Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Indoctrination

1356789

Posts

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    But Hume only went with God because he didn't have an alternative source of Design...and Evolution refutes Locke's God->Mind->Design->Order->Chaos top down structure.

    I mean, the one guy (Cleanthenes? Something like that) in Dialogues is pretty much correct in every way and defeats the theist, but at the end Hume has him surrender because he can't see an alternative. We have an alternative now, philosophically speaking, that Hume did not consider, so we don't need God to establish induction.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    But Hume only went with God because he didn't have an alternative source of Design...and Evolution refutes Locke's God->Mind->Design->Order->Chaos top down structure.

    I mean, the one guy (Cleanthenes? Something like that) in Dialogues is pretty much correct in every way and defeats the theist, but at the end Hume has him surrender because he can't see an alternative. We have an alternative now, philosophically speaking, that Hume did not consider, so we don't need God to establish induction.
    Not to tangent this thread even more, but Hume did not go with God. Apologetics like to use Hume for his conclusions about the problems of induction, but they don't like Hume so much for his conclusions about the nonexistence of miracles and the fallacies inherent in arguments for God's existence. :)

  • Ain't No SunshineAin't No Sunshine Registered User
    edited April 2007
    But Hume only went with God because he didn't have an alternative source of Design...and Evolution refutes Locke's God->Mind->Design->Order->Chaos top down structure.

    I mean, the one guy (Cleanthenes? Something like that) in Dialogues is pretty much correct in every way and defeats the theist, but at the end Hume has him surrender because he can't see an alternative. We have an alternative now, philosophically speaking, that Hume did not consider, so we don't need God to establish induction.

    Hume pretty much went for anything he could, because he needed a way out of his own argument - I found the conclusion disappointing. No, God isn't necessary to do the induction, and the above argument isn't as much one for God as it is one for ambiguity. If all the options for justification of induction are rendered rationally equivalent, there's no grounds to criticize whatever falls out of it.

    Qingu (rightfully) points out that this is OT stuff, so I'm going to hash it out with him and anyone else interested in PM. The thread-relevant point is that there are many apologetics who strongly consider the rational aspect of belief and still end up believing it, and the question boils down to whether they're indoctrinated oafs looking to justify their impressions, or rational thinkers who don't feel the atheist movement has strong arguments on their side (or, perhaps, a mix).

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The thread-relevant point is that there are many apologetics who strongly consider the rational aspect of belief and still end up believing it, and the question boils down to whether they're indoctrinated oafs looking to justify their impressions, or rational thinkers who don't feel the atheist movement has strong arguments on their side (or, perhaps, a mix).

    I would imagine it would be a mix for most people, especially since the arguments in favor of atheism aren't well known or usually presented strongly by people already opposed to it.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    But Hume only went with God because he didn't have an alternative source of Design...and Evolution refutes Locke's God->Mind->Design->Order->Chaos top down structure.

    I mean, the one guy (Cleanthenes? Something like that) in Dialogues is pretty much correct in every way and defeats the theist, but at the end Hume has him surrender because he can't see an alternative. We have an alternative now, philosophically speaking, that Hume did not consider, so we don't need God to establish induction.

    Hume pretty much went for anything he could, because he needed a way out of his own argument - I found the conclusion disappointing. No, God isn't necessary to do the induction, and the above argument isn't as much one for God as it is one for ambiguity. If all the options for justification of induction are rendered rationally equivalent, there's no grounds to criticize whatever falls out of it.

    Qingu (rightfully) points out that this is OT stuff, so I'm going to hash it out with him and anyone else interested in PM. The thread-relevant point is that there are many apologetics who strongly consider the rational aspect of belief and still end up believing it, and the question boils down to whether they're indoctrinated oafs looking to justify their impressions, or rational thinkers who don't feel the atheist movement has strong arguments on their side (or, perhaps, a mix).
    I started a thread about it if anyone's interested:

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=18992

    As to your on-topic question of "how can I believe what I believe," if I understand your reason for belief, personally, I don't think you'll be believing it for much longer. :)

  • Ain't No SunshineAin't No Sunshine Registered User
    edited April 2007
    The thread-relevant point is that there are many apologetics who strongly consider the rational aspect of belief and still end up believing it, and the question boils down to whether they're indoctrinated oafs looking to justify their impressions, or rational thinkers who don't feel the atheist movement has strong arguments on their side (or, perhaps, a mix).

    I would imagine it would be a mix for most people, especially since the arguments in favor of atheism aren't well known or usually presented strongly by people already opposed to it.

    Really? "Apply Occam's Razor like normal" seems typical to me. There are probably better ones, but this core position is the one I hear the most.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    As far as the indoctrination thing goes, I think the Amish do it right.

    You get raised Amish until you're a teenager, and at some point they say "okay, for the next couple of years, you're not Amish. Go out and do whatever you want; drink, do drugs, use all the technology you can get your hands on, feel free to use the barn to party. After that, when you feel ready, you can decide whether or not you want to be Amish."

    They have crazy-high retention rates, too.

    Uh, that's obviously a scam. There are some built in safeguards...

    1. Having the kid until they're teenagers is more than enough time to indoctrinate.
    2. Having no experience with modernity, newly "free" Amish tend to binge...and suffer the consequences.
    3. Even if you really like the iPods, leaving an Amish community means you are gone. Goodbye friends! Goodbye family! How many people are going to do that when all it means is that you now have the chance to make it in the real world...a world you have no skills to survive in, no experience, no frame of reference.

    The Amish are nice and all, but it's definitely not an open society.

    One and two are good points, although you might be suprised what an Amish kid is familiar with as far as technology goes, especially if they have a sibling who is going through their Rumspringa.

    Number three can be a big factor as well but it varies. Not all communities shun and what shunning even is can vary quite a bit from community to community. Shunning itself only takes place once you've been baptized meaning you've decided to officially join the church after your Rumspringa (thus as an adult) and then decide to leave the church. Some communities have a time limit for Rumspringa and if you don't join by that time you can be shunned as well but the time limit rule is something that's not set in stone. In some cases there is no age limit for baptism so people are able to decide to be baptized later in life and then return to the community. Generally it seems the larger the community is the less restrictive the rules are as far as time limit which kind of stands to reason I suppose.

    There's some pretty good documentaries on the whole thing if you find it interesting at all. I've always found it kinda fascinating myself.

    sigtk.jpg
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007

    Really? "Apply Occam's Razor like normal" seems typical to me. There are probably better ones, but this core position is the one I hear the most.

    Occam's Razor is usually pretty badly misunderstood, and it isn't essential to the argument for atheism, though it helps.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

    It is if you're religious.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

    It is if you're religious.

    Believing in abject fantasy is a skill if you're into believing abject fantasy. Doesn't mean it's worth pursuing.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

    It is if you're religious.

    Believing in abject fantasy is a skill if you're into believing abject fantasy. Doesn't mean it's worth pursuing.

    Pfft, you just wait until I get my hands on the spear of destiny.

    sigtk.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pfft, you just wait until I get my hands on the spear of destiny.

    Better hope you can throw a spear, bitch.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pfft, you just wait until I get my hands on the spear of destiny.

    Better hope you can throw a spear, bitch.

    I plan to have a blessed spear gun.

    sigtk.jpg
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

    It is if you're religious.

    Believing in abject fantasy is a skill if you're into believing abject fantasy. Doesn't mean it's worth pursuing.

    There is no use in pursuing atheism either, as nothing exists with its presense as does not exist without it.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of not being able to teach and inform children from a young age. We know from experience that true masters of any art picked it up about the age of 3 or so, and where pushed by thier parents intot hat direction for whatever reason. Warriors, Olympic Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Rock Stars, Composers - all have within them the basic tale that greatness is something that begins before the child is truly capably of realizing thier own potential. It was the parents of these people that pushed them into from a young age, and lo and behold, when they were big enough to think for themselves, they love what they do and identify themselves with it.

    People should be pushed into stuff when they are young. Pushed until they are old enough to choose something for themselves. Until then, why have them wander aimlessly? Direction increases the proof of effort over time. It is good parenting to expect a child's life to show results.
    Religion is not a skill.

    It is if you're religious.

    Believing in abject fantasy is a skill if you're into believing abject fantasy. Doesn't mean it's worth pursuing.

    There is no use in pursuing atheism either, as nothing exists with its presense as does not exist without it.
    Nobody is advocating indoctrinating their kids into atheism.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.
    You think that by not indoctrinating kids into a specific religion, we are therefore indoctrinating them to not believe in religion?

    I don't see how that follows.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.

    Doesn't require any indoctrination specific to atheism to make an atheist. Teach intellectual honesty, skepticism, and critical thinking, it's not that hard.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes, intellectual honesty, skepticism, and critical thinking all exist without atheism.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, intellectual honesty, skepticism, and critical thinking all exist without atheism.

    Atheism is the product, not the prerequisite.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Atheism is an accusation, not a conclusion.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Atheism is an accusation, not a conclusion.

    =/=
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Ain't No SunshineAin't No Sunshine Registered User
    edited April 2007
    It's not the only possible product.

    That said, agreed on teaching these important things (there's way too much definite falsehoods out there). I should add, though, that a critical attitude has to have its limits. Children tend to over-apply what they learn, and too much criticism regarding things like social goodwill and collective action when you're too young to understand is what gives us our solipsists and libertarians.

    Children have to be inculcated with something, be it attitudes or skillsets. I think the trick is to find some universally agreeable mix. Logic, math, science...more?

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Atheism is an accusation, not a conclusion.

    =/=
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.

    I agree, what something is and what something pursues are not equal.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I like how simple empathy for one's fellow human being apparently has no place in dealing with teaching people how and why society functions.

  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    It's not the only possible product.
    Maybe not, but it's the most probable.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Atheism is an accusation, not a conclusion.

    =/=
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Yes, in fact they are, because atheism is the absence of belief.

    I agree, what something is and what something pursues are not equal.

    Well, you move beyond actual content of belief (or lack thereof) and move on to unsubstantiated ideology. I can't really help you out there.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    What unsubstantiated ideology would that be Loren?

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    Most of us call that "living day to day".

    Also "all the times in life when religion isn't a factor".

    You know it's funny how that works.

    EDIT: Also all the threads where we're not talking about religion.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

    How so? Atheism as a pursuit only exists in opposition to religion. Religions are often (but not exclusively)against each other, but atheism is against them all.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

    How so? Atheism as a pursuit only exists in opposition to religion. Religions are often (but not exclusively)against each other, but atheism is against them all.
    And so any given religion involves exactly one less so-called "accusation" than atheism. What's your point, dude? That people have differences of opinion?

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

    How so? Atheism as a pursuit only exists in opposition to religion. Religions are often (but not exclusively)against each other, but atheism is against them all.
    And so any given religion involves exactly one less so-called "accusation" than atheism. What's your point, dude? That people have differences of opinion?

    Yes, people do have differences of opinion. Few people actively seek to eradicate the opinions of others.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

    How so? Atheism as a pursuit only exists in opposition to religion. Religions are often (but not exclusively)against each other, but atheism is against them all.
    And so any given religion involves exactly one less so-called "accusation" than atheism. What's your point, dude? That people have differences of opinion?

    Yes, people do have differences of opinion. Few people actively seek to eradicate the opinions of others.
    Religion is hardly defined as an opinion by most people.

    EDIT: Also, why is opinion sacred? The point of having an opinion is that you will test it and you want to try to replace it with fact.

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Oh? I thought your preferred style of atheism was to attack and discredit religion in all of its forms. If you have any atheist work which does not involve accusations, founded or unfounded, perhaps you'd share them with us.
    By that logic, the preferred style of religion involves accusations that every other religious belief is wrong.

    How so? Atheism as a pursuit only exists in opposition to religion. Religions are often (but not exclusively)against each other, but atheism is against them all.
    And so any given religion involves exactly one less so-called "accusation" than atheism. What's your point, dude? That people have differences of opinion?

    Yes, people do have differences of opinion. Few people actively seek to eradicate the opinions of others.
    You're equating "debating" with "eradicating others' opinions"?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I simply think that encouraging critical thought is more important than teaching an absence of religion.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
Sign In or Register to comment.