---------------------------
A = stronlgy agree
B = agree
C = disagree
D = strongly disagree
---------------------------



Area 1 Scenario 1

Q1 = A
Q2 = A
Q3 = A
Q4 = A
Q5 = D / no


Area 1 Scenario 2

Q6 = B
Q7 = A
Q8 = B
Q9 = A
Q10 = D / no

Area 2 Scenario 1

Q11 = A
Q12 = C
Q13 = A
Q14 = B
Q15 = B

Area 2 / Scenario 2

Q16 = B
Q17 = D
Q18 = A
Q19 = C
Q20 = A



That was very interestin Andy.
It has taught me, what power brainwashing can really have on a human being, depending on the level of intensity.

Reg. the difference between Scenario 1 and 2 (of Area 1), I would disagree with any kind of force, but I acknowledge that the level of force (regulary / occasionally) does make a big difference.

However, I remember very well my religious education (more religious instruction) at school, which happened only once a week.
But still, I'd consider it as a complete waste of my time for many years (and that without my consent).
Not only didn't they care whether we enjoyed taking part or not (we did not), but they also enjoyed us not enjoying it ... if you get what I mean.


Same with Area 2
It appears that the level of force decides about the level of brainwashing.
That's the whole point for me, to realize that any kind of force cannot result into a decision of free will ... even if the victim calls it that way.
A thoroughly brainwashed person is messed up and therefore unable to judge about the own conscience - let alone others.

The more I think about it, the more it makes me angry to see what level of ignorance it takes, to force your own blood - in the name of what ?

So some of us agree on disagreeing with eachother (on certain points).

Does that mean we should simply stop discussing the subject altogether? Both qviri and I have agreed to specific points of andyb already. There is slow movement. Stopping discussion altogether is no solution in politics, why should it be a solution here?


I will play along with the questionnaire, but I had to restrain myself from not elaborating on my answers.

Q1 D

Q2 C

Q3 D

Q4 C

Q5 C


Q6 D

Q7 D

Q8 D

Q9 D

Q10 B - C (non decided)


Q11 C

Q12 D

Q13 B

Q14 B

Q15 C (only exception here. I can't possibly know what she is thinking)


Q16 C

Q17 D

Q18 B

Q19 B

Q20 C (same reason)


I'd like to point one thing out here:


You have chosen different scenarios, but the wording is exactly the same in both instances.

Not at all, this is a simple way to reduce the amount of perception difference, and stop goalpost moving whilst still getting a good idea of where peoples thoughts on those questions lie in relative to each other.

For the same reason MikeC uses a specific fan to compare all others to. You are part of an experiment, to really get an idea of peoples thoughts on the subject we need more answers from more people.

I will add my own answers later when some of the questions finer points have been forgotten (the problem with writing the questions).



I spent a lot of time fidling with the wording to get a scenario that was realistic, that I could copy, and then just change a few words to make another scenario that is also realistic. One is obviously to an extreme, and the other is moderate, I chose not to do the other extreme, because it would have been unrealistic/pointless.


Andy

Q1 A
Q2 B
Q3 C
Q4 B
Q5 NO

Q6 C
Q7 D
Q8 D
Q9 B
Q10 NO

Q11 C
Q12 C
Q13 B
Q14 C
Q15 B

Q16 D
Q17 D
Q18 A
Q19 D
Q20 A

Burqa wearing - one answer might be that she is wearing it because she has no option not too.

Attempting to "brainwash" children can sometimes have the opposite effect and make them rebel against their upbringing. In any case, brainwashing involves changing a persons opinions and views. Indoctrination is perhaps a better choice of word and slightly less inflammatory.
Young children tend to believe whatever their parents and teachers tell them without questioning it. This applies to many things - racism, political stance or whether 'City' or 'United' are the best football team.
Once children reach an age where they begin to think for themselves many may begin to question the existence of God, provided they have had contact with alternative schools of thought. (I was brought up to believe in (Christian) God and sent to Sunday school until I was old enough to say No. Fortunately my parents allowed me the freedom of choice)
This reaction is inevitable for Moslems living in a country like the UK and will, I think, lead to their eventual integration although they will inevitably retain some of their cultural traditions. Take as an example Americans of Italian/Irish/Scottish/African origin. They presumably are integrated now?
There will always be some who, for whatever reason, maintain their fundamentalist viewpoint; just as some people will always be racist or devout Catholics/whatever. I think that often this is a need within the individual to have something to believe in, some 'reason for life' rather than a result of so called brainwashing.

What I don't understand is why these devout Moslem people want to come and live in the West when they despise everything about it. Why not stay in the country that suits their beliefs?

Edit - added italics.

Hello,

I have a problem with the original question/premise of this thread: what if you do not believe that there is a God "out there"? What if you believe that God is in each and every person?

I totally agree, and your upbringing description could have been written by me.



I suspect your viewpoint is more similar to spirituality rather than religion.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... irituality

Many people feel this way, and often people who have been disheartened by their religion, have left that religion behind but still believe in something - most people refer to this as spirituality - they have broken the shackles of the religion, but still follow the nicer parts of that religion.

I know someone who has been Catholic since day one, but heir priest (Father Michael) was an utter bastard (1/3rd of the congregation left), she lost her faith (literally), but still has something left behind.

Her morals are very similar to mine (except the dogma has not all rubbed off yet), she is still concerned by abortions (except for rape victims), but she has always disaproved of the dogma of not being allowed to use contraceptives.

---

I have always argued the point that you dont need religion to have morals, and you dont need religion for all of the silly demands it forces upon you, not eating pigs/cows for example.

---

I have great respect for Spiritual people for 2 reasons. 1, they (usually) realise that all of the other crap that comes with religion is simply not needed. 2, they (usually) keep it to themselves.


Andy

Amen to that!
And, as has been proven by the perverted behaviour of some priests, religion does not automatically give you morals; neither does it give you compassion. (I'm thinking here of, for instance, stoning a woman to death for committing adultery)

I have spent enough time without the question in my mind, so I decided to re-read them, and put my answers down

---------------------------
A = stronlgy agree
B = agree
C = disagree
D = strongly disagree
---------------------------

Area 1 - Scenario 1

Q1 = A
Q2 = A
Q3 = A
Q4 = A
Q5 = D

Area 1 - Scenario 2

Q6 = B
Q7 = C
Q8 = B
Q9 = A
Q10 = D

Area 2 - Scenario 1

Q11 = A
Q12 = B
Q13 = A
Q14 = A
Q15 = D

Area 2 - Scenario 2

Q16 = B
Q17 = D
Q18 = A
Q19 = D
Q20 = C

I would still like to get a few more answers in (Qviri where are you), before ................... I will tell you that later, part 2 of the game is going to be very enlightening for all.


Andy

You changed the wording in the scenarios, but not in the questions.

As you wrote above, many questionnaires are manipulated by the very wording of the questions that are asked, not by the wording of the scenarios.

The result will be that the outcome will be lopsided and far from a neutral reference point. You are directing the result into a certain direction.



I agree. Religion by itself does not make a better person (nor does it make a worse person).


What puzzles me, is that both judge56988 and andyb have switched their answers from a strong no to a mild yes, or a mild no to strong yes in some occasions. This makes no sense to me.

I don't know how you can switch yes and no just based on the severity of upbringing/environment. Upbringing will have results, be it mild or severe, but these results can never go from "slightly influenced" to "not at all" (or from "severely influenced" to "not that much").
This would be a weird curve in influence.

For example, exposing a person to a summer sun day after day will make him tanned, while slightly exposing a person to the sun will make him bleaker.
This is not an analog to the questions, but you get the gist.

I simply changed the teams that were playing, but I didnt move the goal posts, if I had changed the questions at the same time as the scenario we wouldnt even be playing the same game. And likewise the reason why I didnt just ask those questions outright, but asked them as a specific response to 2 different scenarios was to give everyone the same playing field to start with, if I had not the answers would have been skewed by peoples imaginations.

Lets analyse your answers as an example.

On Area 1, scenario 1, you score a 17 (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4), there is a minimum score of 5, and a maximum score of 20. The midway point is 12.5, so therefore 12 is a weak agree, and 13 is a weak disagree overall.

Your score is 4.5 higher than the midway point, and 3 short of the highest level of disagreement. On area 1, scenario 2, your scvore changes to an 18.5 which puts you pretty close to the strongest of disagreements.

So you go from a 17 to an 18.5, your answers dont change a whole lot between the 2 different scenarios, so therefore it seems that you dont think there is a really big difference between those 2 different scenarios, others would disagree.

At the other end of the scale is Cov, who in A1 S1 scores just 8, just 3 points off of the strongest agree, but scores just 2 more points in the direction of disagree in A1 S2.

So as you see, it is not just the strength of individual answers, but the difference of answers given when the scenario changes.

Judge's scores, A1 S1 = 12, A1 S2 = 17, a difference of 5.

My score, A1 S1 = 8, A1 S2 = 12, a difference of 4.

Also note that the answers for Q5/Q10 (would (do) you treat your children in such a manner) from everyone are, D, D, C, B/C, D, D, D, D.

This is interesting because it seems to be the question that we have all given the closest answers on. With the exception of Spook who has still not decided on a B or a C for Q10 we ALL disagree. But we do ALL disagree on Q5. (i.e. we all answered the same to varying degrees).

That is a very specific scenario, and a question that has us all in agreement to disagree, so it seems that I was right when I said that even on opposing sides of this subject there are points that everyone has the same viewpoint on.

One thing I have noticed so far (although with a very limited data set (4 people makes is very far from perfect), 3 people from the UK, 1 person from (Unknown) seems to split us into 2 obvious groups, and I cant help but to notice that the UK camp has very differing views RE: Area 1, make of that what you will.

Everyone, please feel free to do your own analysis while I am shooting people in BF2, having lunch, and then watching some football in the pub.



Feel free to analyse and think about that, but in the mean time, here is my answer. Some questions overpower others (you could easily say they have a higher value than others), and by simply changing the scenario, the severity of a question (and the given answer) can affect another question a great deal.

e.g. Q14 and Q19, (she wears it because it identifies her as a muslim more than a headscarf would, and she wants to be identified as a muslim by all ).

My answers changed from an A to a D, the reason why I changed my answer that much is very simple and straight forward.

She was brainwashed by brainwashed parents, to the extent that she simply MUST wear that thing, wheras in the second scenario, she has not been brainwashed, and has had a moderate religious ubringing, she probably wears a headscarf, she doesnt need to identify herself in any stronger way at all, after all if the headscarf is there to show alliegance and identify your religious beliefs then it stands to reason that the stronger your beliefs the more you have to show it. A christian might wear a cross (typically hidden, small, and made of gold), a hardcore christian might wear a large visible wooden cross.



I dont believe I am, everyone who wants to play has 4 possible answers to each question (I dont belive that giving people middle ground (a nuetral answer) is right, as it gives people the option to simply not answer (such as answering B/C). If your answer is agree but only barely, then you still agree. The whole concept of giving a neutral answer option is misguided in that if someone cant decide, cant be bothered to decide, or doesnt want their answer to be known (for fear of taking sides) then they simply have NOT answered that question.

So, giving people the option of a neutral answer wont make the answers lopsided, it will make them accurate. But as you have seen in giving the answers "points" you can barely agree/disagree (12/13 points) across 5 questions. If I had only have given 2 answers, agree or disagree then yes it would be skewed, I could have given the option of 6 answers, adding in slightly agree/disagree, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I have already drawn it, and will not re-draw it. Please can you decide on your B/C (or A / D).


Andy

I don't agree to Spookmineer (once again).

Firstly, you misinterpret Andy, then secondly, Religion absolutely does influence a person and hence changes his character in some way.
In that respect, your statement is illogical in itself (once again).

It's not a case of being slightly influenced as opposed to strongly influenced here; it's a case of religous indoctrination/brainwashing in scenario 1 as opposed to a benign attempt at influencing the child in scenario 2.
Worlds apart in my book and therefore likely to have different results depending upon the intelligence and personality of the child and the amount of exposure the child has to alternative viewpoints.

Hi,
Interesting thread no doubt...
I would ask God : Who are your parents ?

I yet have to read the whole questionnaire, but I still want to ask you all a question : what is the difference between a culture and a religion ?

Hi, Bonjour frenchie,

Interesting question: what is the difference between cutlture and religion ?

Wikipedia says:




I say:

Culture includes Religion but Religion doesn't include culture.
That's because Religion is based on an idiology that is fixed once and for all, while culture is evolving constantly.
Hence why more and more individuals are going through the process of realization of what's real and what's fake.

What do you think frenchie ?

By the way, Pat Condell has published another videoclip, just yesterday:



YouTube videoclip

Hi Frenchie, please join in the fun of my questionaire, the more answers we get the better for everyone.



Afair question that is dodged by many god worshippers. Many god worshippers say that is silly to believe in the Big Bang, that everything suddenly came from nothing.

My answer is the same, who/what created god, or did god just pop into existance. There is however a huge and fundimental difference between these 2 arguments. One group says this is absolutely true, and there is no question. The other group says that it is a theory in progress, just like gravity was once, or that microbes even exist. One is a demand for belief without any proof whatsowever - that is what faith is. The other is rational, thought out, and at least trys to explain itself - if you will listen.


Andy

It seems to me that most religions have done a lot of evolving too, at least if you look at the mainstream rather than fringe fundamentalism.

At the moment there's a fight in the Anglican church about whether women should become bishops, rather than just vicars. There's also a lot of controversy about clergy who are openly homosexual. But go back just one hundred years and either would be unthinkable; back then few women worked at all and homosexuality was still a criminal offence. The modern Anglican church would probably seem hopelessly corrupt and sinful to past generations, yet today that's mainstream Christianity in Britain.

I know Anglicans don't equate to all Christians, let alone all religious people, but that's just one example of how a religion can change with the times as the culture it exists in changes. Even the Catholics I know are a hell of a lot more liberal than their religion's rules would lead you to expect.

You could look at attitudes towards slavery too. It's hard to imagine any mainstream religious figure using their holy book to argue in support of slavery today, yet go back a few centuries and that was common. It's another example of mainstream religious views changing along with a change in culture. Of course many abolitionists used their religion to argue against slavery, which just shows how flexible and open to interpretation holy texts can be...

RE: Your whole point, I will chose do agree/disagree to its various interesting points tomorrow when I am not about to hit the sack.

Please can you, read my questionairre (bottom of page 5), and honestly put your answers down.

When I say honestly, I mean, really think about the answers, change them often, change them again after the next question has been answered, but please dont change them because of another mammals views oppose the one view you nearly agreed to, and dont change it because of superstition or the simple threat of hellfire, or just let your beliefs rule your answers, but please still give an answer.

(The Catholic method), not answering the questionairre is simply allowing satan into peoples lives, as it allows Heretics to reign free.

Remember I am a Heretic, a blasphemer, and I look forward to avoiding heaven - I wouldnt know anyone there, so whats the point.


Andy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385893.stm

Here is an example of how religion is stepping over its boundaries. Some religious nutcases, and a few PM's seem to think that religion is a higher order than that of the voting public.

The people of Switzerland voted for this, but some think that it is simply discrimination, I say to those people, you are being discriminatory against those who have the right to vote.


Andy

source
Have your say.

Without being pro or con, why exactly are the minarets singled out? Are they a hazard to aviation? What is the reasoning behind it?

We have a majority voting public as well, but that doesn't mean they can vote for or against anything, just as free speech does not mean you get to yell fire in a crowded theater.



Did they make a similar claim when the golden arches showed up on their soil? Is Disneyland a sign of plasticisation?

In Switzerland they actually can, so long as enough people say lets have a countrywide vote on xxxx.



I suspect that they have been singled out because of their height, and because they will change the scenery - both of those points are directly linked. This point is the single biggest problem people have with skyscrapers, so if we remove the fact that they represent an intolerant religion there would probably be many people saying NO. The obvious point of people being fearful of the religion itself is a factor, but its only one factor. The other one that I have not mentioned so far is that the style of the structure itself does not fit in with most of the style of the region, but its when you put all of those points together you really see that what the spire itself represents is only a small part of the issue.


Andy

So can they vote themselves to have zero taxes? It would seem to be a popular issue.

I guess they draw the line somewhere, although it would be fun to watch people try.


Andy

Maybe the Swiss are overreacting slightly once you know there are a total of 4 (four) minarets in the whole country, built over a period of 40 years.

20 years ago the muslim population was 2.2%, and there were 3 mosques, after 20 years the muslim population has increased to 4.3%, almost 90 mosques, and dont forget the 4 minarets.

Were people having this stupid debate 20 years ago, were people saying that its really unfair that thera are only 3 mosques for the 2.2% of the people to visit, and still no minarets. The actual number of muslims 20 years ago was ~152,000 vs 3 mosques, thats 50,000 per mosque (very even distribution of people, mosques are not portable, all are in major cities), now the actual muslim population is ~327,000 and nearly 90 mosques (lets call that number 86), thats a mosque per 3,800 god fearers).

Why are the muslims in Switzerland complaining, they are far better represented than they were 20 years ago, the number of people, and the percentage of the populous has doubled in 20 years, but the quantity of mosques has balooned by 28 fold.

Forget the minarets, they only exist for the same reason church steeples do, they can bee seen by the farmers in the distance, and they can make a lot of noise to tell all of the peasants its time to come and fear your god again. People can do that with a simple alarm on their mobile phone, they dont need a huge concrete structe and someone with a bell to remind them, whats the damned point other than "playground will waving".


Andy

If these Moslems are economic migrants from Moslem countries then what right do they have to call the shots in Switzerland - or anywhere else that is not their country?
They are free to leave Switzerland if they don't like it there aren't they?

From here



And it also says in that news report:



I have worked for short periods in Saudi and several other gulf states - I haven't seen any of these countries allowing Westerners living there any kind of concessions. Even in Dubai, which is desperate for the tourist dollar/euro/pound alcohol can only be consumed in hotels and women must cover up when they go out. Surely if they insist on Western women following their dress code, Britain should have the same right?
Why should there be one set of rules for us and another set of rules for them?

Personally, I believe that they have the right idea and that here in the West we are way to accommodating. Anyone wanting to live in, for example, Britain should adapt to and observe the traditions of Britain. If they don't want to do that then don't come. If they argue that they are being discriminated against then the counter argument is that we are merely following the same policy as their home country.

Sorry for making you wait -- I am not currently in position to enjoy regularly scheduled weekends or otherwise spend a lot of time on SPCR. I am glad to see you've had no trouble having civil, considerate discussion without me. *

Several of your questions are pretty difficult to rank on just strongly/agree/disagree. I usually try to avoid pretending to know what people think.

Q1 B
Q2 C
Q3 B
Q4 (B+C)/2
Q5 D

Q6 C
Q7 C
Q8 C
Q9 C
Q10 D

Q11 (B+C)/2
Q12 C
Q13 B
Q14 C
Q15 (B+C)/2

Q16 C
Q17 C
Q18 B
Q19 (B+C)/2
Q20 (B+C)/2



Andy, please, I am sure you are aware of this, but: a good democracy doesn't mean The People can vote in anything they want. There are limits on what is considered acceptable and what is considered absolutely fundamental, whether through a constitution, a charter of rights, a declaration, etc. This was considered and set up a long time ago by wise, dead white men.

Would you support the English majority's right to vote away militant atheists' freedom of speech, or the Czech majority's right to vote away others' right to worship whichever man in the sky they believe in? Would you support an apathetic majority's right to vote away construction of football stadiums?

I am actually rather embarrassed to have to ask this, but would you say the same thing if this was about synagogues not 'fitting in architecturally'?

I have more questions, but for now, in case you run out of questions to answer, there are some of mine left unanswered on the previous page.


* Yes, this was sarcasm.

I accept your apology, not that you needed to make one, but thanks anyway.



Already mentioned, heavily.



The concept of fiction to some people makes me feel a little weird, I know it is something that every single person on the planet can do. So you can "imagine" yourself in the scenario in question, you can then give answers via your thought of "being" in that scenario.

I have personally had such vivid dreams that I have woken up, screaming, and covered in sweat. The human brain is very powerful, and the subconcious is as equally powerful as the concious. So how about you put that scenario into your head the moment beore your drift off, lets then see what your subconcious thinks of the idea.



They can, if it is on the table, the evilness of Hitler was voted into power.



You would indeed be wise to repleace the word "white" with another word depicting a darker shade that was nearer "brown".



I will vote away anyones right to remove my right to free speech.

Beyond that, only the direct hatred of a specific group, by a specific group, and the following up of that action with the threat of violence would I "suggest" the removal of that groups right to their freedom of speech.

e.g. Some religious groups sanctify the killing of homosexuals, that is obviously a hate filled religion, but just because that religion says such a thing, does that give someone the right to actually and directly threaten and then kill said people.

There is a huge distinction between these three points.

1, Some ancient written text, compiled by dozens of people over a very long time, Says they should be killed.

2, Somone actually says I will kill them.

3, Someone actually does kill them.

People seemingly have the right to read and preach No. 1, But No, 2 is still legal in much of the world, and No3, is actually legal in some countries.


Andy

Just as an aside,

"Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer.

"There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland." (New York Times, Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques)

Don't let facts get in the way of your rants, though.