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.
The ones which tell children their perception is incorrect and that a particular dogma is correct, and that other ideologies are incorrect just because because because....
That is brainwashing. Which is most of them I imagine. It's cruel and has probably set humanity back thousands of years throughout our history.
The problem with religion is it's only "faith" and any dissenting view is not part of the conversation. Children are relying on their parents completely for food, shelter and education and thus are in a very vulnerable situation. Not to mention the fact that their ability to reason critically is not developed at a young age.
Obviously parents should be and are able to tell their children whatever they want, but to tell a child something over and over because of your "faith", with no dissenting view, seems like a bad idea. Religion is not alone in this brainwashing. It would be just as bad for a parent to tell their child over and over that "conservatives are bad people" or "people without money are lazy" with no context or dissenting view point presented.
All taught morality and ideology is mostly faith based. When the government tells you that police and soldiers "sacrifice their lives for your freedom," and even tries to villify anyone who doesn't fully support the troops, or the teachers, or the police, they are brainwashing us.
I've been through it all. Religion and collectivism have been beaten into my brain since I could think. After a while, it all starts to "make sense," yet I was still able to denounce religion and collectivism in my teen years.
Religion is no more dangerous than any other set of beliefs that try to convince us of a "correct" morality beyond our own rational self-interest. It is all faith based unless it is objectively supported (via the scientific method.) Even Democracy and the right to free speech are faith based ideologies.
All taught morality and ideology is mostly faith based. When the government tells you that police and soldiers "sacrifice their lives for your freedom," and even tries to villify anyone who doesn't fully support the troops, or the teachers, or the police, they are brainwashing us.
"Mostly faith" and "faith" are different. I think most people agree that technically they do "sacrifice their lives for your freedom,". And yes, telling your kids the police and teachers are "good", over and over 10 times a day with a long session on Sunday, would be brain washing in my mind. Benevolent brain washing, but brain washing none the less which is not good.
Religion is no more dangerous than any other set of beliefs that try to convince us of a "correct" morality beyond our own rational self-interest.
Not sure. Religion specifically calls on "faith" as the reason to believe it. Thats not true in the "sacrifice their lives for your freedom," case. In that case you can take it on faith or not. Religion tells people, on faith, "you will be rewarded if you martyr yourself while killing infidels". I don't know of any other mainstream moral system that dangerous?
I think most people agree that technically they do "sacrifice their lives for your freedom,"
I think most people agree that Jesus is their lord and savior.
Telling someone that Jesus sacrificed his life for our sins is no more arbitrary than saying soldiers sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Lots of words, no evidence. The act of dying with a rifle in your hand isn't "sacrifice for freedom."
Religion specifically calls on "faith" as the reason to believe it.
No more than "supporting our troops" or "Patriotism."
Religion tells people, on faith, "you will be rewarded if you martyr yourself while killing infidels".
Nein. Religion has a collection of anecdotes, stories, and poetry to try and convey some kind of morality. To believe in God and spirits requires as much "faith" as being a "patriot" or "support for your troops." Religion is just as complex and faith based as collectivism/nationalism.
I don't know of any other mainstream moral system that dangerous?
most Americans support Obama's mass-murdering policies overseas. I find that way more dangerous than religion these days.
I think most people agree that Jesus is their lord and savior.
For one we know (have evidence) that solders and police are real, they have sacrificed their lives and at least in some cases, that led to our freedom (all you need is one case). There is zero evidence to support "Jesus is their lord and savior."
No more than "supporting our troops" or "Patriotism."
Agreed.
Nein. Religion has a collection of anecdotes, stories, and poetry to try and convey some kind of morality.
It does not matter the form of the religious doctrine. It's a fact that some religions say "you will be rewarded if you martyr yourself while killing infidels" (not an exact quote).
most Americans support Obama's mass-murdering policies overseas. I find that way more dangerous than religion these days.
Partiality agree. However, the US government does not require citizens to take it on "faith" that those policies are the right thing to do. The "simple thinker" can take it on faith if they want to, but faith is not required. The religions man is REQUIRED to take the religions doctrine on faith. Critical thinking or disagreement is NOT allowed.
For one we know (have evidence) that solders and police are real, they have sacrificed their lives and at least in some cases, that led to our freedom (all you need is one case). There is zero evidence to support "Jesus is their lord and savior."
There is evidence that Jesus existed and most historians agree according to my link. Even his crucifixion is on record. The evidence is lacking in his so called miracles and whether the sacrifice was for our sins. The same is said for soldiers. We know they existed, we know they died, but for our freedom? Hardly.
It does not matter the form of the religious doctrine. It's a fact that some religions say "you will be rewarded if you martyr yourself while killing infidels" (not an exact quote).
Point? We're arguing faith based reasoning, not what Jihadists tell their followers.
Critical thinking or disagreement is NOT allowed.
The Vatican encourages critical thinking. They pay for priests to go to college and study the various sciences. Their goal is to adapt Catholicism to modern science.
There is evidence that Jesus existed and most historians agree according to my link. Even his crucifixion is on record. The evidence is lacking in his so called miracles and whether the sacrifice was for our sins. The same is said for soldiers. We know they existed, we know they died, but for our freedom? Hardly.
Fair enough. I do think "Jesus is their lord and savior" comes with a lot more intellectual baggage. You can argue historically and scientifically as to weather "a soldier died for your freedom". It's knowable in many cases. You cant do that "lord and savior". It's never knowable without faith.
Point? We're arguing faith based reasoning, not what Jihadists tell their followers.
The Vatican encourages critical thinking. They pay for priests to go to college and study the various sciences. Their goal is to adapt Catholicism to modern science.
Yes, obviously religions people are allowed to think critically, except in certain areas of their religion. Many religions consider it blasphemy to not accept things like god on faith.
The Jihadists (who's though is as valid as any other other religions thinker) is enabling himself and his followers to do bad things because they must believe what they are told on faith. They have no evidence of the 40 virgins (nor are they allowed to look for it), but they martyr themselves anyway.
And it is considered blasphemy to not support the troops or believe that the USA is the greatest country on faith.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. "blasphemy" is a religions word and is "against the law" in religious terms. Saying you don't support the troops is not against the law.
To refocus this debate: Christian children are taught that "Jesus is their savior", they must accept this with no evidence, and if they don't they will burn in hell. I don't know of a similar situation in secular society? Having all your neighbors, news casters, etc. Saying "USA is number one" is not being "taught", you do not have to accept it on faith, and there is no coercive consequence if you don't believe it.
and there is no coercive consequence if you don't believe it.
Hell is intangible and, as you said, taken on faith. it comes with the religious package. If the children believe in Hell, oh well.
On the case of not supporting the troops or America, you are labeled as anti-American, where many will not take you seriously, derail any point you try to make. It's an intellectual Hell and it's very real. I can't disbelieve it, I merely have to censor myself to avoid derailing a debate with most people.
I agree with your statements. Saying you "don't support the troops" can be socially awkward (almost always), maybe get you beaten up (almost never, you have the law on your side), maybe get you fired (rarely, you have the law on your side).
Since you did not dispute my statements, I'm assuming you agree:
Christian children are taught that "Jesus is their savior", they must accept this with no evidence, and if they don't they will burn in hell. I don't know of a similar situation in secular society? Having all your neighbors, news casters, etc. Saying "USA is number one" is not being "taught", you do not have to accept it on faith, and there is no coercive consequence if you don't believe it.
I only agree with your previous statement below, not your entire argument:
"Hell is intangible and, as you said, taken on faith. it comes with the religious package. If the children believe in Hell, oh well.
On the case of not supporting the troops or America, you are labeled as anti-American, where many will not take you seriously, derail any point you try to make. It's an intellectual Hell and it's very real. I can't disbelieve it, I merely have to censor myself to avoid derailing a debate with most people."
You only disputed one of the "bad" things about religious brain washing so Ill assume you accept the other 2.
The coercive consequence is intellectual and collective.
I'll give you that, but, "making an adult uncomfortable" is not the same "coercive consequence" as telling a child "they will burn in hell". The vulnerable child believes this because all the adults responsible for the child's well being are telling them it's true. Keep in mind the child is told specifically they can't not believe it.
I was indoctrinated in religion when I was very young. In fact I was religious as fuck. But now I'm not, I'm Atheist, and atheism isn't a belief, it's a disbelief. A disbelief of all the fucked up religions out there. I left Christianity for precisely that reason. I thought it was fucked up that they tried to hide parts of the bible, talking about murdering children, and found it illogical that man was made from dirt, women made from the rib bone.
There are actually more people who have turned Atheist from being indoctrinated in religion, than people born Atheist in atheist families. Atheist families are such a rare thing, and even if they were influencing their beliefs on their children, how the fuck is it a guilty act to make them see that in all religions of the world, none of them are more better than the other. Muslims fighting with Jews, Jews fighting with Muslims. It's fucking better not getting involved with these children who are no right than the next person. Atheists don't have a God to protect or get offended over, which is why we haven't been killing other people with different beliefs like the religious do so well.
It's so annoying how people keep confusing Atheism as a childish belief, when the followers look to logic more than anyone else.
We don't wear the veil, we don't consume the blood and flesh of a bearded white middle-eastern, because we are not illogical. Evolution is probably the only true belief we have, but we have a fuck load of genetic, fossil and biological evidence that it's not funny.
Oh, why so defensive? It must be that you lost every time in our encounters since you seen to bring it up every time on how you've won, it seems more like a man of desperation.
I have no puppet accounts, falsely accusing is lame and childish.
Children have underdeveloped brains, so it is up to the parents to provide them worth a set of beliefs to help understand the world, for when the child is old enough to belief in what he desires, then he can choose to continue to belief the religion or find new beliefs, so no indoctrination.
Children have underdeveloped brains, so it is up to the parents to provide them worth a set of beliefs to help understand the world
Are providing a set of beliefs the same thing as providing what knowledge they have? My question would be, is there a difference between telling a child "I believe there is a god" and "5+5 = 10"? Or even between "I believe there is a god" and "There is a god and if you don't believe in this god you are going to hell"?
when the child is old enough to belief in what he desires, then he can choose to continue to belief the religion or find new beliefs
Ideally this would be the case. However I believe that indoctrination for most makes them incapable of "choosing"-- I believe that it is taking away that freedom. This inability to look at different perspectives I believe has other negative effects, like holy wars for example. I believe for instance that most adults who had never heard of a god would not strap a bomb on themselves for a god they choose to believe exists as an adult. For most of the evils that come with religion, it is necessary the individuals had been indoctrinated into it, otherwise they would not be so willing to carry out these various things whether it's an inquisition, bombing, even denying condoms to AIDS riddled Africa.
so no indoctrination
So no, you are against indoctrination, or no, indoctrination is okay, or no, religions are not indoctrinating?
My position is I am against indoctrination and that religions do indoctrinate children, if it is unclear at this point.
Or even between "I believe there is a god" and "There is a god and if you don't believe in this god you are going to hell"?
Man, I grew up in a Catholic home and went to Catholic School, I was pounded that bullshit line for years, and I choose a different set of beliefs, do my parents disapprove, maybe a little, but I don't contribute it to school or science. It is about not believing what you can't see. The leap of faith stuff is just stupid, some tribes have worshiped the sun, why? Because it gives them everything they need.
Ideally this would be the case. However I believe that indoctrination for most makes them incapable of "choosing"-- I believe that it is taking away that freedom.
Sure, the act of indoctrination is taking away freedom because it is not free minds, but who can tell? It is up to the recipient to make the decision in freeing his mind. Nobody can force you to believe in anything.
I believe for instance that most adults who had never heard of a god would not strap a bomb on themselves for a god they choose to believe exists as an adult.
I heard of a god, and I have never strapped a bomb on myself for god.
For most of the evils that come with religion
Sure, no doubt, the biggest is the sense of false hope. Nobody can attest to the existence of heaven.
So no, you are against indoctrination, or no, indoctrination is okay, or no, religions are not indoctrinating?
I am against indoctrination because it restricts free minds, but it is impossible to tell the difference because people are teaching their own beliefs which they freely accepted.
Why does everyone think I am PrayerFails' puppet account? Seriously, I photoshop stuff and make more stoner jokes, you shoudl be able to tell us apart.
You are a far superior debater outside of the very narrow spectrum of the fatally flawed economic theories of that Austrian whatever looney bin. He's better at those ones though, for what it's worth.
One of you has puppets though. It's impossible to be downvoted 5 times/ argument with you two when you two are the only ones paying attention.
The only "puppet" I have is that Saurbaby09 thing that I used for trolling, you know, that whole "Da Liechtenstein country is ams da REAL DEAL!" thing.... But you can't really consider that a puppet considering I just use it annoy people.
Children's perception is not often correct, and they will pick up a lot of their parents characteristics whether the parent is pushing them or not. That is why so many children grow up and vote in a similar manner to their parent.
By phrasing the topic in a manner so that is implies that religion is the single biggest cause for constructing a child's character, and that it is purposely done so with the intention of indoctrination, is a misleading and loaded question.
Yes, yes it is. And not only kids, but religion prevents people in general to generate a critical thinking, and just accepting the ideas the masses manifest, without doing any further investigation.
One can think critically and still believe in the supernatural. Believing in God does not require throwing out your brain. Any human can NOT think critically - for example, voting a straight ticket is kind of like "not thinking critically".
Not universally, but it definitely does happen. I was lucky enough to be raised in a moderate Christian household that had a strong respect for science and reason. I was allowed to challenge Christian notions and there was no real problem with me announcing I was atheist.
But....I know a lot of people who weren't so lucky. I think the majority of parents who do this brainwashing think they are doing the right thing, but they are damaging their children's critical thinking skills and that is a bane on our society.
Well it in of itself no. Religion cant do anything by itself, but the people who follow them can.
Every child ever born and ever will be born is atheist. The age of reason comes around 12ish for most. This is the time where kids are developed enough to begin asking questions and analyzing information as it's taken in. After this age most will not take certain information to heart before a few questions and critical thinking. Before this age, you can pretty much tell a kid anything and you can get them to believe you fairly easily. Their brains are like sponges soaking up every bit of information they can get. That is why we can speak fluent english by age 8, yet cannot pick up another language without difficulty after age 16.
So since kids will believe anything you tell them (relatively) at a young age, this is where religions must strike in order to get followers. A kid will pick up religion if theyre indoctrinated at a young age like that snap. An adult, not so much. So in reality it is sort of like brainwashing. The "victims" are incapable of thinking for themselves enough to avoid or counter the teachings of religion, so it's forcefull indocrination in my book.
Kids are the only reason religion is still alive. Fact. You can brainwash a kid easily enough to get them into the religion. If you teach them to not ask questions and ignore any information or persuasion against the religion, theyre sold potentially for life. If you went up to an adult today who had absolutely no idea what religion was then explained christianity to them, they would laugh and walk away.
It really is unfair to indoctrinate a child into any religion before they reach a mature age where they can think critically for themselves. If you dont do that then you take away their choice. That's not right. Who knows, maybe that poor indocrinated christian boy mightve been a Wiccan, and mightve been really happy living a peacefull life instead of judging others and fearing death. But thats my opinion.
Typically, yes. If every priest or rabbi began each sentence with "according to the bible" or "I believe", then it wouldn't be, but children believe the adults around them, and all too often people forget to mention that it may not be the case.
Brainwashing kids is the main recruiting technique used by religions, this is the main was they got members.
The only other way how they can get embers are prison/junkie recruits.
Adult healthy person will not start following stone age nonsense and cripple his personal life for promise of awesome magical place
or getting scared by the possibility of ending up in different magical place where he will be sitting in a hob with boiling water and tortured for hundreds of millions of years ....because god loves him. :D
Absolutely. I would also hazard to say many religious wouldn't be thriving like they currently are if not for the brainwashing and indoctrination of unformed minds. This isn't to say that all religions brainwash people or that all the religious people are brainwashed or that brainwashing is exclusive to religion, but it's certainly a very prevalent religious practice.
As a young Brit, learning about Christianity is compulsory at a young age. So far, no religion has been proven 100% correct, but when I was in Primary School, I was told that Earth was created in 7 days by God, not that it is a theory.
Shouldn't children nowadays be taught about scientific and various Religious views at a young age, no significant view having more importance to another, so children have the Free Will to believe what they want to believe?
Yes. I was indoctrinated to believe in fundamentalist Christianity. It is brainwashing. I listened to the preacher deliver psuedo-scientific sermons railing against evolution. Theres no logic there, no free thought. Just dogmatic absolutism.
Not really it all depends on if the parent really brainwashed the child and after all its the child's choice to make the decision and if the child made the decision to follow what ever religion then they weren't brainwashed.
Right, its their choice. However, the age of reason is around 12. At age 12, kids have developed to the point where they can make choices for themselves by asking questions and thinking critically.
If you teach a kid a religion before this time, they CANT make a choice. They have no choice because they lack the skills mentally to do so. See what im saying? So yes, if the person that was being taught a religion had the ablility to make a choice then it wouldnt be brainwashing. But if you remove that ability to make a choice (i.e a young child) then it IS brainwashing.
Right, its their choice. However, the age of reason is around 12. At age 12, kids have developed to the point where they can make choices for themselves by asking questions and thinking critically.
You can still make the choice even when your younger 12. That's what happened to me because I was taught about the Bible and God at a early age but I already knew what I was accepting.
If you teach a kid a religion before this time, they CANT make a choice. They have no choice because they lack the skills mentally to do so. See what im saying? So yes, if the person that was being taught a religion had the ablility to make a choice then it wouldnt be brainwashing. But if you remove that ability to make a choice (i.e a young child) then it IS brainwashing
They can still make the choice to follow a religion before that there is nothing wrong with joining a religion under age 12 but there parents aren't really forcing the child to do it. Like me I made the choice when I was young and my parents told me that we aren't forcing me to make the the decision.
Well Christianity was the only thing you were taught so it was your only choice. It was that or atheism and as a young child no kid will ever go against their parents deliberately.
In order to really have a choice you wouldve had to have been taught many religions as well as the information that disputes them. That way you would have every option to choose from.
How can you choose a religion you don't even know exists or dont know anything about? You can't. So you had to choose the only religion you did know which was the one your parents taught you. And they obviously wouldn't teach you the information disputing Christianity before Christianity. So you really never had a choice.
Actually I wasn't one of those brainwashed ones I made the choice so I made the choice out of free will just like you choose not to believe in God and be an atheist.
Here is an example of why it doesn't work like that:
Imagine there is a man named mark, he finds out one day a co-worker of his is a mass murderer, let's say this co-worker seemed like a nice person, he naturally going to want some more evidence than someone who didn't know him to believe it.
Next swap "co-worker" for "father" in this case he might not even believe a straight up confession from his dad.
So what's he going to do when some incriminating evidence is brought up about his ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM which he has believed all his life?
Your argument has many logical fallacies. Your point is emotional. In addition, speaking of emotional reasoning, people go against their parents and their religious convictions all the time.
When people grow up being told to believe something for so long, they will tend to have it set in their mind to cling to those beliefs, also do little kids get a choice when their parents say "believe this or you will always be in pain"?
Yes when they reach an age when theyre developed they can use critical thinking to make their own choices sure. However, they cannot do so if they were trained intensely not to.
Im guessing you were like me. Raised christian but not heavily. No bible reading at home, no dinner prayers, rarely attending church, ect. And because of this you didnt really take god seriously and werent taught not to question your faith. This allowed you to easily detach yourself from your previous beliefs at a later age. Thats a guess though.
If a kid is raised heavily in a religion then they are trained not to question beliefs and they lose their ability to make their own choice in the future.
Well close, but still wrong. Raised Catholic with moderate strength. No bible reading, some dinner prayer, attended church more often as a child and went to Catholic school.
And because of this you didn't really take god seriously and weren't taught not to question your faith.
Somewhat true.
Nothing can force the human brain into believing things it doesn't want to believe, once a child becomes an adult, he can continue to believe the religious indoctrination or not, 85% of the population choose to do so, and there is nothing wrong with that.
And true, you can't force the human brain into believing what it doesn't want to or can't. However, at a young age, the brain can and will believe nearly everything before it is taught things that dispute it. It believes what it hears first. So, if you teach a kid the world is flat before they hear it's round, they will believe it (they can change their mind afterwards because of the VAST proof for it being round but for the time being they will accept it as truth). This directly applies to religion because the brain will accept the religion without question along with the teaching to not question it in the future. If you drill something in enough it will stay and resist opposing ideas in the future.
So, much like the religious propaganda disseminated to kids as a means to indoctrinate, the same can be said about the wonders of government.
Either way, I don't care what barriers potentially stand in the way, the human mind will break through the wall if it wants with enough will power, but the majority of the people don't. The illusion of religion and government gives them a sense of something.
Yes some people possess the mental will and the skills to break through the barrier. These who have the ability and instinct to seek out the truth and think critically dispite the illusion that once trapped them. However, these people are few and far between. Years of training through religion, government, whatever, ect. Have instilled in humanity to accept non answers, and to accept what is told and not what we find out for ourselves.
Then, would humanity rather be submissive than free. I don't believe so. Some people would just rather be sheep than think by themselves, this is a choice, humans have the capacity for independent thinking, therefore, the mold can be broken with will power.
Forgive the interruption but this logic says that,
Since humans have the capacity to think for themselves, you then should be allowed to brainwash children, because they can just change their mind later.
Your inability to see your inconsistency in how your basic theories are applied is sometimes shocking.
If Ave's argument were "Well, government should be allowed to brainwash kids because those kids can make up their own mind later" would you not be foaming indignation right now?
Yet you've applied the exact same logic here.
Explain yourself please. Or switch sides and just admit a loss here.
Wrong interruption. Crafty way of twisting it though.
Humans do have the capacity to think for themselves, this is obvious; however, children don't.
The act of indoctrination is subjective because there is no way of telling the difference because parents are merely providing their beliefs and knowledge onto their children, so when they reach whatever age, they have the option to belief whatever they want, which maybe god is all omnipotent or government is all omnipotent. They have the choice to believe whatever. I am not suggesting government or religion should brainwash, they are merely getting information from those who choose whatever belief system. It is up to the recipient to pick if they want to continue down that path.
FOR EXAMPLE, you choose--government is all omnipotent, I choose neither god or government.
Then, would humanity rather be submissive than free. I don't believe so. Some people would just rather be sheep than think by themselves, this is a choice, humans have the capacity for independent thinking, therefore, the mold can be broken with will power.
To which I made the observation that with that logic, governments brainwashing kids should be okay by you because, after all, they do have free will and can decide for themselves later on.
So here is your reply to that:
The act of indoctrination is subjective because there is no way of telling the difference because parents are merely providing their beliefs and knowledge onto their children
To which I could say The act of indoctrination is subjective because there is no way of telling the difference because governmentsare merely providing their beliefs and knowledge onto their children
It's still the same argument prayerfails. Your logic is inconsistent, just admit it.
What you are really saying is that "Yes dear sirs, in fact I do believe religions brainwash, but we can't do shit about it because it is through their parents."
Don't try to twist it up into somehow because you can't do anything about it that it then by definition is not brainwashing.
That's ridiculous.
FOR EXAMPLE, you choose--government is all omnipotent, I choose neither god or government.
No I don't. Again (and again and a million more times for all you'll listen) I believe government is a human necessity and not inherently evil, it can even be good in many instances. That's beside the point and not connected to this debate though.
It's still the same argument prayerfails. Your logic is inconsistent, just admit it.
Actually, there is a difference, government is not our parents. No relationship between government and parents. Government is not responsible for children, parents are.
Kids are not the mindless automatons that adults think they are, they will make their own decisions and follow their own path regardless of the views that are forced upon them
I didn't intend to accuse anyone directly it's just something I have observed that some adults seem to think that children are idiots and unable to think for themselves.
I agree that some kids lose their free will to choose if they are heavily indoctrinated in a faith but I have more often found the opposite to be true. I think the best way is to educate Kids about religion in general not just concentrate on one faith, unfortunately too many people refuse to allow their children knowledge which is sad.
Exactly. They think kids are incapable of possessing the knowledge they do.
Well yes, kids can break free of indoctrination but they need heavy persuasion alot of the time. And if they are indoctrinated heavily at a young young age and that is consistently held throughout their life, it is nearly impossible to break free. Because in doing that they lost all the skills and knowledge it takes to even begin to consider leaving or other possibilities.
Which is even sadder. Think of all the brilliant minds we have probably wasted. Maybe that choir boy couldve cured cancer. But the indoctrination caused a fear and rejection of all science so he didn't persue that career. Now that is sad to think about
If there is a group brainwashing kids through indoctrination is goverment. Sounds paranoid, but ask people how the president is elected, and more often than not they will have know idea what the electoral college is, let alone it's existence.
No more than teaching that is is wrong to have sex with your little sister. There is no brain washing. Belief, morals, ethics, values, as well as prescriptive based rules of faith ultimately require a foundation that muut be taught. It is not brainwashing.
Atheist MUST use what has been called Reciprocal Altruism as the basis for ethics but for children, it must be prescribed - don't do this, or do that instead, don't smoke, don't let adults touch your private parts unless it's the doctor and we are in the room, etc) Atheist do this even without fully understanding what they are doing or why.
People of faith do the same thing with children - they must prescriptively teach right and wrong, just as Atheist do. The difference is that with most religions, there is a referential antecedent for their answer - look at what is written in this Holy Book. Of course, the legitimacy and truthfulness of the Holy Book as well as how it is being used to prescribe behavior is the real question. However, it is not brainwashing.
In both cases, once a person begins to reason and look for real answers for why the world is the way it is, they will begin to form their own views of the world. Critical thinking and abstract thinking doesn't begin - really - until children are older, probably around 9 or 10 years old for the average person, and by the time they are 15 or 16, they will ALREADY have their own way of dealing with the world that probably differs from mommy and daddy.
With that said, teaching hate, violence, and blatant racial, cultural, or gender based prejudice is wrong (and I do have a basis for defining right and wrong). Yet, ethically defining (through prescription or belief) different cultural norms, expectations, and practices in-and-of-itself is NOT brainwashing.
No since they are given choices in which belief to follow. Religion does not force a person to believe in it. It depends on one`s own interpretation of it.
Define brain washing is teaching a child "brain washing" them if so could we not say that our schools are "brain washing" children. Listen as a CCD teacher I can tell you all we do is teach the children the story's in the bible. We don't hypnotis them or any thing we just read to them what's in the bible and interpret it for them
