed articles out there but it is so unusual for an editor of a peer review scientific journal to allow tenuous and extreme claims and elaborate suggestions that do not follow from the data that I decide next to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal.
Here is what I sent the Editor in Chief on November 10th:
Professor Lucio Frydman
Department of Chemical Physics,
The Weizmann Institute of Sciences
Editor in Chief,
Open Chemical Physics Journal
Re: Peer review concerns, Harrit et al., OCPJ 2, 2009, 7-31, "nanothermite in WTC dust"
Dear Editor Frydman,
As an expert in the relevant areas, I have written a criticism of the above-cited paper that was printed in your journal.
My report is also critical of your journal in this matter.
On the face of it, it appears that the peer review process for this article was significantly flawed, to the point of professional irresponsibility or worse. This, in a matter of vital public and political interest.
Please clarify your journal's peer review of this article, the number of reviewers, their relevant expertizes, whether any changes were requested, etc. You will understand that the article is of such substandard quality as to give rise to serious questions about its review. What was your own involvement in accepting this article it its final form?
Please indicate when you will be able to respond.
Sincerely,
Denis G. Rancourt
Former professor, University of Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada
This was the former editor's immediate response:
From: Lucio Frydman
Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM
Subject: Editorial concern, Open Chemical Physics Journal, possible fraudulent peer review
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: The Open Chemical Physics Journal , Shehzad , Editorial
Dear Prof. Rancourt
What you describe is indeed very worrisome indeed. To be frank, however, I should clarify to you two points that will probably derive this discussion through alternative channels
1) I was not editor of the journal at the time the manuscript you refer to was received and processed. I was not involved in its handling, and in no way do i agree with its conclusions. In fact i do not even know how the paper's peer reviewing was handled - or if it was reviewed at all. The journal never wanted to disclosed this matter to me
2) What may be even worse - noone seems to be at the helm of this Journal. Months ago -simply after becoming acquainted with the article you mention, its possible misshandling, etc- i submitted my immediate resignation as editor to the open chemical physics journal. As you can see from the email below, my letter of resignation was received and acknowledged. However, i still appear as the journal's editor - in fact i'm still receiving manuscripts to handle (which i naturally ignore).
To be frank, noone seems to be at the helm of this floundering ship...
I am hereby using the opportunity to copy the journal managers and publishers both of your concerns, as well as my renewed request that they officially and finally relieve me from any duties and/or relationship in connection to this journal
You keep going over the same ground and repeating the same nonsense which I've already destroyed
I have painstakingly refuted everything you have thus far said, often two or three times, since you keep deliberately repeating the same fallacies.
Why do you keep appealing to authority as in Harrit ?
Why do you keep repeatedly lying? I am appealing to Harrit's peer-reviewed analysis of the composition of the WTC dust, and you are attacking the man, not his work. You have been repeatedly asked for a peer-reviewed refutation of his work for the last three days and you have so far produced absolutely nothing.
He lied several times on Danish TV
No, he did not. You have made this claim four times and provided not one solitary sliver of evidence that he lied about anything. I had to search for his interviews on Danish TV and link them in the hope you would clarify exactly which one he lied in, but again you ignored me and just repeated the same lie again. Exactly how are you not a Nazi?
Where was he peer reviewed and by who ? 14 times now and no answer .
I provided an utterly exhaustive answer to this question the last time you asked me, when you claimed it was 8 times. How did 8 become 14, why are you ignoring the answers you are being given and why do you presume that I am going to repeat myself simply because you are a transparently dishonest, lying sack of shit?
Here is a real scientist destroying Harrits nonsense
Ahahahahahaha! Denis G Rancourt is a notorious climate change denier who takes payments from Conservative lobbyists to push their political agenda. He isn't even a chemist. He's a physicist, so his genuine opinion isn't worth a dime, let alone his bought opinion.
Denis Rancourt sacked after awarding A+ marks to all 23 students in advanced physics class.
When former professor and blogger Denis Rancourt referred to her as the University of Ottawa president’s “house negro”, it was a slur that law professor Joanne St. Lewis said went to the heart of her professional reputation and to the heart of who she is as a person.
In 2007, Rancourt published a detailed essay of his opinions that has since served as platform for certain politicians, like American Senator James Inhofe, to discredit scientific results supporting climate change.
LOL. Where and what were these "errors"? This is a typical right wing fallacy where a person is attacked but left defenceless since the attacker makes no mention of what they are actually attacking. It is the functional equivalent of saying: "your paper was shit".
Many members of the 911 Truth movement use an "appeal to authority" argument in advancing Harrit's paper as "peer reviewed".
Except this isn't an "appeal to authority argument", is it? It's a fact. Harrit's paper has been fully peer-reviewed by other scholars in his field. Contradictorily, Rancourt's empty rhetoric has been peer-reviewed by precisely NOBODY! He has not provided a single scientific rebuttal, which probably explains why he can't get it through peer review.
An appeal to authority is when you appeal to a person simply for having qualifications, which is precisely what you have done by quoting this climate change denying, racist eccentric who was SACKED from his job at Ottawa University. You are trying to make a meal about this guy "resigning", but the fact is he was FIRED from his last job. Hence, you are a hypocrite and a disingenuous twat who quite literally has bigger double standards than Hitler.
I don't know the name for this particular sophistry but I know that many papers on important topics are wrong, believed to be wrong, and are never contested.
I know the name of the particular sophistry Rancourt is using. It's called guilt by association. He is saying that because some apples are green the red apple in my hand is therefore green.
I wrote an expert critical peer review of the Harrit paper HERE
Rancourt is not qualified to peer-review Harrit's paper because Harrit is a chemist. Rancourt is not a chemist. Furthermore, anybody who describes their own work as "expert" is clearly not an expert at anything except stroking their own ego.
Harrit was immediately informed and has not yet provided any substantive response.
Why would he? If he doesn't respond to your non peer-reviewed nonsense posts then why would he respond to Rancourt's non peer-reviewed nonsense posts? Oh, that's right! Because Rancourt has a PhD and hence is appealing to his own false (i.e. "expert") authority. Lol.
As an expert in the relevant areas
Again! Lol. I am an "expert" so do not question my bullshit. This guy claims to be an "expert" in pretty much everything. He claims to be an expert in climate science and in chemistry, except hang on, his PhD was in physics. Ahahahahahaha! This is what your own source said on the Kevin Barrett Show:-
Physics professor and academic freedom fighter Denis Rancourt appeared on the Kevin Barrett Show yesterday and agreed that the implosion of World Trade Center Building 7 was clearly a case of controlled demolition -- but that the destruction of the Twin Towers might not have been!
You haven't ,, merely repeating yourself is not an argument
Who reviewed Harrit ? You still won't answer , whys that ?
He did , I posted up his lies you admitted this in your last post , the link is in the article
You're the Nazi as in you're a holocaust denier
Where was he peer reviewed ? You gave no answer you attempted to spoof your way out .
Where was he peer reviewed ?
Well you would say that , but you're avoiding the fact that Jones is a Mormon and a climate change denier and Harrit is mentally unbalanced bwawahahahahahahahaha 🙀
No , Harrits paper was shit , where was it peer reviewed ?
Where was Harrits paper peer reviewed ?
An obscure science journal against dozens of peer review papers that support my claims 😂😂😂
Dozens of peer-reviewed papers have been written that support the official hypotheses, but those are dismissed as well. Both Gage and Griffin do, however, point to the movement's own peer-reviewed paper, published by former BYU professor Steven Jones and Danish scientist Niels Harrit. Because traditional controlled demolitions would have been audible throughout lower Manhattan had they actually occurred on 9/11, conspiracists have been forced to posit a very obscure scientific explanation for their central thesis: that the demolitions used an incendiary chemical called nano-thermite. Jones and Harrit argued in their paper that they found traces of a thermitic reaction in particles of dust found at the World Trade Center.
Griffin and Gage hold this up as mainstream validation of the movement's work, but the peer-review process of the paper is suspect. (The editor of the journal resigned over the paper after it was published without her approval, for example, and one of the paper's peer reviewers is a 9/11 conspiracist who has speculated that the passengers on the four flights are actually still alive and living off of Swiss bank accounts.)
At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world. "This sounds really mean," says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. "But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits."
Haritt describes his own work as expert thus using your logic he's just stroking his own ego , basically saying don't question my bullshit .
Haritt the liar exposed on Danish TV writes a piece in an obscure journal and announces he been ' peer reviewed ' 😂😂
GIVE ME THE NAME OF THE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL AND THE PEOPLE WHO PEER REVIEWED THE GENIUS FROM DENMARK ,THEN GIVE ME A REFUTATION OF THE DOZENS OF (AUTHENTIC )PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT SUPPORT MY CLAIM LIKE YOU WERE ASKED THREE DAYS AGO YOU HOLOCAUST DENYING LITTLE POISIONIOUS DUMMY
HARITT WAS NEVER PEER REVIEWED YOU DUMMY 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The article i cited is from the National Inquirer and of course ithe site is run by yet another one in your ' conspiracy theory ' scenarios
You claim I am the one who believes in "conspiracy theories" in an attempt to discredit me. But you are propagandising an unproven theory about a conspiracy of kamikaze cave-dwelling Jihadists, which extends to believing dozens of notable scientists are writing hoax papers. Furthermore, you are trying to persuade people that their research is a hoax by linking opinion pieces in The National Inquirer and the website of a "pseudo-scientific" paranormal research society.
I shall leave you with some nice extracts from another peer-reviewed 2006 paper written by professor of physics, Dr Stephen Jones:-
Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.
Then we have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC and buckle (not melt) – at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26). And then to undergo failure at the same time for straight down collapse, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.
"Dermot is less intelligent than a soggy bag of McChicken Nuggets, so please feel free to plagiarise his opinion to prove how wrong you are."
It doesn't matter who said something, just whether or not it is valid, and it's not plagiarism if I make it clear that it's not my words.
I agree that I may be expanding the parameters too much, though I'm specifically talking about free will of belief, not free will in general, so then again I might not be expanding the parameters too much. I don't think we can assume free will is real, especially since the question is basically about whether or not we have free will of belief. I was probably wrong to narrow it down to religious belief, but I don't think we're straying too far off the path.
"If someone has no direct experience of the choices then it cannot be said "the way they are" causes them to pick a certain choice. Therefore, the participant must necessarily make a decision."
In the paragraph which I just quoted you from, you've made a string of unfounded assertions. The way they are will still decide for them, it's kind of like tossing a coin - it may appear random, but things like height off of the ground, force of the flip, etc, will determine what happens before the coin even lands. Same goes for apparent random decisions, if you ask me to choose between to things I've never heard of, it won't be a random decision, the way I am will be the cause of what I "choose," even if I think I'm making a random choice.
It doesn't matter who said something, just whether or not it is valid
Wrong again. There is a direct relationship between who says something and the mathematical probability that it is valid. Hence, the variable you claim "doesn't matter" usually affects the outcome you claim does matter.
In the paragraph which I just quoted you from, you've made a string of unfounded assertions.
If that were true then you would have provided clear, structured examples. Since you have done nothing of the sort, I think it infinitely more likely that you are making a generic right wing political attack. Specifically, the one in which you prevent me from defending myself by deliberately giving no indication what the fuck you are attacking.
The way they are will still decide for them
You have not critiqued my "assertions" but rather simply repeated what you said in your last post and ignored the paragraph I wrote which disproves it.
it's kind of like tossing a coin - it may appear random, but things like height off of the ground, force of the flip, etc, will determine what happens before the coin even lands
It is nothing like tossing a coin because tossing a coin is a physical action not a mental decision. Are you actually stupid?
if you ask me to choose between to things I've never heard of, it won't be a random decision
If you have never heard of the two things you have to choose between, then how can your decision NOT be random, you fucking idiot? If I ask you to choose between "kktuui" and "endhgl" then clearly your decision will be random, because you possess zero information about what the right choice is.
Stop attempting to defend an argument I have explicated is indefensible. Instead, go back to school and learn how to spell properly. Thanks.
You can't just dismiss something based on who said it. The probability doesn't matter unless it is zero, it's still entirely possible they are correct.
You make unfounded assertions because you don't explain why it cannot be said that the way they are causes them to pick a certain thing, you just pussyfoot around it. I will make my argument for why your argument is wrong, but first I'll say that with the coin flipping analogy, I meant to compare the forces on the coin to the electrical impulses and whatnot in the brain that are there under the surface making the decisions because of the way they are. It's not the best analogy and I don't have time to better explain it.
Here's my argument for why you "refutation" fails. Firstly, as I've somewhat said already, even if the brain seems to be making random decisions, it would appear that the decisions (like one between "kktuui" and "endhgl") are caused by the brain forming opinions of the two instantly, because of the way it is, where else would the 'choice' come from? If the choice comes from the way one is, then it's not truly a free-will style choice. This is a little bit unfounded, and unclear, but my second argument is better.
Secondly, if the decision is truly random, as you say it would be, then it is a product of chance, not free will, and therefore doesn't really count as a choice in the way we're talking about - the person couldn't be held responsible for making that choice if it were only up to chance. If it's only up to chance then it's only up to fate, and not free will.
I had to rush this response, sorry if it's unclear.
Let me add: If it is randomness that causes the result of the choice, then it's not free will. If it isn't randomness, then what could it be other than the way they are (which eventually comes down to randomness as well, and is therefore not freewill)?
Also, you may disagree with my taking the debate in the direction of free will, but I feel it's necessary to answer the question, and I'm allowed to go off on tangents that somewhat relate to my point.
Let me add: If it is randomness that causes the result of the choice, then it's not free will.
The result isn't random you infuriating pseudo-intellectual buffoon. The options are random. The result is dependent upon your personal choice of random options which you have had no prior experience with. If you have no experience of something, it cannot therefore be said to "make up part of who you are". It isn't rocket science. If you can't understand the logical validity of this argument then you should not be debating philosophy in the first place.
The options are random? That's not what you said earlier: " If I ask you to choose between "kktuui" and "endhgl" then clearly your decision will be random" Random options would mean the two (or more) options are randomly selected, and doesn't really have anything to do with this debate in any way that I can see.
I'm starting to think you don't understand what I mean when I say "make up part of who you are," and you're taking it out of context. The options don't make up who you are, the way your brain processes the options, even ones it has never heard of, makes up part of who you are.
You can't just dismiss something based on who said it
Excuse me, but you can't just pretend I did this. I completely refuted the point you made, so why are you now pretending I simply dismissed it? You are not being honest and not being honest is the first indication of who has lost a debate.
You make unfounded assertions because you don't explain why it cannot be said that the way they are causes them to pick a certain thing
This too is a totally fucking egregious lie. I gave a complete explanation when I refuted your original claim.
If you have no experience of something, it cannot be said to "make up part of who you are". If I don't know what it is then how can I have a bias toward it? That is like saying the Taj Mahal makes up part of who I am, even though I have never been anywhere near India.
"Excuse me, but you can't just pretend I did this."
Sorry, I didn't mean 'you' as in you specifically, just as in a general person. I should have said 'criticize' in place of 'dismiss.'
"I gave a complete explanation when I refuted your original claim."
That simply isn't true, you didn't explain your logic enough.
"If I don't know what it is then how can I have a bias toward it?"
It's not about 'biases' it's about the way your brain will look at the two unfamiliar things. It's not the biases that make up who you are, it's the way your brain thinks, bias is only part of the way your brain works, but it's not necessary for the point I'm making.
I believe that religious belief is a choice, and it should be a choice. While we may be born into a particular religion due to our parents, society should allow us to choose what religion we want to be a part of after we have become a legal adult. This is because as a existential deist, I believe that we make our own path in life. While our environment and parents shape us into who we are as an adult, it is ultimately up to us to decide who we are as an individual.
While some would argue that being a part of a religion is not a choice, that is against the very foundation of the 1st amendment. Which is freedom of expression. I believe that if America is truly a land of rugged individualism, we should allow religion to be a choice.
Yes its a Choice.... If its Not a choice whats the purpose of Believing in God.... Any ways What is Religion... Religion Divides, Separate People, Family, Nations, Tongues... But the Love Of God Draw all man Correct Yes.... Thats Why Religion Destroys.... But The love Of God Makes Us Choose Him... And The Love That God Showed us was Pure Religion the Love..... And God Love was His Son JESUS thats Why its Not Hard to let the World Go.... Choose Today whom you gonna Serve... Cant serve to masters.... Only one
It should be a choice, whether one wants to believe in something or not, there have been wars in the past with religious groups trying to impose their ideologies on people, but now we have become much more tolerant I think, thanks to a more organised form of governance..
now to really get to the question, we as we grow up from children to adults, have been exposed to a certain kind of religious belief system/ non- religious belief system, that really narrows down things for the rest of our life. For people, who choose to ignore it, not take it very seriously, would not ponder upon the question and would not mind continuing the belief just because they've been exposed to it previously.
There are other people who are too emotionally attached to the belief to actually question it, which makes them defend their belief system from an emotional bias irrespective of what arguments are made against the system. Finally, who actually question and are able see something without any bias of any sort, are the ones who can see it to be a choice.
It's a choice, at the end of the day, it's people who make it seem that it isn't, but that doesn't stop anyone from changing their beliefs.
there have been wars in the past with religious groups trying to impose their ideologies on people, but now we have become much more tolerant I think, thanks to a more organised form of governance..
Interesting analysis. What are your thoughts on this:-
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
It's a choice, at the end of the day, it's people who make it seem that it isn't, but that doesn't stop anyone from changing their beliefs.
I don't believe it is quite that simple. You can't simply expect a person who has been brainwashed to make a choice. It's a vicious circle, because what these people already believe stops them from changing their beliefs. In fairness however, I don't think we can generalise one way or another. Some people can and do overcome indoctrination, while others never do.
there have been wars in the past with religious groups trying to impose their ideologies on people, but now we have become much more tolerant I think, thanks to a more organised form of governance..
by organised form of government, I am referring to what was present in the past and what is present today, sure there are wars even today but the "law" stops me from killing another person just because he/she's of a different religion, I was referring to such advances..
I don't believe it is quite that simple. You can't simply expect a person who has been brainwashed to make a choice. It's a vicious circle, because what these people already believe stops them from changing their beliefs. In fairness however, I don't think we can generalise one way or another. Some people can and do overcome indoctrination, while others never do.
A belief is something we believe in, and just because one doesn't want to change their belief, doesn't mean they can't, that is, it is a property of a belief to be optional, which inherently is present.
However, as you said, there will be people who are brainwashed to the extent that it becomes a belief that what they believe in, is perfectly correct under all circumstances, but there are people who change religious beliefs. So can I generalize for decisions made by people? no, can I make a statement that's based on a property of believing? yes.
but that doesn't stop anyone from changing their beliefs.
what I meant there was, people can choose to change provided they want to, if they don't want to, they won't.
For religious belief to work it needs access to immature minds .
The majority of believers come to belief through indoctrination which begins from infancy when the child is taken to the local church , temple , mosque and the process begins .
The child's family ,friends and society are traditionally of the same belief which makes the process so successful .
Have you ever heard a young child ask about god or religion ?
The questions are easily answered by the believer and the child's concerns addressed and the child reassured .
Indoctrination relies on getting children early before they have developed a BS detector otherwise it won't work .
Believers of course will deny this and they dislike the term indoctrination , they will claim everyone is indoctrinated in one way or another which is nonsense as the difference is that traditionally the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or examine critically the doctrine they have learned .
Regards religion and god if one was not introduced to religious thinking and the god concept most would reject it for the nonsense it is , imagine an adult reading the bible for the first time and hearing of resurrected humans , talking animals , miracle working messiahs etc ,etc .
Religion relies on indoctrination it cannot work without it ,
If religion was not through indoctrination and cultural influence how come people in Muslim countries are Muslim and people in Christian countries are Christian choice does not come into it .
Actually, I've never in real life heard a young child ask about religion, perhaps that is a result of being taught to accept it without question, or that I just don't know a lot of young kids. I asked my young sister a while ago if she believed in God and she said "I don't know" and didn't seem remotely interested. Not sure what to make of that.
I agree that without it being taught at a young age, religion would probably die. I've never heard a religious person give a satisfactory answer to your last point, about place of birth & religion, I think it is one of the best arguments against religion.
I wasn't actually intending to make this debate about indoctrination very much, although that is interesting, rather whether people have choice as to the way their brains process available information to form a belief, specifically about religion. I explain this in my first counter argument to quantumhead up above.
That's interesting , I have heard kids ask god questions especially as they get a bit older and they start to ask questions about almost anything .
There is no valid argument against the birth and religion argument , if there is I've yet to hear it .
The reason I brought up indoctrination is because choice does not come into it ; the reason I eventually rejected religion is because of exposure to different viewpoints on the whole god /religion question I found the arguments compelling and this changed my mind as I couldn't construct any rational arguments against them .
So do you think not think you made a choice as in accepting the validity of new information and finding it convincing ?
I pretty much became an atheist the same way as you. I did consciously make the choice to ask questions, but I had no control over whether or not my brain accepted the arguments, or anything like that. I couldn't decide not to accept the validity of new information/find it convincing right? If something is convincing, there's nothing you can do about it, it just is. I can't choose to believe that a red car is blue in the same way, (unless I was presented good evidence that I was colorblind). I don't think I made a choice, and I would argue that you didn't make a choice either, and people who weren't convinced (and remained religious) didn't choose either.
You're born with the brain you have, and raised to use it in a certain way, there's nothing you can do to change that.
P.S, Could you start using full stops / periods at the end of your sentences, it gets confusing sometimes. :)
I had no control because the way my brain processes the arguments isn't a choice, it just happens. If my brain says "this argument makes sense" I can't just say "nope" and no longer understand the argument, and I certainly can't do something like say to myself "I think I'll be a Scientologist now," I wouldn't be able to choose to accept that religion, though I could choose to look at the arguments for it, I couldn't choose to be convinced by them if they suck.
"what exactly do you mean: 'raised to use it in a certain way?'"
I mean that you are taught things, and you don't really have control over that, at least while you are young.
The whole thing is sort of a free will question, where if your brain is set to work a certain way, then it's going to respond to certain stimuli in a way that is fixed (which might actually be predictable, with super advanced neuroscience we don't have?). In this situation, one wouldn't have free will, just an illusion.
In that way, you wouldn't be able to choose what to believe, though you might have the illusion of choice at times.
That's what I was getting at, though I didn't entirely intend it to begin with. I suppose I agree with Galen Strawson then.
I don't know if a murderer should be punished, but they should definitely be kept away from society, at least for a time. I suppose that's a whole new debate topic though.
Ask Yourself what is Religion.... Pure Religion is Being like Jesus.... James-1:27- Pure Religion and Undefiled Before God and The Father Is this, To visit the Fatherless and widows in their Affliction, and to keep Himself unspotted from the world.... Not having nothing to Do with Evil.... And we are not stupid to Good Nor Evil.... .... If a Man seemeth to be Religious and Bridleth not his tongue... And Decieve His own heart this man religion is (Vain) Meaning How he Serve God Is Nothing....
Religious belief is (often and largely) a consequence of indoctrination. But morality, gender, race, politic, etc. are also strongly correlated with upbringing, family, and culture. That's indoctrination too, unless you can identify some significant difference.
I know what indoctrination is. I'm asking why moral, political, etc. beliefs are not also indoctrinated given that they share the same strong correlates to familial and cultural socialization that are noted as evidence for religion being indoctrinated. Lack of criticality is requisite to that sort of correlation, otherwise I think we could reasonably expect considerably more variation (and that is the same presumption underpinning the argument about religion as indoctrination).
The big difference in indoctrination is one is not been thought how to think but what to think uncritically .........
Indoctrination is unique as in one it is introduced to it from infancy and it's reinforced daily by family , schools and ones society , that's why it's so effective and why so many believe .
Moral beliefs are also informed by ones religion and society which for a believer is religious .
None of that establishes that morality (or etc.) is not indoctrinated... Morality is introduced from infancy and reinforced daily by family, schools, and society. That's why it's so effective and why so many believe in it.
That you actually acknowledge moral beliefs as being 'informed' by religion and society pretty much establishes the converse, actually, with 'informed' being just a softer term for indoctrination really...
Yes, but that still doesn't differentiate secular moral and political indoctrination from religious (moral) indoctrination. It just establishes that religion can be one instrument of moral indoctrination, which rather seems to suggest that morality isn't a choice either since it can be indoctrinated into people by your own admission.
which rather seems to suggest that morality isn't a choice either since it can be indoctrinated into people by your own admission.
It isn't a choice because it isn't objectively real. Morality is relative to culture and is basically just a word we invented to describe whether a certain behaviour is considered socially acceptable or not. About the only thing every culture agrees is morally wrong is the murder of other people, and even this gets thrown away the moment there is a war.
Moral beliefs are objectively real, even if their value content isn't. I do agree that it's culturally relative, though, and generally describes what you say it does. I don't think people even agree that it's wrong to murder people, because what actually constitutes murder varies widely (as with war, but hardly limited to it). We largely agree, though, it seems.
Moral beliefs are objectively real, even if their value content isn't.
If you want to go down this road then all belief is objectively real, including belief in flying spaghetti monsters. This does not make flying spaghetti monsters objectively real.
I do agree that it's culturally relative, though, and generally describes what you say it does.
Awesome. When Antrim the Idiot accused us of being the same person, I assumed this would mean we would agree a lot.
If you want to go down this road then all belief is objectively real, including belief in flying spaghetti monsters. This does not make flying spaghetti monsters objectively real.
I agree. That's what I meant by the value content not necessarily being objectively real. Just because the belief exists as a matter of objective fact, that doesn't mean its contents are objective fact. That's as equally true of moral value as it is the FSM (may His noodley appendage touch us all).
Awesome. When Antrim the Idiot accused us of being the same person, I assumed this would mean we would agree a lot.
Religious indoctrination was part and parcel of daily life in Catholic society and yes Christian morality is certainly part of the indoctrination.
Regarding political indoctrination we were not fed political theory and ideas from infancy onwards and certainly not on a daily basis , which is the opposite to how indoctrination is practiced.
I would argue that you were fed both moral and political theory. It just happened to be integrated with religious theory in this case, which obviated the need and opportunity for secular moral or political indoctrination.
I agreed with moral theory as it's part and parcel of the Christian teachings ; as I've said previously regarding political theory one is certainly not introduced to this in infancy and even then not on a daily basis ; religious indoctrination is unique in this sense as it's very success depends on it being used from infancy onwards .
This discussion isn't moving anywhere, and I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already. For some reason, my point isn't coming across and I've run out of ways to convey it. So I'm done on this for the time being.
I feel the very same , no offence intended but normally when people talk about indoctrination they haven't a clue what's it's like for one to go through Catholic indoctrination that I and the majority of my generation went through , if one went through this process one would know exactly what indoctrination meant .
Be advised that JACE AND QUANTUMHEAD are one of the same.
The two of them together wouldn't make a half wit.
The strategy is to introduce red herrings and straw man arguments which have the victims defending issues which never formed any part of their debate presentation.
It's difficult to argue rationally against deranged multi-personality schizophrenics, especially when they skip their medication.
For religious belief to work it needs access to immature minds .
Like you do to your kids with atheism?
What about people who met and accepted certain religions only in adulthood.
It include atheists, scientists at the end results of a research in an attempt to prove the opposite, etc.
you see also. I am not the only one pointing out the level of your intelligence.
Latest is Quantunhead, following justtruth, Amarel, Me, Bront, Nowasaint, etc. even a gang from last three years about your acclamation of mensa membership.
Like I do with my kids ? What do you base that on ?
I didn't say all people ?
Your stupidity was never in doubt ; regards getting a gang to attack me go ahead it's done all the time by bullies on here like you who cannot debate .
You and others like the cowards you are have set up debates to attack me before so if you wish avoid debating again go and set another up .
Regards membership of Mensa and various degrees you get very upset at anyone who professes to have a degree , whys that ?
Your latest college exams I'm guessing had you fail miserably and you're looking for a target to vent your rage .
Let's have a look at your idiocy in your own words where you claim women enjoy being raped .........
1 point
Rape no one likes are enjoys to be raped or the thoughts of being raped.
Jeffrey says 👇👇👇
Eh, erm...have you tapped the links?
There are three more...even one where a girl after her first time of being raped, she goes out to dangerous places she suspects she will get raped at. She has encountered several more and been to the hospital severally but yet she keeps doing it. And now she says she needs help to stop.
Hardcore masochistic.
Incidentally your new best buddy Q thinks anyone that believes in Jesus is mentally ill ; you believe in Jesus don't you ? 😳
words where you claim women enjoy being raped .........
Thanks for clearing that up that, i did not just say it but based it on facts of examples, and confessions.
Incidentally your new best buddy Q thinks anyone that believes in Jesus is mentally ill ; you believe in Jesus don't you ? 😳
Okay first he is no buddy of mine. We haven't even interacted before.
Also, i pointed out his opinion on your intelligence so you know whenever i or anyone else speaks about your wits in that manner, it's nothing personal but just being honest about our individual analysis.
I don't know his bases for that thing about jesus plus i don't even know if he said it(you're a habitual liar). If he did i still am not compelled to reply unless it is clearly directed to me.
Your stupidity was never in doubt ; regards getting a gang to attack me go ahead it's done all the time by bullies on here like you who cannot debate .
I have no influence on anyone CD neither has anyone on me.
It just so happens our opinions about you has a common likeness and that makes it a company but an informal one since it wasn't planned or established.
It came genuinely of no influence from the other.
Regards membership of Mensa and various degrees you get very upset at anyone who professes to have a degree , whys that ?
I have no interest in your degrees but when you bring it up, it is expected of you to prove it in how you make points and will buy you some respect without asking for it.
But so far, over 3yrs on CD, it's very apparent your wits don't match up to the titles you tag yourself with and makes people wonder how you got there(earning a degree and mensa membership).
So now it's one or the other; it's either you faking stupidity or you have been lying all these years.
But why will you pretend to be stupid? if not then why have been lying?
Your latest college exams I'm guessing had you fail miserably and you're looking for a target to vent your rage .
If you've been to college and earned a degree as you claim you should know vacations can be as long as 3months. And exam results are not shared at students door steps.
You based it on a bullshit theory of your own making .
Ah , so you base it on his opinion but his opinion labels you mentally ill .
Me a habitual liar ? This coming from a notorious liar who's claimed he's CEO , an owner of a record company , and has published papers on Evolution.... 😂😂
You usually attempt to get a gang to back you up as you're a coward
I didn't bring my degrees up you did in a previous with your little gang because you cannot debate .
I do not look for respect from trash like you and your kind .
My wits don't match up to my titles ? Last time that was posted up a sizeable amount of people disagreed with your assessment .
Your stupidity is obvious your last debate where you foolishly posted up an absurd question on Evolution was ridiculed as you were by everyone ; the coward that you are had you fleeing without even attempting to defend yourself .
So you've failed your exams ? I thought as much as how anyone like you can tie your shoelaces without help is beyond me .
I see our newest member on here has you struggling when he asked you a couple of simple questions as usual you ran without even attempting an answer .
Tell me this are you ever going to actually debate instead of running your fool mouth ?
This is supposed to be a debate, not an exercise in attacking each other. If you want to make an actual argument that's fine, but you don't have to make it personal.
The normal tactic with Jeffrey is he posts a topic up as in his last one on Evolution, when his ' theories ' are totally rubbished he disappears and returns full of revenge .
Be warned when you attack his position he posts a debate up attacking you in the hope of getting the bullies to back him up .
Children are brainwashed by their parents, in their places of education and in many instances their peers, not to mention the condescending clergy.
The laws of most countries, but in particular, Muslim nations are influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the superstitious mumbo jumbo of a nation's prevailing religion.
The real problem occurs when people who cannot successfully make the transition from childhood to adulthood and are therefore unable to make a mature, dispassionate appraisal of what was forced into their naive heads as children becomes too high a % of the overall population.
These religious bigots infest every aspect of a nation's everyday life and retard its progress by forming cliques which exist only to favour those of the same persuasion at the expense of 'non-believers' who are very often more capable than their religious countrymen and women.
Although most theists were indoctrinated as youth, not all of them were. Do you think religious belief is a choice for those who become religious later in life but who were not raised to be?
You'll need better bait for me to rise to than that.
I don't really need a substantive response from you at this point, as your reluctance to engage directly on the matter of consistency speaks for itself.
Some people are far more inclined to believe these sorts of things, especially if they are taught at a young age.
I was raised to be Roman-Catholic, but my mom was never very strict about teaching me religion. In addition, I had the internet at my disposal and a love for questioning things. Over time I just fell off the religion wagon (mainly because I was upset god never spoke to me when I prayed. Later on I would realize there are better reasons to be an Atheist than that, at least.)
If the environment supports and encourages the adoption of religion (and praising it to no end) it is highly likely children raised there will be religious. If the environment is more relaxed like the one I was raised where there is room for skepticism, then you get "Atheistic heathens" such as myself.
I would argue no, and the article linked below (though it is biased) supports my argument. I say that people have no choice as to whether or not they accept a religious belief, because they have no choice in the brain that they are born with, or the environment they are raised in etc. ('Nature and nurture')
It could be possible for people to gradually purposefully convince themselves of a religious belief, or lack thereof, but they wouldn't really have any good reason to do so without the belief in the first place, except for maybe social pressure.
If you were born in a Muslim country you'll be conditioned to believe in the only ''TRUE FAITH;- Islam.
If you are born in most western nations you'll be indoctrinated into the only ''TRUE FAITH'':-Christianity
If you're born in the Indian sub continent you will be brainwashed into believing in the only ''TRUE FAITH'';HINDUISM, or
the only ''TRUE FAITH'';- BUDDHISM, OR
the only ''TRUE FAITH';-JAINISM OR
the only ''TRUE FAITH'' SIKHISM''.
A shortsighted dimwit could see from a mile off that the religious denomination of people is solely dependent on the where they are born and the predominate faith prevailing in their native land.
Anyone who cannot see this glaring, self evident truth really does need psychiatric help as a matter of extreme urgency.
In many cases personal ethics such as honesty, integrity and honour have to be taught and/or developed, preferably through example and guidance by parents as well as their mentors.
It is often usual, not fait au acompli, but usual for children to follow their parents lead in such issues as politics and lifestyle choices and to adopt their moral code of practice.
Your 'dispute' is off on a tangent and incompatible with my assertions.
Your question is inconsequential and should have been worded along the lines of;- do people who do not recognize the above mentioned social norms in the societies in which they live need psychiatric help as a matter of extreme urgency?
As the thread was on religion your misplaced question is irrelevant.
My observation is pertinent. Reword the question to be more particular if you like, but those people do exist and if you're unwilling to regard them in equal fashion to their religious counterparts then your inconsistency belies your original rhetoric as the unreasonable bit of pretension it is.
I suspect you don't want to bite the bullet and acknowledge the similarity, since you could simply have agreed and that would have been that. Instead you found a variety of ways to try and dismiss the observation without actually having to address its implications upon your observations of the religious.
My point was that ''anyone who failed to see'' that religion is a consequence of being indoctrinated as a child, or in such cases as previously isolated groups as Inuits,( Eskimos) by their environment and establishment pressures ., needs to check in to a psychiatric clinic.
My wholly legitimate assertion was that it is the people who fail to make this blatantly obvious judgment, and not the ''believers' themselves, who need psychiatric treatment.
In your juvenile, thesaurus aided nonsense you, like the fool you are, misinterpreted my post and responded on the basis that I was referring to the 'believers' themselves.
You cry that I didn't answer the red herrings you inappropriately placed into the topic which was presented for debate.
Try to under stand that it is the thread which should be answered and not a potentially endless list of other categories.
The problem is that you don't know what the hell you're asking.
In your 'ram stam' to be aggressive you've missed the entire point'
I repeat, it is the people who do not recognize that religion is the result of environmental pressures and conditions who need professional psychiatric help and not the bible thumps themselves.
Whether or not the 'believers' need medical attention is, along with your misplaced list of social customs and practices, another issue.
Do try to keep up fool, forget about the ''pretentious' adjectives
and present some coherent counterarguments of your own,if that's not an oxymoron.
Dirty little parasites like you only serve to contaminate and lower the tone of forums such as this.
Yes, I got your point after you clarified it. I misinterpreted the first time because I was being a bit lazy and inattentive. It happens. Get over yourself. You're not entitled to being perfectly understood and highly attended to all the time.
As I observed already, the question appropriately rephrased applies. I also already explained the pertinence of my question in assessing the credibility of your original observations, so just reiterating that the question is off topic is non-responsive. So, the matter stands: do you think that people who fail to make the equally blatant and obvious judgement that morality and politic are a consequence of indoctrination also need urgent psychiatric care? It's a very simple question that would take far less time to answer (assuming you're consistent in your rationale) than you've spent evading the issue of consistency.
The irony of you calling me aggressive when you're the one throwing a protracted tantrum rather seems to have escaped you...
A shortsighted dimwit could see from a mile off that the religious denomination of people is solely dependent on the where they are born
If that were true there would be no American Muslims, no Iranian Jews and no Indian Christians. I'm afraid your failure to note this implies that you are in fact "a shortsighted dimwit". Substitute the word "solely" for "largely" and your conclusion becomes correct.
You've missed the entire point of the thread as only an idiot like you could.
You're clearly incapable of engaging in reasoned debate and accepting the obvious so further discourse with you would amount to no more than frustrating futility.
You've missed the entire point of the thread as only an idiot like you could.
Lol. Why is it that when you prove a Republican wrong, instead of admitting they made a mistake, every time they make canned attacks accusing you of "misunderstanding them"? Had I actually misunderstood you, then you would have clarified when and where, instead of spitting out empty rhetoric like the stupid little boy you are.
Have your tantrum somewhere else, you dimwitted cretin.
Hey Pancho, I'm from Northern Ireland and couldn't really give a tinker's damn about Republicans and Democrats.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton came here and helped the peace process enormously so I'm very aware of humane side of Democrats.
I'm also aware of the role Tip O'Neill and Senator Kennedy played in promoting 'Noraid' which was an American organization formed to collect money for the murderous I.R.A.
I observe from afar how it's usually the Republicans who pull the United States out of the financial quagmire after a term or two of Democratic government.
Your juvenile name calling only goes to graphically illustrate your ability to refer to the thesaurus and your arrested intellect.
At 73 I've long since retired and right now I'm in the process of making a guider for my grandson who will be visiting me soon.
I find cyber hero's such as you amusing as it is unlikely that the likes of you have ever achieved much in life, so you hit the computer and spew out your resentment from the anonymity of your computer room.
You see I obtained a 2nd class honours degree in civil engineering in 1965 and after a junior management position with an international concrete company went on to form my own business. My firm ran for 28 years and had a full time, slightly fluctuating permanent workforce of between 120 and 130.
I had to find sufficient work for my workforce of 130, ( small by American standards I know), ensure the work was completed to the required standards and then make sure we were paid.
All this plus receiving numerous threats on my life from the terrorist groups of both sides of our little warring community.
However, here I am living a pleasant life in Bangor Co. down and owning a modest apartment in Nice, Cote d' azure.
You and the likes of you pale into insignificance and will never cut any ice with me whatsoever.
I engage in such forums for the amusement I have observing phonies trying to project themselves as achievers.
I would argue no, and the article linked below (though it is biased) supports my argument. I say that people have no choice as to whether or not they accept a religious belief, because they have no choice in the brain that they are born with, or the environment they are raised in etc. ('Nature and nurture')
Utter nonsense. I accept that religious indoctrination is an extremely powerful tool, but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense. It's demonstrably false. Several of my own personal friends have devout religious parents and became atheists in adulthood. Furthermore, many people switch religions during the course of a lifetime.
I quickly scanned the article you linked and that too, is fucking nonsense. For example:-
After all, though we can choose our religious affiliation, none of us can ultimately choose what we truly believe or don't believe
Immediately he is contradicting himself. I'm free to choose whether I believe Jesus or Mohammed was the prophet, but I am simultaneously not free to choose whether I believe Jesus or Mohammed was the prophet. What the fuck?
Inculcation -- either political, religious, or cultural -- can "lock" a mind into a belief system, that is true. When the belief is critiqued the mind can also become irrational in trying to defend it. However, we are the ones who are ultimately in control of our own minds, not the other way around. The mind has an autopilot, sure, but it can always be taken over by conscious will, and a belief can always be analysed objectively using the law of reason.
So a child taken to church has the choice to use free will and reject religion is to you plausible ?
Most children do not even know why they are in church or have the ability to question what they don't even understand .
Your friends became atheist in adulthood or changed religions so what ?
The vast majority do not follow this trend do they ?
You're totally ignoring the fact that a mere child is rarely given a chance to pick or choose it's religion as it's part of them from infancy where the first introduction to religion and god is presented
So a child taken to church has the choice to use free will and reject religion is to you plausible ?
No, it is not "plausible". It is everyday reality. I attended a catholic primary school and was taken to church regularly. I entirely rejected religion.
So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ?
You really are terrible at debating , I thought you couldn't top your 9 / 11 for debate for stupidity you've actually surpassed yourself with this latest claim
So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ?
No, that is a straw man argument which is contrary to what I have already written in this thread, and which you are clumsily trying to pass off as my "considered opinion". If you want to know what my "considered opinion" is then why don't you simply ask me, you bumbling fool? I have no interest in your childish false dichotomies where I must either believe X or Y.
You really are terrible at debating
I truly don't think you understand what debating is. For you it is an exercise of ego, which explains why you abandon honesty at the first sign of being wrong.
No it's not a straw man you idiotic dummy , your considered opinion was that people could excercise free will when it came to choice regards religion ; so again tell me about children excercising free choice when introduced to religious belief ?
I do understand what debating is , that's why I destroyed your 9/11 nonsense .
You're a coward who's yet to make a decent point in a debate
Not only did you invoke a straw man argument, but you also invoked the false dichotomy that I can either believe in indoctrination or in freedom of choice, but not in both.
your considered opinion was that people could excercise free will when it came to choice regards religion
Which is a completely different argument to the one you just made, in which you claimed this meant indoctrination cannot exist.
This is a complete waste of my time. You are dishonest, childish and stupid.
It's not you dummy here is what you said ........but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense. It's demonstrably false......,
So again I ask does a child excercise free will in religious choice ?
Why are the majority of people believers is it out of choice ?
This is a complete waste of time you're a dummy and a liar
It's not you dummy here is what you said..... "but to argue that people have no free will at all to decide what they believe is just utter fucking nonsense."
And here is your purposefully dishonest, revisionist interpretation of that sentence:-
So your considered opinion is that no one is indoctrinated as everyone makes a free choice as to their religion ?
I think you might have misunderstood my point. Just because it is possible to leave/switch religions, doesn't mean that you are making a choice. For example, take me. I left Christianity and became an atheist, but that was the result of the way my brain processed the information available, not my own choosing, so it wasn't a choice. That's the point, not that it's impossible to change your mind, just that you can't force your mind to change or not to change.
The part were you talk about the article's self contradiction I agree with. I might be guilty of having skim-read a bit, as I didn't notice this the first time. I think that you cannot choose either religious affiliation, or what you truly believe - same thing anyway really, as you said.
"We are the ones who are ultimately in control of our own minds, not the other way around"
I have to disagree with this statement, because "we" and "our minds" our the same thing, and we don't choose what brain we are born with. You can consciously choose to analyse your own beliefs, as you said, but that doesn't mean we can choose to change the result of that analyzing.
I think you might have misunderstood my point. Just because it is possible to leave/switch religions, doesn't mean that you are making a choice.
Obviously, that is exactly what it means.
For example, take me. I left Christianity and became an atheist, but that was the result of the way my brain processed the information available, not my own choosing
The way your brain processed the information led to you making a choice to leave. The brain processing information and you making a choice are not mutually exclusive things. One leads to the other.
I'm saying that I don't have a choice because once my brain processed the information, and accepted the arguments as valid (because of the way it works, which I had no choice over, as I couldn't choose the brain I was born with), I couldn't just remain a believer, I had already been convinced. I may have a choice as to whether or not I say I'm an atheist, but I have no choice as to what I believe.
I wouldn't say that "One leads to another" because once your brain has processed the information, you can't just decide not to agree with it, because your brain is you.
You may have heard of atheist saying things like "I wish I could believe, but there's just no evidence," well that's an example of them not being able to choose, and having to accept the facts how their brain processed them.
I didn't intend for this to be an argument about indoctrination [...]
That might be my fault. I was trying to press people who used indoctrination as an argument against the existence of choice by seeing if they would extend the rationale elsewhere. My suspicion being that most of them won't want to, because they value thinking their beliefs are chosen and/or because they value the belief that the religious are less autonomous than they are. I had hoped that honing in on what actually constitutes indoctrination that its relationship to free will could be better drawn out; it seems that was a rather misplaced hope though...
Don't worry, not your fault. People were focusing on it anyways. It's my fault for not making things clear enough, I probably shouldn't have used the word 'religious' in the title for the debate I wanted.
You say ....on what actually constitutes indoctrination ......
That's the question thus the impasse
indoctrination. ... Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant
To my knowledge, there is no officially recognized definition which constrains 'indoctrination' to the religious context. In popular usage, it is regularly used in non-religious contexts and isn't considered incoherent when it is. The etymology of the word is also broad, rather than narrow. There's not actually much question about the meaning of indoctrination.
The frequency of its ascription to religious ideas does not alter its definition. Rather, it is a reflection of the values and prejudices people have in relation to certain classes of ideas (i.e. religious, as opposed to political or ethical). However, the behavioral practices involved in political or ethical learning aren't appreciably different than those involved in religious learning. Therefore, it isn't how learning occurs that's really in contention but rather what is being learned. All learning is indoctrination, but only learning that we find disagreeable is actually called indoctrination.
Exclusionary association between any class of ideas and the concept of indoctrination is an expression of prejudice against that class of ideas and for those ideas which are not similarly associated. Somewhat ironically, the exclusionary association you're making is itself part of an anti-theistic narrative disseminated more through emotive appeal and repetition than rational argument.
There appear to be two basic definitions of indoctrinate. The first is simply “to teach.” The second is “to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach sustematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.” The Collins English Dictionary stated that the simple definition – “to teach” – is to day rare, and I think that is correct. When most people hear the word “indoctrinate” what they think of is systematically and uncritically teaching partisan and biased beliefs.
My use of the term is perfectly correct and has nothing to do with 'making 'emotive appeals ' the argument I make is perfectly reasonable and your refusal to recognise the accepted meaning of the term is puzzling to say the least .
At no point have I disagreed with the definition of 'indoctrination', and I agree with the definition you've now presented. The problem with your position is that it isn't supported by that definition. Religious beliefs are not the only beliefs which can be partisan or biased. Therefore, your insistence on restricting 'indoctrination' to pertain exclusively to religious teaching is not supported by the definition of that term.
Well maybe if one lives in North Korea where 24 /7 the whole system is geared towards the teachings of the ' dear leader ' well then one has an example of what you claim .
What beliefs are you referring to which I cannot question or critique in my society and where it's teaching is instilled morning , noon , and night , by teachers , parents and wider society ?
Is it Math ? History ? Geography? because every one of theses subjects we were encouraged to question and test .
Teaching someone a set of doctrines or ideas and telling them not to ever question or critically examine it is indoctrination. Teaching someone to think for themselves and be critical and skeptical of all ideas including their own is not indoctrination.
Systematic instruction that encourages acceptance of partisan doctrines need not be absolute or totalitarian. You are, again, departing from the actual definition of indoctrination which you yourself provided.
Nor is it true that we are taught to question math, history, geography, etc. Though sometimes we may be taught to question their conclusions, theories, etc... it is exceedingly uncommon to be taught to question the soundness of the fields themselves or the validity of their alleged personal or social value.
If one is taught to think autonomously and critically without also being taught to be critical of those precepts themselves, then they have been indoctrinated into uncritically accepting those precepts as self-evident truths.
Well no I'm not , and would you care to provide an example ? .... indoctrination .........to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view” or “to teach sustematically to accept doctrines, especially uncritically.” ......
You're not told to accept the subjects I named uncritically , your point makes little sense .
I have already explicitly identified your departures from the definition you've provided. Again, though, they are: (1) your addendum of magnitude or extent to the concept, where you conditioned the ascription of 'indoctrination' on the presence of extreme totalitarian censorship; and, with greater frequency, (2) your claim that indoctrination only pertains to instruction in religious beliefs even though that is neither required by the definition nor entailed by application.
Again, there is a significant differentiation between the axioms of the subjects and their contents which follow from those axioms. Where these subjects are taught, they are generally taught such that students are encouraged to be critical of the contents but not of the axioms. The prevailing tendency is to teach these subjects on the implicit and repeated presumption that their axioms are necessary and self-evident truths. I'm aware of no educational institution which instructs through epistemic nihilism; are you?
Yes and no. Yes because we have freewill given from God to make a choice to believe in him or not. And no because, without God you walk through life in darkness and never will be happy, and will suffer in life and death.