why does god hate amputees?

[iskra]

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

[braincell]

Sir Paul McCartney hates one.

[Counterparts]

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

I can't remember the last time I saw a steaming pile of dog turd THAT high

[Liquid Len]

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

I can't remember the last time I saw a steaming pile of dog turd THAT high

http://www.reversespeech.com

[braincell]

I didn't really read it but it is not higher than other steaming piles of shit such as the Bibles and the Koran. By the way there are 3 versions of the Bible if you include the book of Mormon which claims god was a salamander.

[dawman]

I think God hates trailer parks too. Check out the paths of all major tornadoes in the midwest, they seem magnetically drawn to large trailer parks, and make beelines to the next closet one.

[astroman]

...but some animals are more equal
any agglomeration of human beings beyond a certain scale looks highly suspective to me - maybe aggression doesn't start with the same syllable for no reason - does that prove the 2nd link true then ?

cheers, Tom

[braincell]

It is language that both helps and destroys us. The amazing ability to hear voices in our brains. Sometimes the voices are too strong and we go insane . Some hallucinations are spread and passed down like a virus. Sadly, human mortality is a fact. If you know you are going to live forever in heaven then why not just kill yourself?

[kensuguro]

I think this is on the expanding list of topics that will end up in bad vibes.

[BingoTheClowno]

A little compilation of search results on Google about indoctrination.

Let religion become the basis and reality of your life and your actions, but let it be the pure and single-minded religion of divine reason and divine love, and not … that religion which strove to disassociate itself from everything that makes up the substance and life of truly moral existence. … Look at Christ, my dear friend; … His life was divine through and through, full of self-denial, and He did everything for mankind, finding His satisfaction and His delight in the dissolution of His material being.
… Because we have baptized in this world and are in communion with this heavenly love, we feel that we are divine creatures, that we are free, and that we have been ordained for the emancipation of humanity, which has remained a victim of the instinctive laws of unconscious existence. … Absolute freedom and absolute love—that is our aim; the freeing of humanity and the whole world–that is our purpose.


The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

First paragraph
Second paragraph

Indoctrination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Indoctrination is instruction in the fundamentals of a system of belief (such as a philosophy, religion or science).

The National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual defines indoctrination as "the initial security instructions/briefing given a person prior to granting access to classified information." Set within the contexts of religion, this would serve perfectly as a definition of the preparation for receiving esoteric knowledge not generally available to the world-at-large, a preparation that is a prerequisite for initiation into a mystery religion. Compare entries for Gnosticism or Catechism.

At Princeton the Cognitive Science Laboratory's "WordNet 2.0" defines "indoctrination" as "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically." [1]. Another serviceable partial definition, drawn from the website of The Henry Wise Wood High School [2] is "To teach systematically partisan ideas— propaganda." This definition opens the most basic difference between indoctrination and education: indoctrination teaches the doctrina that structures a subject, as observed from within, whereas educatio literally "leads out" from a subject, one that is being dispassionately observed from without.

Jesus Camp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jesus Camp, a Magnolia Pictures release directed by Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing, who previously made The Boys of Baraka together, is a 2006 documentary about a charismatic Christian summer camp for children who spend their summers learning and practicing their "prophetic gifts" and being taught that they can "take back America for Christ."[1] According to the distributor, it "doesn't come with any prepackaged point of view", and it tries to be "an honest and impartial depiction of one faction of the evangelical Christian community”.

Jesus Camp is a documentary about the "Kids On Fire" summer camp, located just outside Devils Lake, North Dakota and run by Becky Fischer and her ministry, Kids in Ministry International. The film focuses on three children who attended the camp in the summer of 2005--Levi, Rachael, and Victoria (Tory). The film cuts between footage of the camp and a children's prayer conference held just prior to the camp at Christ Triumphant Church, a large charismatic church in Lee's Summit, Missouri; a suburb of Kansas City.

All three children, despite their youth, are very devout charismatic Christians. Levi, who has ambitions of being a pastor, has already preached several sermons at his suburban Kansas City church. Early in the film, he is watching a cartoon that preaches that Earth is 6,000 years old. He is homeschooled, and learns physical science from a book that attempts to reconcile the creationist account with scientific principles. He preaches a sermon at the camp in which he declares that his generation is a key to Jesus coming back. In the film Rachael is seen approaching a woman and offering her a Christian tract and telling her that God has a special plan for her. She is somewhat disdainful of non-charismatic churches, feeling that they aren't "churches that God likes to go to." Early in the film, she is seen praying over a bowling ball. Tory frequently dances to Christian heavy metal music, and feels somewhat uncomfortable about "dancing for the flesh."

At the camp, Fischer stresses the need for children to purify themselves in order to be used by God. She strongly believes that children need to be in the forefront of turning America back to conservative Christian values.

In one scene shot at Christ Triumphant Church, Lou Engle, the chief "prophet" for Harvest International Ministries (the "apostolic network" with which both the church and Fischer's ministry are affiliated--an affiliation not advertised in the film) preaches a message urging children to join the fight to end abortion. He prays for George W. Bush to have the strength to appoint "righteous judges" who will overturn Roe v. Wade. By the end of the sermon, the children are chanting, "Righteous judges! Righteous judges!" In another, a woman brings a cutout of Bush to the front of the church, and has the children stretch their hands toward him. This practice is a derivative of laying hands on someone, and is a very common practice in Pentecostal and charismatic churches.

.......

OVERCOMING RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION

6 STEPS TOWARD SANITY

by David Nicholls

Religious indoctrination is real. It is a traditionally based process of all cultures. Its power is such that peoples so affected have a ‘belief’ they have chosen their particular ‘faith’ above the many on offer throughout the planet.

All religions work on the principle of exposing each new generation to a single world-view, to the exclusion of all others, in a repetitious and authorative manner. Doubts, as to the veracity of such ‘teachings’ are not encouraged, indeed, are not tolerated.

Once learned, the information so gained is retained for life, allowing it to take on an instinctive mantle in later years. As with all acquired knowledge, such as learning to ride a bicycle or rote remembrance of mathematical time’s tables, once taught, unlearning is not an easy option.

This is not to say that the results of such methodology are not practically overcome-able.

Youthful brains soak up information with little effort, establishing permanent neuronic pathways. Older brains require considerably more effort to alter this situation. There are many Atheists to attest to this. In fact, it is the rule rather than the rarity that most Atheists were raised from infancy under some religious regime or other. Even the most intense religious indoctrination can be overcome.

Here is how it is achieved:

First, one must become acquainted with and become used to the correct terminology pertaining to religious indoctrination. Even though the religious are quick to point out that others have been brainwashed (Such as communists, other religious adherents and even Atheists), it is they who have succumbed to this process.

Brainwashing/inculcation/indoctrination is one in the same word in meaning. These words are used in reference to promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it unjustifiably, the ‘truth’. Considering the adverse ramifications of such methods and results of brainwashing, this is nothing less than mental child abuse of the worst kind and one day it will be viewed that way.

Just seriously think about this for a moment. If you are religious or harbour religious thoughts, it is more than most likely the result of being abused and mentally used as a child. There is no escaping this fact. That the abused can then go on to abusing others in a likewise fashion is near enough to proof positive of the reality of the situation.

Under the guise of a good for humanity, the fear of death and/or eternal damnation is instilled into the pliable and susceptible minds of children and continues into adulthood. Sprinkled with tales of eternal life, temporal wishes supernaturally achievable, the unworthiness of humans and the existence of a ’good’ and an ‘evil’, sets the mental scene for subservient confusion.

Second, after recognising one has been abused and brainwashed against their will and without their knowledge, if escape is required, then effort to combat this negative outlook must be more intense and prolonged than the unwanted religious input.

A good start is to fully appreciate that all religious people of the thousands of religions that have and do exist, have been similarly abused, with them considering that they have the correct religion and all others are wrong. Even religions under the same name can state unequivocally that their counterparts have it incorrect. As an example, fundamentalist Christianity classes the Pope as the Anti-Christ and Catholicity a heresy.

Third, take a proper look at Earth. 50,000 Iranians have been recently killed by earthquake, 3,000 multi-denominational people died in the Twin Towers, 6 million Jewish people died in the Holocaust etc etc. Where were their respective gods? They were remarkably silent as they have been throughout history in humanities darkest hours.

Look at the system that sustains life on our planet: Every life form preys on another life form to exist. Some of this in such brutal and horrible fashion as to totally exclude the idea of a ‘loving’ god as the creator.

Look how the dice of life favours some and is more than wretched to others.

Look how natural disasters and pathogens kill and maim indiscriminately.

Fourth, it must be consciously recognised that books and ideas of old came from ignorant times, were written and passed on by ignorant men living by the malleable rules of all-encompassing superstition.

Fifth, and most importantly, it must be remembered that religions have held sway since consciousness arrived many tens of thousands of years ago. It is only in the last few hundred years that science has leapt onto the scene, and in doing so, has began to devour the very pillars holding superstition aloft.

Although it is not fully accepted yet, the one part of science that will eventually be seen as the most profound is the principle of evolution. Not only has science found no evidence for a supernatural realm, it has shown that evolution requires no such thing to sustain it.

Sixth and lastly, it therefore has to be asked as to why a super-being or thing would initiate a universe with us as only an infinitesimal dot within it. The Universe works on definite laws in a rational manner. Even if Quantum structure appears not to be so!

Such a rational creative force would hardly expect us to accept the irrationality that is religion especially as it is introduced in the heinous form of child abuse.

An all-loving god with control over every particle in existence, which chooses to allow immense suffering, cannot exist.

An all-powerful god incapable of creating perfect happiness for its creation is an oxy-moronic concept.

An all-knowing god that cannot see the inherent goodness of humanity and does not nurture and aid its creation in a fair and equitable manner is a god of immeasurably immoral proportion.

These thoughts and similar must be the constant companion of the adult psyche wishing to escape the foolishness of religious mind control.

Victims of child abuse can overcome the strong hold it has on them and in doing so can benefit greatly from the conflict. The brainwashing will always remain but in its subjugation it will eventually be replaced with feelings of pride of accomplishment.

This I guarantee.

Self-deception
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument.

It has been argued that humans are without exception highly susceptible to self-deception, as everyone has emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have even suggested that, because deception is such an important part of human behaviour (and animal behaviour generally), an instinct for self-deception can give a person a selective advantage: if someone can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth."

This notion is based on the following logic. In humans, awareness of the fact that one is acting deceptively often leads to tell-tale signs of deception. Therefore, if self-deception enables someone to believe their distortions, they will not present such signs of deception and will therefore appear to be telling the truth.

It may also be argued that the ability to deceive, or self-deceive, is not the selected trait but a by-product of a more primary trait that is selected. Abstract thinking allows many evolutionary advantages such as more flexible, adaptive behaviors and innovation. Since a lie is an abstraction, the mental process of creating a lie can only occur in animals with enough brain complexity to permit abstract thinking.

The Watchtower Indoctrination Process


A Psychological and Sociological Examination
(formerly entitled, "How and Why Someone Becomes a Jehovah's Witness")

by Jamie Boyden


Taking the mystery out of why one chooses to become a Jehovah's Witness is important. Much can be gained from the fields of social psychology and sociology as to how this occurs. It should be noted then that unique, individual motivating factors predicting and accompanying a person to favorably select the JW position will not herein be considered, rather factors at large and how people respond to the factors will be the author's spotlight. It should also be stated that the focus of this article is on persons not "born into" the Watchtower Society organization.


Would You Like to Study the Bible?


Suffice it to say that most all prospective converts, after first meeting the JWs through a doorstep encounter, begin their indoctrination through a home book study. The weekly book study (which the Witnesses sometimes call a Bible study) is where the well-rehearsed JW and the newcomer go through a Watchtower publication together. Quite predictably, the Witness teacher asks the likely convert questions related to his reading assignments. He can read the questions written at the bottom of his study book and easily respond with the corresponding printed answers. He is continually praised for stating the appropriate Watchtower responses during his hour long book study. How important is this praise?

Social psychologists view praise as an extremely potent social reward, not only predicting actions but also capable of altering an individual's underlying attitudes and beliefs (Insko, 1965). Research has demonstrated that people come to like those who view them positively (Byrne & Rhamey, 1965). During initial visits, it is common to hear reassuring comfort from the Witness teacher that the potential convert is wise and intelligent to be showing interest in the knowledge which his very life depends on. However, as the initiate enjoys the attention and praise of his weekly visitor, he may begin to acquire what social psychologists call attitude-discrepant behavior.


Attitude-Discrepant Behavior


A famous theory in social psychology is Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance1 theory (Festinger, 1957; Wichlund & Brehm, 1976). It is based on the premise that people can't live with inconsistencies. It works like this: On the one hand, the prospective convert usually has serious questions and doubts in the back of his mind about Jehovah's Witnesses and their teachings. It may be the blood transfusion issue, their view of the governments, their exclusive claims to Christianity, etc. Or, he may imagine the embarrassment of going door to door selling magazines. Yet, he is allowing the Witness teacher into his home and is participating in a socially rewarding book study. Since his behavior is not yet in line with his negative attitudes towards the JWs, he manifests attitude-discrepant behavior.2 He may also face harsh warnings from his family and friends who tell him not to study with the JWs because they are a cult. Yet he has an honest curiosity about what the Witnesses teach and believe. He may go as far as verbally giving answers to typical Witness book study questions but not actually believing what he is saying. These are inconsistencies between his attitudes and result in a very unpleasant feeling (Higgins, Rhodewalt, & Zanna, 1979). If the potential convert does not initially have conflicting attitudes towards studying with the JWs, it is very likely to appear in a short time. Perhaps he will come upon some critical literature exposing the JW teachings, or talk to a former JW or another educated person. Even if someone does not present him with a critical viewpoint, he will often pose questions which will force him into a dissonance-creating situation.


I Wouldn't Do It If I Didn't Believe It!


With regard to inconsistencies between attitudes, it should be noted that no one enjoys this unpleasant state to last long, so when faced with a decision, a choice between two alternatives must be made. After all, one can't possess two diametrically opposed religious views! Interestingly, cognitive dissonance theory predicts that the alternative (once chosen) becomes enhanced (Brehm, 1956; Knox & Inkster, 1968; Younger, Walker, & Arrowood, 1977; Converse & Cooper, 1979). Indeed, accepting one side ("I enjoy studying and what if the Witnesses are right?") without devaluing the other would allow inner turmoil (dissonance) to still prevail.3

To cite a more familiar example, perhaps the reader has had a decisional conflict involving the advantages and disadvantages of a large purchase. And once the decision is made and the purchase is taken home, you evaluate more positive the purchase you chose and lower your perception of the alternative you discarded. Likewise, the prospective convert, in effect, does the same thing. His questions about the JWs are no longer seen as important or serious.

.........

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior; in other words, it is the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956 after observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy; that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.[

PA Indoctrination of Children to Seek
Heroic Death for Allah - Shahada


Through a child actor, this music video portrays the delightful Paradise of Muhammad Al-Dura, whose death in a crossfire was broadcast on TV. He is portrayed flying a kite, frolicking on the beach and even at an amusement park. The clip opens with the invitation to other children from Al-Dura: "I am waving to you not in parting, but to say 'follow me'."

ELECTRONIC HEROIN


In the PLUG-IN DRUG, Marie Winn says that television is an addictive drug: "When we think about addiction to drugs or alcohol we frequently focus on negative aspects, ignoring the pleasures that accompany drinking or drug-taking. And yet the essence of any serious addiction is a pursuit of pleasure, a search for a 'high' that normal life does not supply. It is only the inability to function without the addictive substance that is dismaying, the dependence of the organism upon a certain experience and an increasing inability to function normally without it. Thus people will take two or three drinks at the end of the day not merely for the pleasure drinking provides, but also because they 'don't feel normal' without them.

"Real addicts do not merely pursue a pleasurable experience one time in order to function normally. They need to repeat it again and again. Something about that particular experience makes life without it less than complete. Other potentially pleasurable experiences are no longer possible, for under the spell of the addictive experience, their lives are peculiarly distorted. The addict craves an experience and yet is never really satisfied. The organism may be temporarily sated, but soon it begins to crave again.

"Finally, a serious addiction is distinguished from a harmless pursuit of pleasure by its distinctly destructive elements. Heroin addicts, for instance, lead a damaged life: their increasing need for heroin in increasing doses prevents them from working, from maintaining relationships, from developing in human ways. Similarly alcoholics' lives are narrowed and dehumanized by their dependence on alcohol.

"Let us consider television viewing in the light of the conditions that define serious addictions.

"Not unlike drugs or alcohol, the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state. The worries and anxieties of reality are as effectively deferred by becoming absorbed in a television program as by going on a 'trip' induced by drugs or alcohol. And just as alcoholics are only vaguely aware of their addiction, feeling that they control their drinking more than they really do ('I can cut it out any time I want—I just like to have three of four drinks before dinner'), people similarly overestimate their control over television watching. Even as they put off other activities to spend hour after hour watching television, they feel they could easily resume living in a different, less passive style. But somehow or other, while the television set is present in their homes, the click doesn't sound. With television pleasures available, those other experiences seem less attractive, more difficult somehow.

"Finally it is the adverse effect of television viewing on the lives of so many people that defines it as a serious addiction. The television habit distorts the sense of time. It renders other experiences vague and curiously unreal while taking on a greater reality for itself. It weakens relationships by reducing and sometimes eliminating normal opportunities for talking, for communicating." [p.p. 23-25, Marie Winn, THE PLUG IN DRUG; Penguin, 1977. ISBN - 0-14-007698-0]
.....

This applies to religion I believe....

The Smell of Indoctrination in the Morning

By Jonathan Malesic


At 8 a.m., the faces sitting before me are as blank as the dry-erase board in the classroom of my introductory course, "Belief and Unbelief." To the students' credit, all are present and accounted for, and not a one is wearing pajama bottoms or slippers.

Not a one is talking either, as I run slowly through the list of opening questions that I had hoped would spark discussion.

I ask how many saw the recent series in The New York Times on intelligent design, the very issue we're taking up by reading David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Silence.

Ok, what about the movies? Has anyone seen Grizzly Man, a film by the German director Werner Herzog about the conflict between seeing nature as harmonious and seeing it as violent? If nature is inherently violent, I tell the class, then the intelligent-design argument buckles in the face of the facts.

Bored eyes blink back at me. Cue the tumbleweed.

I give up on discussion and decide just to lecture the rest of the time. Screw the "student-centered paradigm." If I keep talking, then I can pretend that the class is quiet because everyone understands my lesson.

After 20 minutes, I come to the point where I've scripted a carefully chosen example. In order to illustrate an argument offered in Hume's book, I tell the class that I had recently read Jonathan Franzen's novel The Corrections, famous for the author's 2001 disparagement of Oprah Winfrey's offer to select his work for her book club. I tell the class that when I closed the book, I was astounded by Franzen's accomplishment and genius, in much the same way as the speaker in Hume's dialogue is astounded by the book of nature, and the divine author he infers from it.

None of the students has heard of Franzen. When I say that it was the book that roiled Oprah's book club, no bells ring. I go back to lecturing, pretty sure that I am the person in class most eager for the clock to hit 8:50 a.m.

.....(continued)

"If evolution really works, how come mothers only have two hands?"

- Milton Berle

INDOCTRINATION

The flattened O handshapes move in and out by the forehead to show that a person is taking what he or she knows and is passing it on to others.

Religious education is not indoctrination
By Ann Rennie
January 13, 2004


Students are free to propose other ideas, contrary views and ethical dilemmas.

Tony Wilson (Opinion 7/1), when was the last time you sat in on a religious education class in a Melbourne school?

Because the notion of indoctrination (certainly in the system with which I am familiar) is outdated, an insult to the adolescents I teach and bears little relation to the reality of the classroom experience.

Of course, a religious school will operate under the auspices of its particular faith and its ethos is invariably determined by the doctrine and practice of that faith. But to say that children at these schools have little choice is both patronising and ill informed. And the notion of us and "them" is antithetical to the classroom situation. This is especially so in the religious education class where the climate is one that opens up and explores difference and similarity and respects alternative views and beliefs.

Religious educators do have guidelines. Guidelines are simply that: a guide, a starting-off point and who knows what exciting tangent becomes pivotal to a particular lesson because it identifies with the needs or interests of the students and resonates with the reality of their lives?

The classes I have observed and taught encourage discussion and debate. There are occasions when attendance at Mass or other liturgical celebrations is a class or school activity, but these are no ordinary Masses. Students choose the music, the dance and drama that enacts a reading and compose their own prayers of the faithful. This is invitation, not indoctrination.

Brainwashing and Re-Indoctrination Programs in the Children of God/The Family
Stephen A. Kent, Ph.D.

Deana Hall, M.A.

University of Alberta



Abstract



Most contemporary debates about the applicability of "brainwashing" as a social scientific concept involve arguments over what (if any) utility it has when discussing conversion to some high-demand, alternative religions. Some sociologists of religion use the term "brainwashing" to apply to extreme social influences. Others restrict use of the term to situations involving forcible confinement and physical coercion, presumably amidst a group-indoctrination process. Since few such conversion situations exist, these sociologists avoid utilizing brainwashing within social scientific discourse. What they have overlooked, however, is the conceptual utility of the brainwashing concept, even with their restrictive definition, for analyzing some groups' efforts at retaining or reconverting members. This study examines an example of a brainwashing program--the camps and programs that the Children of God\The Family developed for its teen members. These programs included intense re-education programs in the context of physical, psychological, and socio-emotional punishments, often in confined or guarded camps. As a social scientific concept, "brainwashing" has explanatory usefulness for understanding The Family's harsh efforts both to increase the intensity of teens' commitment to the organization, and to foster compliance to leadership.

Central to the lives of preteen and teenage members of The Family (formerly the Children of God [COG]) in the late 1980s was their involvement in organizationally run teen training and re-indoctrination camps and programs in various parts of the world. Hundreds of young people passed through programs that operated in Brazil, Denmark, England, Italy, Japan, Macao, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Scotland, Switzerland, Thailand, South America, and probably other locations (for a partial list, see Ward, 1995: 135, 167). Some of these young people remained in these programs for years. It is not possible either to establish exact numbers of young people who went through them or to know what was the average length of time that they stayed in them. Likewise, thus far it has proven impossible to obtain detailed information about the imposition of these programs on adults (see COUNTERCOG, n.d.). Nevertheless, we are able to identify many of the activities that routinely occurred as part of the re-indoctrination processes that young detainees experienced in different programs around the world.



COG leadership started these programs and camps in an attempt to heighten commitment to founder, David Berg, and his directives among the children of the initial converts (often called ‘the second generation'). By operating these programs, The Family was attempting to address the classic problem that confronts sects, which involves the cultivation of commitment and devotion among a second generation born to parents who are members already. By the early 1980s it seems that a number of teens in The Family were having grave doubts about following in their parents' footsteps, even as others considered themselves committed adherents to Berg's instructions. Teen camps and programs, therefore, were attempts to instill a deep commitment among young people whose faith may have been wavering, or who had not made intense emotional investments to the ideology. On these grounds alone, the stories of people who went through these camps and related programs should interest many scholars.



Of greater interest to scholars, however, is that these teen training programs fit the most restrictive definition of brainwashing facilities. That is to say, these programs variously confined (and at times incarcerated) their young participants as they physically maltreated them, which are the two necessary conditions that some sociologists require for labeling and analyzing a thought reform program as "brainwashing" (Anthony, 1990: 304-305). Indeed, we even could narrow further these already restrictive requirements for brainwashing by saying they must take place amidst a program of intense ideological training consisting of indoctrination classes, social isolation, and forced confessions, often combined with extremely hard physical labor and social humiliation. Because The Family's so-called teen "education" programs of the late 1980s meet this most narrowly restrictive sociological definition of brainwashing, scholars (especially sociologists of religion) will need to reexamine a term that has been out of favor among them for over a decade and a half.

Little Albert experiment
The Little Albert experiment was an experiment showing empirical evidence of classical conditioning. This study was also an example of stimulus generalisation. It was conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson along with Rosalie Rayner, his assistant whom he later married. The study was done at Johns Hopkins University


Albert B was a child of a worker at the clinic where Watson and Rayner worked. He was chosen for the experiment because he was a placid child who rarely cried or seemed unhappy.

Before the start of the experiment, when Albert was 9 months old, Watson and Rayner ran Little Albert through emotional tests. The infant was confronted briefly and for the first time to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers etc. The infant at no time showed any fear.

The experiment began by placing Albert on a rug on the floor in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and he was allowed to play with it. At this point, the child showed no fear of the rat. In fact, like all small children, he began to reach out to the rat and gurgle as it roamed around him. In later trials, Watson and Rayner made a loud sound behind Albert's back by striking a hammer suspended on a steel bar when the rat was presented to him. Not surprisingly in these occasions, Little Albert cried and showed fear as he heard the noise. After several such pairings of the two stimuli, Albert was again presented with the rat alone. Now, however, he became very distressed as the rat appeared in the room. He cried, turned away from the rat and tried to move away. Apparently, the baby boy had associated the white rat (original neutral stimulus, now conditioned stimulus) with the loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) and was producing the fearful or emotional response of crying (originally the unconditioned response to the noise, now the conditioned response to the rat).

P.S. The [url=] tag doesn't work within a quotes tag.

[BingoTheClowno]

I don't know if I can be more eloquent, but here it is:

On the question "why does God hates amputees", I agree fully with the article and applaud the clear reasoning applied to dismantle the god myth.

(now start deleting your messages )

[BingoTheClowno]

This prompts a question: What if rational, intelligent human beings begin uniting together to help heal the delusion and make our world a better place? It is an intriguing thought. There would be many benefits.

So all religion is delusion. OK.
And now have a look at the quote above.

This is the alternative. OK
What exactly is that, but another religion. ?

This looks to me like another try to use post modern distraction and over rational mechanical worldview in order to establish a new kind of religion which is anthropocentric, in the trap of pseudo sciences and ignores mystic and transcendent aspects completely.

At least their web logo should not be a christian cross then....

To charge that the non-belief in a religion is a religious belief by itself is misleading and a typical (trivial) accusation that believers charge non-believers.

"This looks to me like ...."
What, the article?

"Post modern distraction", "pseudo sciences", are these two threatening religion in any way?

"over rational mechanical worldview "-never held such a view.

[braincell]

Religion and politics are often about domination and power control.

Some merchants are complaining this year because it's illegal to sell things on Sunday and Sunday falls the day before Christmas. This is America "Land of Freedom".... yeah right. Tell me another lie.

Miss America is having her crown taken away because of underage drinking. She is old enough to f*&cking die in f@$cking Iraq for our F@&cking so called "freedom".

Honestly I would not mind the zealots so much if they would keep to themselves and stop telling other people what to do! That's what all this hostility is about. Just leave us alone!

[iskra]

as the poster I'm always aware threads like this can get out of hand, so let me say firstly I harbour no hatred towards those of you who believe in god, I just think you're wrong (just as you would think I'm wrong)

there are two possible kinds of god, an interventionist one (one who is capable of influencing the world) & non-interventionist (one who may have created the universe but is now hands off).

If you believe in the second, its hardly worth the bother if god has no power to intervene in the world

If you belive in the first then as the site puts it:
"No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs."


I dont think that rationality alone will stop people believing in god, people looking for hope out of misery & fear of death are two things that drive people to except non-rational explanations for the world


nonetheless if you believe in god I send out a gentle challenge for you to have a thorough read of that site

if evidence was found for the existence of a being, that had any of the powers attributable to a god, it would no longer be god, but some alien entity capable of being studied, ironically people can only believe in god as long as this god does not provide any evidence for its existence

[alfonso]

Honestly I would not mind the zealots so much if they would keep to themselves and stop telling other people what to do! That's what all this hostility is about. Just leave us alone!

Absolutely!

I live in Italy and the Vatican has an unbearable influence on our legislation, both right and left are filled with people who think that they can't go against religion just because none of them wants to leave religious voters to the opposite coalition...that brings the awful consequence of laws that are not really corresponding to the true belief of the majority.

I would never pretend that a catholic should be forced to live like I do, the catholics pretend that I should live the way they want. though. I don't hate religion, I hate fundamentalism, and we have it here.

[BingoTheClowno]

hmmm

first of all bingo, thanks for making it clearer in your 2 sentences

It is always good to know what one dont wants.
I am still convinced that we experience a postmodern distraction.
That is why and the root cause why such messiah pamphlets loaded with natural science metaphors and philosophic metaphors cannot match reality. (<- IMHO)
Even if they are no religions in the narrower sense, these world views just replace religious ones with mechanical, naturalistic, economical, pseudo science ones and dont cure the 'demons of religions':what rationalists call delusion.

...and If you think twice you might consider to shorten (not delete ) your hard tor read monster post to reference links ?! no offense meant just rational analysis

I sense some sarcasm in your writing and insinuations with intent to insult me personally. Is it your desire to attack me personally for what I believe?

Maybe, instead of repeating your oppinions, you could start presenting some kind of evidence that validates them? Or should we just take your oppinions for granted?

Regarding the long post, you are more than welcome to skimp over it.

[braincell]

There is a bowl of spaghetti orbiting the earth at a distance of 100 miles. You can not prove I am wrong, therefore this is true.

[alfonso]

There is a bowl of spaghetti orbiting the earth at a distance of 100 miles. You can not prove I am wrong, therefore this is true.

There was an italian astronaut on the MIR some time ago, if I remember well...

[emzee]

"On the sixth day ..... God created Man. On the 7th, Man returned the favour..."

Something like that..............

[BingoTheClowno]

Good evening Bingo,
you seem to be in a bad mood.
There is no need to be paranoid and talk about defamation, especially not in this case. If I would be in the same mode I could sense a lot. Read through the thread and then make up your mind who was giving personalized messages when.

Again, I urge you to address the subject of this post and not myself personally.
I have no desires to insult you.

Just trust in me that I can distinguish the discussion about 'banning religion from reality' and my friendly wish to kindly avoid unreadable monster posts.

No one claimed the opposite! (and honestly, I don't see how you made that connection, an interesting one I might add!)
As far as your "friendly" wishes to avoid reading "monster" posts, this is a though one. Could you use the scroll on your mouse and scroll real quick to the end of it? How about a blank sheet of paper placed on the screen while you're scrolling to protect you from seeing "it"? Would that be hard for you? Or is it something in that "monster" post that you "don't wish" to see?

I hope I was eloquent enough to explain to you that a replacement of religion with other 'things' is not enough, cause the 'demon of delusion' still remains..
And the pure negation of religion does not cope with this world's reality at all IMHO

You were not. Can you distinguish between what's your own oppinion and what is fact?
Here is the problem with your claim:
1. You don't show the percentage of population that is not religious ( "new religions like TV, Consume, Brands, Imperialism, Psychotropics") compared to the religious population.
2. You don't show evidence that the non-religious or the "new religions" population is consuming or watching TV more than religious population. Where is this data? Or is it just a guess of yours?