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!
Posts
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Fine. Resist indoctrination. Whatever.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Maybe I'm just understanding the concept a different way, but isn't it the same thing as imprinting? Isn't this not only a valid but a necessary and inevitable tool that parents use in early childhood? I mean, children aren't morally responsible for quite a while I'd say, at least not fully morally rational. At that point they can go ahead and reject or resist their earlier indoctrination, but before then...
1) It's just as easy to mold someone into a discriminatory bigot without the use of religion as with religion. Take page 13 of this thread, for example.
2) It would in fact be simple to explain to children rights and wrongs through religion than to try to go through complex explanations. And bloody oath, if anyone starts spewing about the Ten Commandments I'm going to scream. If you haven't actually READ the New Testament, you don't know anything about Christianity. Go read what was mentioned about how Jesus defined morals through parables, it was about two pages back, I believe.
Can we get back on track?
As for indoctrination/imprinting, there's a difference.
Indoctrination
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
The emphasis is mine. No one is saying you can't teach your kids ethics, responsibility, moral behavior and good manners. No one (well, at least not me) is even saying you can't teach your kids about religion. But we are saying is that there are things that you can not ethically teach a child. Unquestioning devotion to an ideal. Bigotry. Hatred. Close-mindedness.
The most common, by far, place we see this being taught to children is in religious contexts and for religious reasons.
Imprinting is, however...
rapid learning that occurs during a brief receptive period, typically soon after birth or hatching, and establishes a long-lasting behavioral response to a specific individual or object, as attachment to parent, offspring, or site.
Someone could indoctrinate their child very efficiently by taking advantage of imprinting, but they could just as easily teach them Spanish.
The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.
Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.
There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.
And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.
I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.
Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.
Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?
What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
ABC, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
So what would you call uninformed hypotheticals?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
I'm going to have to side with Fencingsax on this one- this isn't a particularly accurate reading of the Bible. I mean, sure, the damn thing is convoluted, contradictory and irrational at times, but there's more to it than just "Follow these 10 Rules without exception."
I can certainly say you're wrong, because centuries of Bible scholarship, interpretation and study have definitely concluded that it doesn't say at all what you think it says.
--LeVar Burton
We're at the "semantics" stage of an argument. Someone'll probably Godwin us in a moment and the whole thing will come to a crashing halt.
Guy: post
Dude: response
Fella: Guy is right, Dude is wrong. (but Fella and Guy are thinking two different things about indoctrination)
Now if Dude responds it becomes very difficult to keep clear exactly what he is saying to which party, because things have become so muddled.
--LeVar Burton
Unless you have read (hell, admitted the damn existence of) the New Testament and are willing to stop pretending that the Ten Commandments and all the various garbage before the New Testament are the only important facets in Christianity, I daresay you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I fail to see how this is anything other than condescending garbage. Do you have a real point or not?
What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?[/QUOTE]
Oh no... why is this guy getting attention? Man, to summarise the other 400 religious threads in this forum, as much as you might like to spew this kind of trash, no one has solid proof that there is a higher being or not. Not a scrap of solid evidence. This is why every single other thread here resolves to "Christians cause atrocities, Christians are discriminatory hicks" vs "That's a generalisation and you know it"
Haven't seen any real arguments for indoctrination for a good while now. Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?
--LeVar Burton
LOL, you cant even motivate it! Do YOU have any idea of what your talking about?
What word did you mean to use here?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.
"Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.
Re 1: That is not what is in question here. The OP was in response to Dawkins' claims that religious indoctrination is a form of emotional/psychological child abuse. Dawkins would also put indoctrination into, say, Stalinist Communism or Nazism in with this as well.
Re 2: Several people here have already explained why non-religious explanations are superior to religious ones. I still haven't seen any argument against the idea that theistic religion is inherently authoritarian. Since even Sarcastro has implied through his own posts that non-authoritarian ways of teaching children are superior, you start to see why non-religious explanations should be preferred.
Re what Sarcastro said about interior loci of moral authority: Actually, Nazism is a prime example of an exterior locus. The source of control is entirely exterior since the Fuhrer was the absolute ruler. Obedience was demanded without thought. One obeyed the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party (enforced by the military, SS, and other tools of the state) on pain of death. You make it seem like the rise of Nazism was due to an excess of individualistic thinking. That is obviously not the case. In fact, Nazism and communism have often been compared to state religions with their elevation of leaders to demi-gods and the prospect of a perfect world (the Aryan world and the Marxist world, respectively).
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
But a LOT of the koran schools are fundamentalistic. Dont want to generalize.
But theres enough cases to use it as an example.
The london bombers had all been to koran-schools. It was pretty much the greater influence that led to the bombings.
Concidering their Imam didnt seem to have supported them, and that noone in their family seemed to now they were going to blow themselves up.
Some are, some aren't. Madrassa's simply have gotten a bad name in the US because some of them are pretty terrible. It's become a loaded term that is used incorrectly.
hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
Frankly I've heard/seen the results of more horror-stories about Catholic schools than madrassas.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Frankly I've heard/seen the results of more horror-stories about Public schools than madrassas.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Polite discourse is always welcome, Phobos. I tend to return in kind and intent.
And interestingly enough, I don't disagree with anything specific here. I very much agree with the bits on hatred, bigotry and close-mindedness. Imprinting is an interesting tool often used for many types of indoctrination, the promotion of an unquestioned authority, for example.
This argument can go around and around, you say exterior and pick an external authoritarion symbol, I say interior and pick a failure of the individual to self-correct. Which leads me to conclude that both models are bullshit. The real truth must be a mixture between the two, where ones interior loci determines the value and meaning of the exterior loci - to have one without the other is not possible, and so any promotion of one over the other would be inherently flawed.
Nazism, either way you slice it, is only an example of a hate culture grown out of control.
Well, madrassa's Arabic, so that's 10x scare points, right off the bat.
I think there's a pretty severe overreaction towards anything Muslim (and to amuch lesser degree, anything foreign), but in the context of religious schools, if that's the kind of madrassa we're talking about, I don't think fears are completely unfounded. Certainly, there could be largely secular "religious" institutions, like the Catholic schools in Hong Kong that just pay some lip service (or possibly the schools in England, I'm not sure about their religious situation exactly), but I think that otherwise, you're just getting a healthy dose of complete bullshit mixed in with your schooling, and that's never a good thing.
I completely agree. Religious schooling needlessly shelters individuals from the harsher realities of social criticism. The tendancy is to overcompensate in the curriculum, moving past moderate and into the realm of extremist.
I don't think people realize just how much public schools reflect the naturally occuring ideologies surrounding them. Since they take the same attitudes and beliefs as are predominate in the community, there is little to no need for specialized takes on any ideology. Sooner or later people need to learn how to cope and adapt to the world that actually exists around them. It's far better to do this during a period of guided learning than to simply be thrust out to the wolves when one finishes secondary.