Brain Washing and Socialization

When I stated that atheist ideology was brain washing an atheist asked "when was I taken in a back room and worked over with a rubber hose while having bright lights shined in my face?" This is a crude understanding of a crude concept "brain washing." There's really no such thing, one of my sociology professors way back in undergrad school identified it as a socialization process. We can see that socialization process working all the time on any message board where atheists congregate. It consist mocking and ridicule against anyone who disagrees with their view. Hasn't it occurred to anyone to ask why atheists do all this mocking and ridicule? I chalked up to their fragile self esteem and their need to feel big by making other small. I think that's part of it it but it's only half the story.

The other half is that mocking an ridicule serve the function of destabilizing the personality and making the target vulnerable to socialization. I've pointed this out before as well. The Encyclopedia of sociology has some instructive things to say on this score.

Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1,

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
   
2. The use of an organized peer group
   
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
   
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction. Even the first systems studied under the label "thought reform" ranged from those in which confinement and physical assault were employed (Schein 1956; Lifton 1954; Lifton 1961 pp. 19-85) to applications that were carried out under nonconfined conditions, in which nonphysical coercion substituted for assault (Lifton 1961, pp. 242-273; Schein 1961, pp. 290-298). The individuals to whom these influence programs were applied were in some cases unwilling subjects (prisoner populations) and in other cases volunteers who sought to participate in what they believed might be a career-beneficial, educational experience (Lifton 1981, p. 248).

We see these same aspects at work among atheists on message boards. Intense interpersonal attack to destabilize sense of self, that's the mocking and ridiculing. That's the use that's made of it, it's brain washing. Organized peer group, of cousre the atheists band together and form a united front, they never break ranks. Interpersonal pressure to promote conformity.

Statements supportive of the proffered ideology that indicate adaptive attitude change during the period of the target's involvement in the reform environment and immediately following separation should not be taken as mere playacting in reaction to necessity. Targets tend to become genuinely involved in the interaction. The reform experience focuses on genuine vulnerabilities as the method for undermining self-concept: manipulating genuine feelings of guilt about past conduct; inducing the target to make public denunciations of his or her prior life as being unworthy; and carrying this forward through interaction with peers for whom the target develops strong bonds. Involvement developed in these ways prevents the target from maintaining both psychological distance or emotional independence from the experience. (Ibid)

I've seen this on boards many times. Someone who seems like a normal Christian will be mocked and ridicule. Suddenly they start consider the atheist might have a good point, next thing you know they way they are an atheist. This is always followed by a denunciation of of their former belief system and big confessions about how narrow minded they were and how wrong and bad they were to be Christians.

They create a sense of dependency upon the group, threaten the stragglers with ridicule if they say unacceptable things, and destabilize others weak targets to so they can take them over. First the destroy self esteem then promise new self esteem based upon self acceptance. When one announces that he's come over, o man do they make a big deal. Out comes the welcome wagon they all start patting him on the back. I remember a girl on CARM a few years ago. She seems fairly strong as a Christian and at least convinced. She began voices a few doubts. They began calling her names telling her how stupid she is. always saying little snide things to indicate "your are not good enough." She kept growing in doubts. Finally she announced he was an atheist and they began saying "I knew you were intelligent all along." The same little pigs who told her how stupid she was began making over her Einstein-like mind.

When you see atheists just sort of idling just saying one banal stupid thing after another all oriented around mocking Chrsitians and mocking beliefs, that's the brain washing in progress. Its' a socialization process that offers the lonely outcast a social support net work as long as they illustrate that they can spout the ideology. When they are repeating the slogans of atheism they are showing that they belong in the group. When others join them they are recognizing their membership.

Lowder on Mocking Religious Ideas

Lowder is a major voice on the Secular web and their blog secular outpost, where this piece is published.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

American Atheists Billboards and Ridicule of Religious Ideas

Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 8/14/2012 10:57:00 PM

Prior to my earlier posts on American Atheists's billboards, an atheist, whose opinion I respect, mentioned his support for the ads. To paraphrase, his argument was something like this.

Religious beliefs should not get special protection from ridicule and doubt. They have had this protection for far too long and this needs to stop. Our society needs to get used to cherished religious beliefs being subject to the same kind of criticism and ridicule as that faced by any other belief. For example, socialists and capitalists regularly use ridicule and criticism when speaking of each other.

I agree that religious beliefs should not get special protection from ridicule and doubt. If by "special protection" one means "special legal protection," I agree. I (obviously) don't think there should be blasphemy laws. My point was (and is) different. Even if/when there is a legal right to ridicule religious beliefs, atheists would be well advised to think twice about whether and when to exercise that right. If an atheist's goal is to increase the social acceptability of atheism, I'm pretty sure that mockery and ridicule of widely held religious beliefs isn't an effective way to achieve that goal. If an atheist's goal is to convince people that atheists can be just as moral as theists, then it's downright stupid to waste $15,000 on a billboard ad which, in the minds of many, will only show that atheists are rude (=immoral).

I actually agree with him that there shouldn't be laws saying "one may not mock religious belief." The way he puts it it seems like more a practical matter of rhetorical strategy not get carried away so they don't turn people off, rather than a moral stricture agaisnt being cruel, I'm sure he has that. There's more to the issue than that. I have quoted atheists from different venues saying "we have to brow beat them into submission with mocking and ridicule"

the comments in response to Lowder's statement reflect the same prudential concern about how they appear to the public not the right or wrong of mocking.

Chris Hallquist • 5 hours ago

• 
  
• 
  

The problem here is that we're trying to do several things at once.

We're trying to convince people we're not evil. We're trying to have our legal rights respected. We're trying to get people to be more comfortable being public about their atheism. We're trying to convince people we're right.

Billboards making fun of religion will piss people off. As will suing to get the government to follow its own laws. As will billboards with just the word "atheist" and the names of a few atheist groups.

But all those things have positive effects too. In the case of bilboards ridiculing religion: they tell people who've never said those things, but thought them, that they're not alone (and that's just the least-controversial possible benefit, I can think of others, but no need to debate them here).

In response to a statement by a theist "I'm tired of atheist mocking" a poster on carm says:

MFFJM2

Wow, it must really suck to be you. How about this, stop caring what other people think about you, or your religion. If you don't want to be thought of as delusional, then you should stop posting/talking about your delusions. If you don't want to be thought of as gullible, then start using some critical thinking skills and stop believing everything you're told or you read in the dogma of your church. If you don't want to be thought of as imbecillic, then don't present imbecillic ideas as objective reality, expecting the rest of us to swallow it whole just because you did. NOTE: I am not suggesting that the author of the OP is any of these things, and I am only responding to the words he used in the OP.

We see the true compassion shining through. This guy has clearly thought it out.

an atheist says:

... the fact is that as long as you're having the discussion about your beliefs in a public forum... people will comment. When those beliefs don't reflect reality or depend on blind faith, then skeptics will point on the logical fallacies. That is simply a fact of the interwebs.


If you're faith gives you some measure of peace, take comfort in that and enjoy it. If you enter into the public discussion about the rationality of your beliefs, expect to see dissenting opinion.

This is a real atheist poster who said this. It's basically saying "unless you surrender and just give in we will continue to mock you." That's a frank admission that they know they are using it as manipulation and they don't see anything wrong with it.
Deist

..., as passionate as you are in your beliefs, I am equally if not more so, passionate about my disdain for Christianity and all that it is. If that upsets you, so be it, and yoiu have to live with it. Atheists are in a stark minority in America, and if anything, they are the ones who should be complaining about the constant bombardment of Christian beliefs and dogma....

Just imagine if we told this guy the same stuff the atheists are telling Delong? how would that be? Keep it to yourself, we will mock and ridicule you if say stuff not in accord with our brain washing. that's what they think they are fighting against, yet they wont extend any compassion to people in the same boat.


See the Orwellian aspects of atheism in action? They use a word that has meaning in a clinical setting ("delusion") they alter it to imply that if you don't see things the way I do you are insane. So any view that differs from mine is insanity. The atheist brain washing is defined as "reality." one must be an atheist to be sane. Look at what they are telling him, "unless you march in lock step with us then you are a target of our ridicule.

How any thinking person be part of this hateful totalitarianism? Why should we put up with it? Why should the 90% of bleieve in God allow themselves to be terrorized by this 3% of know nothings?

(those comments were posted on CARM and have been posted here before).

from anther venue, published on the barricades and atheistwatch Originally from atheist website "dangerous talk."

by

Staks

on October 21, 2010

.

Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”

It's clear from what's being said that, if not all atheist, at least a segment have the idea that mockery and ridicle are valid tools for forcing people to agree with you. That's really must a matter of "brain washing." It's a matter of extortion.

Not all atheists agree of cousre. There are dissenting voices that council not to mock and ridicule. Paul Kurtz of the Free Thinking Blog (Center for Inquiry part of the atheist propaganda echo chamber) has some intelligent things to say about it.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.

His readers disagree:

Randy on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:10pm

Two problems I have with this post:
(1) Nazi reference, already in the second paragraph. Really, do we need to go there every time?
(2) “What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?” I nearly fell off my chair. This happens on a daily basis, in all media, and usually is not meant as a lighthearted joke either.

The old "they do it to us so we can do it to them." I never hear atheists ridiculed in the media. I think he's confusing general sense of disagreement and cultural unacceptability with actual ridicule.

so though I agree with Loweder in two ways:

(1) It is fair and fine to criticize ideas we don't accept. I don't expect any atheist to hold back form argument making except where it's inappropriate. For exampel I wouldn't want an atheist start bellowing about no after life in the middle of my mother's funeral. But should be no legal protection per se to prevent people from opening questioning any religious bleief. that even goes without saying becuase it's so basic to democracy (although it may be the time to start saying basic things again about democracy). I'm talking about rational intellectual arguments.

(2) I agree that there can't be legal perfection per see to prevent reducible of religion although there should be laws governing when and where and protecting privacy.

It's not just a simple matter of giving some guide lines and thinking all atheists will follow them. The segment of the atheist community (not all of them) who are carried away with hate and ridicule will not stop and will not play fair. There should be some kind of protection for people who are in danger of being extorted into beliefs or out of their beliefs. Those protections can't be just a blanket protection on ideas, they have to be protections for people. For example cyber bullying should be guarded against. Mocking and ridicule of religious belief might at times come under that heading.

one of major purposes of atheistwatch was to shame atheists into shutting up their own guys. It's worked partially but not nearly enough. We see the attitude of "we need to be cool so we don' turn people off" is known to some of them, the ideas of tolerance and fairness are known to some of them, but others don't get either idea.

the nuts on carm think they own the board. they were saying "don't come on here.," as though ti's their board. CARM is a Christian board it's not owned by the atheists. That's a matter for the administation of that particular board.

Brain Washing and Socialization

When I stated that atheist ideology was brain washing an atheist asked "when was I taken in a back room and worked over with a rubber hose while having bright lights shined in my face?" This is a crude understanding of a crude concept "brain washing." There's really no such thing, one of my sociology professors way back in undergrad school identified it as a socialization process. We can see that socialization process working all the time on any message board where atheists congregate. It consist mocking and ridicule against anyone who disagrees with their view. Hasn't it occurred to anyone to ask why atheists do all this mocking and ridicule? I chalked up to their fragile self esteem and their need to feel big by making other small. I think that's part of it it but it's only half the story.

The other half is that mocking an ridicule serve the function of destabilizing the personality and making the target vulnerable to socialization. I've pointed this out before as well. The Encyclopedia of sociology has some instructive things to say on this score.

Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1,

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
   
   
2. The use of an organized peer group
   
   
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
   
   
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction. Even the first systems studied under the label "thought reform" ranged from those in which confinement and physical assault were employed (Schein 1956; Lifton 1954; Lifton 1961 pp. 19-85) to applications that were carried out under nonconfined conditions, in which nonphysical coercion substituted for assault (Lifton 1961, pp. 242-273; Schein 1961, pp. 290-298). The individuals to whom these influence programs were applied were in some cases unwilling subjects (prisoner populations) and in other cases volunteers who sought to participate in what they believed might be a career-beneficial, educational experience (Lifton 1981, p. 248).

We see these same aspects at work among atheists on message boards. Intense interpersonal attack to destabilize sense of self, that's the mocking and ridiculing. That's the use that's made of it, it's brain washing. Organized peer group, of cousre the atheists band together and form a united front, they never break ranks. Interpersonal pressure to promote conformity.

Statements supportive of the proffered ideology that indicate adaptive attitude change during the period of the target's involvement in the reform environment and immediately following separation should not be taken as mere playacting in reaction to necessity. Targets tend to become genuinely involved in the interaction. The reform experience focuses on genuine vulnerabilities as the method for undermining self-concept: manipulating genuine feelings of guilt about past conduct; inducing the target to make public denunciations of his or her prior life as being unworthy; and carrying this forward through interaction with peers for whom the target develops strong bonds. Involvement developed in these ways prevents the target from maintaining both psychological distance or emotional independence from the experience. (Ibid)

I've seen this on boards many times. Someone who seems like a normal Christian will be mocked and ridicule. Suddenly they start consider the atheist might have a good point, next thing you know they way they are an atheist. This is always followed by a denunciation of of their former belief system and big confessions about how narrow minded they were and how wrong and bad they were to be Christians.

They create a sense of dependency upon the group, threaten the stragglers with ridicule if they say unacceptable things, and destabilize others weak targets to so they can take them over. First the destroy self esteem then promise new self esteem based upon self acceptance. When one announces that he's come over, o man do they make a big deal. Out comes the welcome wagon they all start patting him on the back. I remember a girl on CARM a few years ago. She seems fairly strong as a Christian and at least convinced. She began voices a few doubts. They began calling her names telling her how stupid she is. always saying little snide things to indicate "your are not good enough." She kept growing in doubts. Finally she announced he was an atheist and they began saying "I knew you were intelligent all along." The same little pigs who told her how stupid she was began making over her Einstein-like mind.

When you see atheists just sort of idling just saying one banal stupid thing after another all oriented around mocking Chrsitians and mocking beliefs, that's the brain washing in progress. Its' a socialization process that offers the lonely outcast a social support net work as long as they illustrate that they can spout the ideology. When they are repeating the slogans of atheism they are showing that they belong in the group. When others join them they are recognizing their membership.

Atheist Brain washing and Socialization

When I stated that atheist ideology was brain washing an atheist asked "when was I taken in a back room and worked over with a rubber hose while having bright lights shined in my face?" This is a crude understanding of a crude concept "brain washing." There's really no such thing, one of my sociology professors way back in undergrad school identified it as a socialization process. We can see that socialization process working all the time on any message board where atheists congregate. It consist mocking and ridicule against anyone who disagrees with their view. Hasn't it occurred to anyone to ask why atheists do all this mocking and ridicule? I chalked up to their fragile self esteem and their need to feel big by making other small. I think that's part of it it but it's only half the story.

The other half is that mocking an ridicule serve the function of destabilizing the personality and making the target vulnerable to socialization. I've pointed this out before as well. The Encyclopedia of sociology has some instructive things to say on this score.

Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1,

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
   
   
2. The use of an organized peer group
   
   
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
   
   
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction. Even the first systems studied under the label "thought reform" ranged from those in which confinement and physical assault were employed (Schein 1956; Lifton 1954; Lifton 1961 pp. 19-85) to applications that were carried out under nonconfined conditions, in which nonphysical coercion substituted for assault (Lifton 1961, pp. 242-273; Schein 1961, pp. 290-298). The individuals to whom these influence programs were applied were in some cases unwilling subjects (prisoner populations) and in other cases volunteers who sought to participate in what they believed might be a career-beneficial, educational experience (Lifton 1981, p. 248).

We see these same aspects at work among atheists on message boards. Intense interpersonal attack to destabilize sense of self, that's the mocking and ridiculing. That's the use that's made of it, it's brain washing. Organized peer group, of cousre the atheists band together and form a united front, they never break ranks. Interpersonal pressure to promote conformity.

Statements supportive of the proffered ideology that indicate adaptive attitude change during the period of the target's involvement in the reform environment and immediately following separation should not be taken as mere playacting in reaction to necessity. Targets tend to become genuinely involved in the interaction. The reform experience focuses on genuine vulnerabilities as the method for undermining self-concept: manipulating genuine feelings of guilt about past conduct; inducing the target to make public denunciations of his or her prior life as being unworthy; and carrying this forward through interaction with peers for whom the target develops strong bonds. Involvement developed in these ways prevents the target from maintaining both psychological distance or emotional independence from the experience. (Ibid)

I've seen this on boards many times. Someone who seems like a normal Christian will be mocked and ridicule. Suddenly they start consider the atheist might have a good point, next thing you know they way they are an atheist. This is always followed by a denunciation of of their former belief system and big confessions about how narrow minded they were and how wrong and bad they were to be Christians.

They create a sense of dependency upon the group, threaten the stragglers with ridicule if they say unacceptable things, and destabilize others weak targets to so they can take them over. First the destroy self esteem then promise new self esteem based upon self acceptance. When one announces that he's come over, o man do they make a big deal. Out comes the welcome wagon they all start patting him on the back. I remember a girl on CARM a few years ago. She seems fairly strong as a Christian and at least convinced. She began voices a few doubts. They began calling her names telling her how stupid she is. always saying little snide things to indicate "your are not good enough." She kept growing in doubts. Finally she announced he was an atheist and they began saying "I knew you were intelligent all along." The same little pigs who told her how stupid she was began making over her Einstein-like mind.

When you see atheists just sort of idling just saying one banal stupid thing after another all oriented around mocking Chrsitians and mocking beliefs, that's the brain washing in progress. Its' a socialization process that offers the lonely outcast a social support net work as long as they illustrate that they can spout the ideology. When they are repeating the slogans of atheism they are showing that they belong in the group. When others join them they are recognizing their membership.

Brainwashing and Socilization

When I stated that atheist ideology was brain washing an atheist asked "when was I taken in a back room and worked over with a rubber hose while having bright lights shined in my face?" This is a crude understanding of a crude concept "brain washing." There's really no such thing, one of my sociology professors way back in undergrad school identified it as a socialization process. We can see that socialization process working all the time on any message board where atheists congregate. It consist mocking and ridicule against anyone who disagrees with their view. Hasn't it occurred to anyone to ask why atheists do all this mocking and ridicule? I chalked up to their fragile self esteem and their need to feel big by making other small. I think that's part of it it but it's only half the story.

The other half is that mocking an ridicule serve the function of destabilizing the personality and making the target vulnerable to socialization. I've pointed this out before as well. The Encyclopedia of sociology has some instructive things to say on this score.

Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1,

Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
By Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. However identified, these programs are distinguishable from other elaborate attempts to influence behavior and attitudes, to socialize, and to accomplish social control. Their distinguishing features are their totalistic qualities (Lifton 1961), the types of influence procedures they employ, and the organization of these procedures into three distinctive subphases of the overall process (Schein 1961; Ofshe and Singer 1986). The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance
   
   
2. The use of an organized peer group
   
   
3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity
   
   
4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified

Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations. Systems intended to accomplish these goals can vary considerably in their construction. Even the first systems studied under the label "thought reform" ranged from those in which confinement and physical assault were employed (Schein 1956; Lifton 1954; Lifton 1961 pp. 19-85) to applications that were carried out under nonconfined conditions, in which nonphysical coercion substituted for assault (Lifton 1961, pp. 242-273; Schein 1961, pp. 290-298). The individuals to whom these influence programs were applied were in some cases unwilling subjects (prisoner populations) and in other cases volunteers who sought to participate in what they believed might be a career-beneficial, educational experience (Lifton 1981, p. 248).

We see these same aspects at work among atheists on message boards. Intense interpersonal attack to destabilize sense of self, that's the mocking and ridiculing. That's the use that's made of it, it's brain washing. Organized peer group, of cousre the atheists band together and form a united front, they never break ranks. Interpersonal pressure to promote conformity.

Statements supportive of the proffered ideology that indicate adaptive attitude change during the period of the target's involvement in the reform environment and immediately following separation should not be taken as mere playacting in reaction to necessity. Targets tend to become genuinely involved in the interaction. The reform experience focuses on genuine vulnerabilities as the method for undermining self-concept: manipulating genuine feelings of guilt about past conduct; inducing the target to make public denunciations of his or her prior life as being unworthy; and carrying this forward through interaction with peers for whom the target develops strong bonds. Involvement developed in these ways prevents the target from maintaining both psychological distance or emotional independence from the experience. (Ibid)

I've seen this on boards many times. Someone who seems like a normal Christian will be mocked and ridicule. Suddenly they start consider the atheist might have a good point, next thing you know they way they are an atheist. This is always followed by a denunciation of of their former belief system and big confessions about how narrow minded they were and how wrong and bad they were to be Christians.

They create a sense of dependency upon the group, threaten the stragglers with ridicule if they say unacceptable things, and destabilize others weak targets to so they can take them over. First the destroy self esteem then promise new self esteem based upon self acceptance. When one announces that he's come over, o man do they make a big deal. Out comes the welcome wagon they all start patting him on the back. I remember a girl on CARM a few years ago. She seems fairly strong as a Christian and at least convinced. She began voices a few doubts. They began calling her names telling her how stupid she is. always saying little snide things to indicate "your are not good enough." She kept growing in doubts. Finally she announced he was an atheist and they began saying "I knew you were intelligent all along." The same little pigs who told her how stupid she was began making over her Einstein-like mind.

When you see atheists just sort of idling just saying one banal stupid thing after another all oriented around mocking Chrsitians and mocking beliefs, that's the brain washing in progress. Its' a socialization process that offers the lonely outcast a social support net work as long as they illustrate that they can spout the ideology. When they are repeating the slogans of atheism they are showing that they belong in the group. When others join them they are recognizing their membership.

Atheist Ideology and the Socializied Solider

 I started atheist watch with the idea in mind of showing that a segment of the atheist community is moving in the direction of becoming a hate group. I've proved that in spades. But what's really come out of this site is that my understanding of the atheist psychology has mushroomed. I not only understand a bit about the psychology of the hateful loudmouth insulting kind of atheist but also I can see a whole range of issues that mark out atheism as a form of brain washing and ideology. When I say "a form of brain washing" I'm not that's distinct from being ideology. I think  ideology is a form of brain washing. I had a sociology of religion professor named Anson Shoupe in my days as an undergraduate. He became famous for the idea that there is no such thing as brain washing per se, "Brain washing is actually a form of socialization. Atheists find this socialization on message boards and in clubs. They are drawn to it for reasons that escape me but I supposed it has to do with the people who feel inferior because of their lack of education and they need to compare themselves so some hated group which they then demonstrate is intellectually inferior. Being unintellectual themselves most of hem don't have the slightest idea how to do that so they take the "easy way" they assume clinging to science makes them smart and rejecting evolution makes fudnies stupid, so if they hate fundies and cling to evolution then they are smart.

One can' easily see that atheism is an ideology. All you have is compare the way atheists act on message board with the way ideologues act. One thing Ideologues do is they don't argue rationally. Everything they hear something that contradicts their brain washing they have to make srue they call it names ridicule it and put it down and threaten it.This is what 90% of carm atheists every single time they hear anything that doesn't stack up to their views. All theistic  posts must be met with mocking and denunciation.

I say "I believe in God" they have to "that's just a fantasy." like no Bondy knows they think that. as though I've never been here before, what kind of board is this? It must be mouthed back immediately less someone out there think "well aybe there could be A god" the choral begins to scream no there could not no sire there never be no no o non ! THERE COULD NEVER BE A GOD SO DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WAY!!!!!


Here's one I hear all the time. they go Metarocks your ideas are so silly and so fallacious. no one believes what you say your ideas are stupid you cant' think.That's indicative of brain washing, Not thinking, it's not an argument, intellectuals don't do that. That's the way thugs, bully, brown shirts, school yard bullies and brain washed, skin heads people like that conduct themselves. When I tell the same ideas to professors (even athist professors) form graduate school they say "nothing wrong with that it's perfectly logical."

on the other baord BT says "there's no God he doesn't exist."

I say "what's your proof"

he says' "he doesn't exist."

that's not circular at all is it? then he turns right around and says that I'm into circular reasoning and he's an analytical thinker.

this kind of thing goes on all the time. I can name a dozen atheists on this board who act this way every day.

It's an ideology. it's not free thinking, it's not any kind of thinking.


Originally Posted by bigthinker

You assert that God exists, right? Prove it.

 I challenge him to prove his assertion becuase he stated bluntly that God is imaginary. Of cousre he said knee jerk in response to me disclosing about my faith. So just like an old fashioned catholic hearing something bad has to cross himself to get a blessing and keep evil away, the ideologue must respond knee jerk "there is not God." Like the guy on Star Trek "there are witches!"

Meta

My evidence is that God perfectly fits the description of imaginary beings: he is invisible,

He's not invisible. he's off scale. he's not an objective thing so he's not something we can see but he' snot "invisible." the concept of invisible is bending light rays not being imaginary. the invisible man is not the imaginary man.

Obviously God can effect things in reality, such as the lives of people who experience him and that's the whole point of the 200 studies. they show concrete results form feeling God's presence.

Big Thinker

doesn't have a body

Meta

what makes that imaginary? how do you know he doesn't have a body?

BT

does not impact the world outside of the human mind, 

 Meta

then how do people feel his presence and how it is that those who do have their lives so improved and are so much less likely to be depressed and mentally ill? How does he word miracles? that's obviously a contradiction to your nonsense.

how could an imaginary thing create a universe? IF the universe is proved to nee a creator (cosmological argument you can't beat it--you are afraid to debate me) then obviously God must create the universe and thus clearly has an effect on it.

BT

is not detectable, 

 Meta

I can feel his presence. the M scale proves that those who have this experience have experienced something real that changes their lives, therefore that prove they are really experiencing something that's not just some imaginary thing.

if imaginary things could change your life that way everyone would have a changed life.

your argument are asserting the naive position that to be real something has be detectable. But they have not as yet detected strings, dark matter, or bozons yet believes these to be real.

O great big thinker, please coordinate! Calling all bozons.

BT

leaves no measurable trace

 Meta

,

(1) the M scale makes mystical experience measurable.

(2) show me the measurable trace of dark matter?

BT

does not exist outside of the human mind etc etc.

Meta

this is he kind of circular argument taht I said not to make! I knew you coldn't do it. you can't give me a legitimate reason.

notice how he includes "doesn't exist outside of the human mind" as thought it's a proved fact that both sides accept and it's listed among the attributes he takes to be beyond question. So one of his arguments that God doesn't exist is that God doesn't exist.

here you are just using as a reason the thing trying to prove.

what are you trying to prove? That God is not real.

what's your argument? that God is not real.

these are the same thing! that's circular reasoning!

BT:

So , if God's essence shares the same characteristics as other imaginary beings, and does not have any characteristics that imaginary beings do not have, God must be imaginary.

Meta
imaginary like

dark matter
string
membranes
bozons
sh-leptons
neutrinos
gravitons
multiverse
singularity
big bang

like that? this is not a valid reason because it would eliminate everything in scinece that's been discovered since 1936.

Originally Posted by bigthinker

That's exactly correct.
So what other non-objective, invisible things exist outside of the mind? Can you name one or two?

Meta

I already did. can't you read? try dark matter, do you not know what that is? no you don't no one dose you have heard of it right? it's invisible it's outside the midn it's a mystery it's not solid. you can't touch it. Also try bozons.

BT

Invisible means can't be seen... Visible=seen/able to be seen. The prefix "in" means "not" or "without". When put in front of the word "visible" it modifies the meaning of "visible" to mean notvisible.

 Meta

no that's silly. that's not the word we use when things are off scale. we don't say we can't see beyond space/time because it's invisible. God is not an object standing in front of you, he's a mind thinking your existence. So obviously you can't see but that doesn't mean he's invisible. If you were a germ living on a dog the dog would not be seen, you would think hide was forest floor but he wouldn't be invisible.

I compared the idea of God to the invisible man in order to say he's not like that. To which this self appointed brilliant analytical mind says:

Really? Why, are there invisible men around? The invisible man is a figment of imagination, Meta...

Meta:

Yea, I said he's NOT LIKE THAT can't you read1?? you really can't read can you?

BT

Obviously? In what way is it obvious?

 Meta

it's undeniable and perceptible.

And what is the nature of this experience? Is it measurable?

No it's extremely nice.

BT

Is it detectable?

 Meta

yes, Newberg detected it.

BT

When a person has such an experience is it obvious to a third party observer?

 Meta

sometimes, Newberg can because it makes a certain part of the brain become more active than others.

BT

Theoretical. because they serve as hypothetical explanations. They are parts of different models which explain and describe certain natural processes.

Meta

so? they still not immediately perceptible to the sense. you are mixing in ideology. you are saying "I can lambaste your deal because it doesn't d x,y,z, but my stuff that I accept wholeheartedly doesn't do x,y,z but that's ok that's different." this is called "special pleading."

BT

You are certainly one of the most vocal of the gullible, non-critical thinkers here at CARM. The M Scale is meaningful ONLY to those who BELIEVE in it.

Now he feels the need to begin person ridicule. He's starting to feel a big awkward about spouting all the bilge and he's got to remind himself the ideology says "I am superior to all religious people I can feel good about myself as long as I hate Christians."

Meta

ahahhaah that's brilliant. your little ideology of hatred tells you that your enemy is inferior to you intellectually. Because you need to feel that you believe it. But because you ar inferior intellectually you don't know when when you are addressing your better and when you are not.

here's the guy who says "God doesn't exist, and my proof is, well he doesn't!"

but I'm the non analytical thinker? I['m the one talking about studies and modal logic he's over here begging the question never makes an argument cant' say anything other than "I refuse to bleieve therefore that proves it' not ture if it was true I could believe."

I'm the non analytical one. listen man if that's analytical then forget I'd rather be non analytical.

BT

I did not bring up dark matter....

 what he means by that I have no idea. I know I brought it up, so what?

BT

But if you would like to say that your god is only as real as dark matter, go for it! But it seems like a pretty stupid argument to me.

apparently this guy is dumb enough to think that dark matter is not real. Scientists think it's real, probalby he's never heard of it. He probalby thinks it's a religious idea.

Meta

I doubt that you even know what dark matter is. OF cousre go ahead and claim you do that puts you ahead of all physicists because no one knows.somehow mysteriously you seem to know that it's not like God. how? because you don't want it to be. we don't know what it is but you know what it's not like.

Of course in your great analytical insight you miss the obvious point, that real science and real analytical people accept the existence of things that fit the criteria you give form Imaginary. but that's ok because if you can argue in circles you can special plead. I've never seen you make an intelligent argument.

you rarely understand my point, you don't have a very broad knowledge base. Its' obvious you are not well read in anything. I can see why you need an ideology to tell you "you are superior to the evil Christians."

BT

You need to learn about circular arguments, Meta.

I've been learning from you, you are the expert.

he's the one saying God exists becasue he doesn't' exist but I'm doing the circular reasoning! ??
Meta

You're good at making them but very poor at pointing them out. My argument is that God is imaginary because he fits the description of other imaginary beings.

Yea so do all the major scientific discoveries I named.

subatomic particle
dark matter
string membranes
ect ect.


but that's ok because you just special plead and the inconsistency goes away.

this analytical thinking you supposedly do is a most wondrous thing. you can transform circular argument into cogent analysis just demanding that you can.

you can special plead all you want. wow. genius.

BT

My argument is also that God exists only in the mind. God is conceptual, does not impact the natural world (in a measurable, detectable, predictable, repeatable way). And so on and so forth.

 Meta

I've already shown that he does. you didn't have any proof. you did special pleading to make up for the fact that your criteria eliminates most major scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

you still haven't given a reason. just reiterating what you believe is not proof.

Do you think that all of these things exist? In what way? The big bang is/was an event. It is also an idea that refers to events at the beginning of our universe. Scientists use the big bang idea as a model because it is the result of other data and fits the model.

 Meta

Scientist believe it's real sonny boy. they don't just make up a model for fun, that would like something you do. they have real reasons, its' the accepted model because it has empirical data, you know like the stuff you can't provide to back your views?

he's incredibly unread.

BT

The idea as such is certainly incomplete (at the very least) and may turn out to be altogether incorrect. However, at present, it works within the scope of models used by scientists.

 Meta

that doesn't change the fact that your criteria clerestories modern science. its' a silly criteria and you didn't forge a real argument anyway. It's some guy who don't know much spiting a bunch of bigoted nonsense because he hates some group and it makes him feel tough and powerful to say things like "I refuse to believe!"

what's so hilarious genius that a great analytical thinker who special pleads and argues in circles can' t provide one single example of any kind of cogent idea agaisnt the thing he hates so much.

I clean your clock every time we do this. you have not never produced a decent argument. and you must know you can't because you are afraid to debate me.

 then he began to tell me that I argue in a circle. It's not just carm it's on every atheists board. I literally cannot find one where it's not like that. Of course many people try to explain it way and just attributed it to the internet. they are just torlls a lot of trolls around. But he trolls act like skin heads and brown shirts, they act like people brain washed who can't stand to hear ideas not of their group in which they have been indoctrinated.