Indoctrination

Sarcastro · April 2007

Professor Phobos wrote: »

I firmly believe that if there was a God, he'd want more out of his creations than constant devotion, prayer, etc. He wouldn't want Monks or flagellants or even priests, necessarily- he'd want people to do stuff. Just like a good parent wants their kids to be happy, to have interests and passions and independent thoughts. Hell, I don't think a benevolent God would want to be worshiped; that strikes me as remarkably egotistical for a higher being.

This is as near an important tenent in the faith as anything - one's ability to choose. Unwavering devotion does not nesseccarily mean that one does not question or wonder about the actions one must take. In the end, the decision to do 'the right thing' is always a choice - indoctrination or no. The bible repeatedly states that the idea of man to God was to create a creature of choice, as following God without choice, without a personal decision is meaningless.

Indoctrination (ideally) does not interfere with the course of free will, it coexists alongside of it. Religious instruction is there to point in a direction, to give an idea of what should be done in the absence of any other information. It generally gives a very clear, straightforward agenda that does not require holistic thought.

For example: Don't steal. It's 'bad'.

To come to this conclusion without a religious base is substantially more complicated. One must take into account the interconnectedness of financial systems within a closed or global community, as well as the personal rights and freedoms of those outside the individual. One must also realize what would happen if criminal behavior was allowed to rise unchecked, and that to a large degree our capitalist society continues to function because of the simple social premise that if you have rightfully earned something, it is yours to keep. Adherence to this principle on a grand scale allows a fair and competitive market to exist, fufilling the needs of society as a whole. Breaking adherence to this principle alters the marketplace, which in turn affects the individual consumer, one's own self.

Most religious principles are born of the need to simplify complex issues to something personal and understandable to the common person. Children, self-centered and virtually incapable of assigning meaningful values to others, are in the most need of having these issues simplified and personified in order to understand how they should behaive. Let them question later when they are capable of higher reasoning.

sanstodo · April 2007

Sarcastro wrote: »

Professor Phobos wrote: »

I firmly believe that if there was a God, he'd want more out of his creations than constant devotion, prayer, etc. He wouldn't want Monks or flagellants or even priests, necessarily- he'd want people to do stuff. Just like a good parent wants their kids to be happy, to have interests and passions and independent thoughts. Hell, I don't think a benevolent God would want to be worshiped; that strikes me as remarkably egotistical for a higher being.

This is as near an important tenent in the faith as anything - one's ability to choose. Unwavering devotion does not nesseccarily mean that one does not question or wonder about the actions one must take. In the end, the decision to do 'the right thing' is always a choice - indoctrination or no. The bible repeatedly states that the idea of man to God was to create a creature of choice, as following God without choice, without a personal decision is meaningless.

Indoctrination (ideally) does not interfere with the course of free will, it coexists alongside of it. Religious instruction is there to point in a direction, to give an idea of what should be done in the absence of any other information. It generally gives a very clear, straightforward agenda that does not require holistic thought.

For example: Don't steal. It's 'bad'.

To come to this conclusion without a religious base is substantially more complicated. One must take into account the interconnectedness of financial systems within a closed or global community, as well as the personal rights and freedoms of those outside the individual. One must also realize what would happen if criminal behavior was allowed to rise unchecked, and that to a large degree our capitalist society continues to function because of the simple social premise that if you have rightfully earned something, it is yours to keep. Adherence to this principle on a grand scale allows a fair and competitive market to exist, fufilling the needs of society as a whole. Breaking adherence to this principle alters the marketplace, which in turn affects the individual consumer, one's own self.

Most religious principles are born of the need to simplify complex issues to something personal and understandable to the common person. Children, self-centered and virtually incapable of assigning meaningful values to others, are in the most need of having these issues simplified and personified in order to understand how they should behaive. Let them question later when they are capable of higher reasoning.

Why not present them with actual, simplified versions of why they should follow certain rules? In the case of stealing, my parents made it very clear. Once, I stole a cookie from my Dad. My mom then took it from me. I asked "WHY!" and started screaming and crying. Once the tantrum died down, they explained clearly that if I could steal from my Dad, then my Mom could steal from me. Did I want a world where people could steal from me? My answer was, through tears, no. Then they said, if I wanted a cookie, I could help my Mom bake some more. So I did and received my cookie after I asked for one politely.

This is how my parents dealt with my moral upbringing. They simplified the scenarios enough for me to grasp and assigned clear, logical consequences for each action. It allowed me enough room to question while still clearly delineating the rules to follow and why, all without the need to resort to divine law.

SithDrummer · April 2007

Glyph wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

Glyph wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

Seriously, I want to hear this argument on a practical level. How exactly do we stop all discussion of religion altogether? Or is some level okay? What level does it stop being okay at?

Where the more dubious elements are concerned.

Phobos, the belief that we should teach religion alongside science seems eerily on par with teaching creationism and evolution, which is alright as long as you keep the realms separate. You wouldn't introduce a Biblical perspective into a science class any more than you would bring a biology textbook into church.

I wasn't talking about schools. Or at least, everyone is implying that it's not really schools that are a problem.

If we're talking about a stage in a child's development prior to scholastic education, we're looking at ages 2-3. At this stage, why would you teach them either science or religion or history or anything too complex for their minds to comprehend in the first place?

Just because he's not talking about schools doesn't mean he's talking about prior to schooling, either.

Edit: Greger, that long post of yours was a lot of sniping and misinterpretation. MentalExercise doesn't present himself as being in support of indoctrination, or in opposition to critical thinking and logic. Please re-read his original post.

Professor Phobos, I think you are on the right track indeed, particularly with this last sentence (bolded). That's why I love having my entire primary and secondary education at public schools. I would expect that regular exposure, early and often, to people of other cultures and beliefs will usually prevent any sort of fanaticism (particularly adversarial) later on.

Professor Phobos wrote: »

The trouble is some of the negative effects of certain religious dogmas get transmitted through this sort of gathering. Depending on the troop, the Boy Scouts might transmit homophobia. Conservative Jews might transmit the idea that it is somehow unacceptable to marry a non-Jew (which, while not "evil", is...silly. Marry whom you love!). This is fairly easily prevented by making sure a child is part of several communities at once- I had non-Catholic friends as a child, had other clubs and activities, and was otherwise exposed to a world outside of Catholicism.

Sarcastro · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

Why not present them with actual, simplified versions of why they should follow certain rules? In the case of stealing, my parents made it very clear. Once, I stole a cookie from my Dad. My mom then took it from me. I asked "WHY!" and started screaming and crying. Once the tantrum died down, they explained clearly that if I could steal from my Dad, then my Mom could steal from me. Did I want a world where people could steal from me? My answer was, through tears, no. Then they said, if I wanted a cookie, I could help my Mom bake some more. So I did and received my cookie after I asked for one politely.

This is how my parents dealt with my moral upbringing. They simplified the scenarios enough for me to grasp and assigned clear, logical consequences for each action. It allowed me enough room to question while still clearly delineating the rules to follow and why, all without the need to resort to divine law.

This seems a logical approach, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. It is however, still early indoctrination about causality and the role one is expected to play in society. This could have gone down in many different ways - your mom could have just smacked you upside the head with 'stealing=pain' message, your dad could have let you get away with it bringing a 'no rules for me cause I'm special' concept to the table, etc. In this case the parental choices are logical, rational and clear. You have smart and creative parents, and it seems they had a smart and rational kid to work with.

There are many ways to get from here to there, and I tend to believe that people should teach from the framework of their own understanding. It promotes familial consistancy, which is incredibly important to development and self-actualization. Doctrine (ideally) provides a clear and consistant message, to carry that consistancy past familial boundaries into society at large, generally ensuring that people are following the same rules for the same reasons. Marked differences in the messages given to our youth ultimately results in increased social conflict.

sanstodo · April 2007

Sarcastro wrote: »

sanstodo wrote: »

Why not present them with actual, simplified versions of why they should follow certain rules? In the case of stealing, my parents made it very clear. Once, I stole a cookie from my Dad. My mom then took it from me. I asked "WHY!" and started screaming and crying. Once the tantrum died down, they explained clearly that if I could steal from my Dad, then my Mom could steal from me. Did I want a world where people could steal from me? My answer was, through tears, no. Then they said, if I wanted a cookie, I could help my Mom bake some more. So I did and received my cookie after I asked for one politely.

This is how my parents dealt with my moral upbringing. They simplified the scenarios enough for me to grasp and assigned clear, logical consequences for each action. It allowed me enough room to question while still clearly delineating the rules to follow and why, all without the need to resort to divine law.

This seems a logical approach, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. It is however, still early indoctrination about causality and the role one is expected to play in society. This could have gone down in many different ways - your mom could have just smacked you upside the head with 'stealing=pain' message, your dad could have let you get away with it bringing a 'no rules for me cause I'm special' concept to the table, etc. In this case the parental choices are logical, rational and clear. You have smart and creative parents, and it seems they had a smart and rational kid to work with.

There are many ways to get from here to there, and I tend to believe that people should teach from the framework of their own understanding. It promotes familial consistancy, which is incredibly important to development and self-actualization. Doctrine (ideally) provides a clear and consistant message, to carry that consistancy past familial boundaries into society at large, generally ensuring that people are following the same rules for the same reasons. Marked differences in the messages given to our youth ultimately results in increased social conflict.

Can't you tell the difference between "Don't steal because if you do, you will burn in hell" and "there are practical reasons we have rules and here they are"? There's a reason why "stealing=pain" is inferior to actually instilling a logical, reasonable basis for moral behavior. Just because one has a framework of "stealing=pain" does not mean that they have license to do so to their children. Doctrine is inferior to allowing children to recognize the reasons for why things are the way they are. An interior locus of moral authority is far preferable to an exterior one. Theistic religious doctrine tends to enforce an exterior locus of moral authority (god).

Indoctrination like the ones described by Dawkins et al. are almost exclusively ones that promote exterior loci; that is why teaching our children to think critically and logically about morality is so important. It promotes social cohesion by giving universal reasons for acting morally that avoid conflict about whose deity is correct while allowing for open discourse about morality that does not run into the sinkhole of "We don't have to debate because God says this is right so it's right."

Teaching critical thinking is the exact opposite of indoctrination. One can examine cause and effect for one's self and wrestle with complex moral questions in this world without the baggage of worrying about what will happen in the next (or whether one will be wrathed by a sky god). It gives reasons for behavior that go far beyond "this is what it says in this holy book" that can be argued, debated, and discussed openly with anyone regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

Sarcastro · April 2007

Hmm. Duplified! Erasure.

Sarcastro · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

Can't you tell the difference between "Don't steal because if you do, you will burn in hell" and "there are practical reasons we have rules and here they are"? There's a reason why "stealing=pain" is inferior to actually instilling a logical, reasonable basis for moral behavior. Just because one has a framework of "stealing=pain" does not mean that they have license to do so to their children. Doctrine is inferior to allowing children to recognize the reasons for why things are the way they are. An interior locus of moral authority is far preferable to an exterior one. Theistic religious doctrine tends to enforce an exterior locus of moral authority (god).

Actually, there is very little difference between 'burning in hell' and proposing any other alternative hypothetical downside. In both cases, the results are imperceptable at the individual level. It's just swapping one hypothesis for another.

I see the same sort of prejudicial characture of the faith cropping up everywhere, where all questions about why you shouldn't do something bad resorts to 'burning in hell' and all questions about why we should do something good is because 'God will smile on you'. This is a very unrealistic portrayal of a faith based family, grossly exaggerated and oversimplified. Describing causality is an important part to any faith, and it uses its own terms.

In interior locus of morality makes our own selves the only person we are truly accountable to. As the tendancy of people is to be self-concerned first, there needs to be a counter culture in place which places emphasis on the importance of others. Theistic doctrine is this counter-movement away from worshipping one's own self.

Indoctrination like the ones described by Dawkins et al. are almost exclusively ones that promote exterior loci; that is why teaching our children to think critically and logically about morality is so important. It promotes social cohesion by giving universal reasons for acting morally that avoid conflict about whose deity is correct while allowing for open discourse about morality that does not run into the sinkhole of "We don't have to debate because God says this is right so it's right."

What is the difference between 'thinking' and 'critical thinking'? Why the distinction?

And no, individualistic 'critical thinking' patterns will not reduce conflict, but increase it as thinking patterns and abilities differ from person to person. All Dawkin's is doing is shifting the recourse for obtaining authoritative moral answers from the theological communities into the scientific ones. In the scientific community there are authoritative experts in each field, and you will end up with the exact same debates when these authorities disagree.

Teaching critical thinking is the exact opposite of indoctrination. One can examine cause and effect for one's self and wrestle with complex moral questions in this world without the baggage of worrying about what will happen in the next (or whether one will be wrathed by a sky god). It gives reasons for behavior that go far beyond "this is what it says in this holy book" that can be argued, debated, and discussed openly with anyone regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

It is the same thing. Who teaches this 'critical thinking'? Who is the person in charge of determining which thoughts are okay and which ones are false? Is it a person? A commitee? A scientist? Is there going to be a Big Book of Scientific Morality that everyone should follow from the moment they are born? Who is that book going to be written by? Who is going to edit it? Is it going to be an edict? When someone disagrees, will they be listened to or discarded? You don't seriously beleive that millions of people, thoughts unchecked, are going to spontanously all agree on the same things, do you?

Glyph · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Yes, everyone should beleive in christianity. By their own personal choice. Not by force. Idiot.

And when choice fails, what's a little force? Because everyone should "beleive" in Christianity.

sanstodo · April 2007

Sarcastro wrote: »

Actually, there is very little difference between 'burning in hell' and proposing any other alternative hypothetical downside. In both cases, the results are imperceptable at the individual level. It's just swapping one hypothesis for another.

I see the same sort of prejudicial characture of the faith cropping up everywhere, where all questions about why you shouldn't do something bad resorts to 'burning in hell' and all questions about why we should do something good is because 'God will smile on you'. This is a very unrealistic portrayal of a faith based family, grossly exaggerated and oversimplified. Describing causality is an important part to any faith, and it uses its own terms.

In interior locus of morality makes our own selves the only person we are truly accountable to. As the tendancy of people is to be self-concerned first, there needs to be a counter culture in place which places emphasis on the importance of others. Theistic doctrine is this counter-movement away from worshipping one's own self.

Then please describe the base reason Christianity has for why people should not steal. I understand that it's in the 10 Commandments. The punishment for breaking the 10 Commandments is that they are god's law and must be followed. Punishment by god for breaking god's law is, dum dum dum, damnation. There may be other, newer interpretations but the root for the arguments seem pretty basic which is why they can be so effective on children. I'm sure there are other reasons but the core of it is pretty cut and dried.

I think your understanding of what an interior locus of moral authority means is off. It means that one derives moral right and wrong not from an outside power but from one's own moral understanding. It does not deny that others are important. Rather, their importance to you is determined by your own judgment of them. You actually get rid of many scenarios in which the worth/rights of others are demeaned based solely on religious doctrine or interpretation (the entire "this marriage is wrong because of what this book says" in the cases of gay marriage and/or intermarriage between people of different faiths).

Btw, describing theism as a "counter-movement" against worshiping one's own self is ridiculous. Actually, describing theism as a "counter-movement" in general is kind of silly as it is by far the dominant mode of thinking in the world today.

What is the difference between 'thinking' and 'critical thinking'? Why the distinction?

And no, individualistic 'critical thinking' patterns will not reduce conflict, but increase it as thinking patterns and abilities differ from person to person. All Dawkin's is doing is shifting the recourse for obtaining authoritative moral answers from the theological communities into the scientific ones. In the scientific community there are authoritative experts in each field, and you will end up with the exact same debates when these authorities disagree.

Critical thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking. Thinking is rectangles, critical thinking is squares.

You don't end up with the same debates because everyone is using the same modes of understanding and there is actually verifiable evidence one way or the other. In debates between different theologies, there isn't really a way to get any sort of reasonable synthesis. Either Islam is right and the Qu'ran is the true holy text and Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet or Christianity is right and the Bible is the true holy text and Jesus is the son of God. What do both sides have as a basis for debate? Not much because neither is based on verifiable evidence or reasonable argument. They're based on faith, period, end of story.

In scientific arguments, you have sides positing various theories. Even in theoretical physics, differing theories are put to the test. String theory is actually being put to the test to see if its assumptions and predictions are, indeed, verifiable. Authoritative experts in each field still have to bend to the introduction of new evidence. String theorists will be proven wrong if the experiments (with following duplicates to make sure nothing went wrong) do not confirm their expectations. String theory is then revised and more tests are ordered.

The nature of the debates are wholly different. You don't see mullahs and priests getting together and putting the verifiable nature of the their faiths to the test. To equate scientific debate and religious debate is absurd.

It is the same thing. Who teaches this 'critical thinking'? Who is the person in charge of determining which thoughts are okay and which ones are false? Is it a person? A commitee? A scientist? Is there going to be a Big Book of Scientific Morality that everyone should follow from the moment they are born? Who is that book going to be written by? Who is going to edit it? Is it going to be an edict? When someone disagrees, will they be listened to or discarded? You don't seriously beleive that millions of people, thoughts unchecked, are going to spontanously all agree on the same things, do you?

That's the whole point of critical thinking. Each person will come to his or her conclusions and is encouraged to do so. However, they will at least be able to have a debate without the fallback of "God says this is so and therefore you're wrong." Each idea will be subjected to scrutiny. Critical thinking is already taught in every school and you haven't seen a cult of critical thinkers spring up, all having the same beliefs and ready to die for it. No single thought is ok or not ok. Thoughts of all kinds are good because critical thinking is honed by examining the process of thinking from a rational, logical point of view.

You seem to want a world in which everyone thinks the same way and believes in the same things. That world sounds like hell to me. Humanity's greatest achievements come from dissenters, those willing to challenge the status quo with clear, prescient ideas. We should be encouraging individuals to think for themselves and giving them the tools to explore this world with open minds, not rote dogma.

sanstodo · April 2007

Glyph wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

Yes, everyone should beleive in christianity. By their own personal choice. Not by force. Idiot.

And when choice fails, what's a little force? Because everyone should "beleive" in Christianity.

Also, there are many kinds of force. Some are obvious (kill the heretics!) and some are subtle (social ostracization in Korean communities for non-Christians, for one). In-group and out-group distinctions are policed in many religious communities with stunning power that seems invisible at first but upon closer examination, is remarkable in its scope and depth.

MentalExercise · April 2007

Yeah, still not going to debate any more strawman arguments Sanstodo. Beleive it or not, it isn't critical thinking to put words into someone else's mouth and then crticize them for saying it. Moving on.

My religion says stealing is bad for three major reasons off the top of my head. Jesus taught that you should have compassion for others. That you should love others as you love yourself. Stealing definitely doesn't qualify. The second reason is it's a sin. Which is not to say it will get you condemned to hell. It's to say that it is an action which is harmful to yourself. Suicide, for example, is not a sin because it hurts other people, but because it hurts yourself. Psychologically as much as physically (unless of course you succeed). Finally, yes it is wrong because God says not to. Just like running into the street as a child is wrong both because it's a stupid thing to do, and because you are disobeying your parents. So there's three reasons. I could have made them more nuanced I suppose, but there are limits to how much time I have today.

Glyph · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Suicide, for example, is not a sin because it hurts other people, but because it hurts yourself. Psychologically as much as physically (unless of course you succeed).

If it's not successful, then it isn't suicide. Therefore, it's not a sin either way because when you're dead, you don't experience the harmful consequences of killing yourself. Dying is by definition an end to experience.

Malkor · April 2007

Killing yourself is bad in Christianity because it leaves the world with less Christians.

sanstodo · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Yeah, still not going to debate any more strawman arguments Sanstodo. Beleive it or not, it isn't critical thinking to put words into someone else's mouth and then crticize them for saying it. Moving on.

My religion says stealing is bad for three major reasons off the top of my head. Jesus taught that you should have compassion for others. That you should love others as you love yourself. Stealing definitely doesn't qualify. The second reason is it's a sin. Which is not to say it will get you condemned to hell. It's to say that it is an action which is harmful to yourself. Suicide, for example, is not a sin because it hurts other people, but because it hurts yourself. Psychologically as much as physically (unless of course you succeed). Finally, yes it is wrong because God says not to. Just like running into the street as a child is wrong both because it's a stupid thing to do, and because you are disobeying your parents. So there's three reasons. I could have made them more nuanced I suppose, but there are limits to how much time I have today.

I asked the question for a reason. You got right to it, thankfully

The first two are premised upon the last in this particular construction. You listen to Jesus because he's divine, right? So the authority Jesus has is derived entirely from his divinity, or in other words, do what he says because he's divine and that's what he says. Now, I agree with the premise of the argument (treat others the way you want to be treated). It is the reason for authority behind it that doesn't go down right. You should listen to Jesus because his argument is good, NOT because he is divine.

The second one is premised upon sin; what is sin and what is not is decided by god because he says so even if you disagree with his argument. You see where I'm going, right?

The third is really the reason authority for the other two. No matter what the counterargument, even if you disagree with the reasons why stealing and suicide are bad, you are expected to submit to god's will. There isn't room for discussion, debate, or questioning. Right and wrong are spelled out and the arguments are secondary because the fact that it is god's word is and should be enough.

Btw, obeying your parents is not intrinsically bad. Give it a little thought and you can think of plenty of situations in which disobeying your parents is the right thing to do. It is the reasons WHY your parents are telling you not to run into the road that matter, NOT the fact that your parents are saying it. I was taught that running into the street was a bad thing to do because I could get hurt by cars. My parents reminded me about the deer I saw dead at the side of the road and explained that I could get hurt that way too. Seeing one partially exploded deer carcass and realizing that the car caused it was enough to make me stay away from roads, far more effectively than "Because I'm the MOMMY!" could ever.

Zetetic Elench · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Suicide, for example, is not a sin because it hurts other people, but because it hurts yourself. Psychologically as much as physically (unless of course you succeed).

I was always under the impression that historically suicide has been regarded as a sin because it implies the person has lost faith in God.

People can hurt themselves all the time without it being a genuine sin.

Edit:

Wiki wrote:

Their arguments are based largely around the commandment, "thou shalt not kill" (made applicable under the New Covenant by Christ in Matthew 19:18), and the ideas that life is a gift given by God that should not be spurned, and that suicide is against the "natural order" and thus interferes with God's master plan for the world.

Glyph · April 2007

But of course if everything is part of God's plan, that would include any supposed "turning away" from that plan.

MentalExercise · April 2007

Sorry, but the Bible isn't Kantian. Jesus didn't give us a strict set of rules like were given to Moses. He taught us lessons we are supposed to apply to our every day lives, often through parables. The fact that you (and many other's to be fair) are obsessed with simple basic ideas like the ten commandments doesn't really apply to my faith. Jesus didn't have commandments, he had beatitudes:
* Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
* Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
* Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
* Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
* Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
* Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

edit: Doing harm to oneself is a sin. Including psychological harm.

Vincent Grayson · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

Yeah, still not going to debate any more strawman arguments Sanstodo. Beleive it or not, it isn't critical thinking to put words into someone else's mouth and then crticize them for saying it. Moving on.

My religion says stealing is bad for three major reasons off the top of my head. Jesus taught that you should have compassion for others. That you should love others as you love yourself. Stealing definitely doesn't qualify. The second reason is it's a sin. Which is not to say it will get you condemned to hell. It's to say that it is an action which is harmful to yourself. Suicide, for example, is not a sin because it hurts other people, but because it hurts yourself. Psychologically as much as physically (unless of course you succeed). Finally, yes it is wrong because God says not to. Just like running into the street as a child is wrong both because it's a stupid thing to do, and because you are disobeying your parents. So there's three reasons. I could have made them more nuanced I suppose, but there are limits to how much time I have today.

I asked the question for a reason. You got right to it, thankfully

The first two are premised upon the last in this particular construction. You listen to Jesus because he's divine, right? So the authority Jesus has is derived entirely from his divinity, or in other words, do what he says because he's divine and that's what he says. Now, I agree with the premise of the argument (treat others the way you want to be treated). It is the reason for authority behind it that doesn't go down right. You should listen to Jesus because his argument is good, NOT because he is divine.

The second one is premised upon sin; what is sin and what is not is decided by god because he says so even if you disagree with his argument. You see where I'm going, right?

The third is really the reason authority for the other two. No matter what the counterargument, even if you disagree with the reasons why stealing and suicide are bad, you are expected to submit to god's will. There isn't room for discussion, debate, or questioning. Right and wrong are spelled out and the arguments are secondary because the fact that it is god's word is and should be enough.

Btw, obeying your parents is not intrinsically bad. Give it a little thought and you can think of plenty of situations in which disobeying your parents is the right thing to do. It is the reasons WHY your parents are telling you not to run into the road that matter, NOT the fact that your parents are saying it. I was taught that running into the street was a bad thing to do because I could get hurt by cars. My parents reminded me about the deer I saw dead at the side of the road and explained that I could get hurt that way too. Seeing one partially exploded deer carcass and realizing that the car caused it was enough to make me stay away from roads, far more effectively than "Because I'm the MOMMY!" could ever.

Seriously, I do everything in my power to teach my daughters to do/not do things for logical reasons, as opposed to "because I said so", which either fails, or teaches your kids to obey authority simply because it is authority, which is a terrible fucking idea.

Zetetic Elench · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

edit: Doing harm to oneself is a sin. Including psychological harm.

Okay, but why? What's the religious origin of that?

Yar · April 2007

This is the oft-repeated fallacy of assuming that religion is supposed to be a logical, rational thing.

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

sanstodo · April 2007

Vincent Grayson wrote: »

Seriously, I do everything in my power to teach my daughters to do/not do things for logical reasons, as opposed to "because I said so", which either fails, or teaches your kids to obey authority simply because it is authority, which is a terrible fucking idea.

*hi5*

It really does work better.

Zetetic Elench · April 2007

Yar wrote: »

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

If you take them every single night and inculcate into them the idea that the ideals presented in the opera are the only truth, and that everyone who doesn't go to the opera will go to hell, then yes.

sanstodo · April 2007

Yar wrote: »

This is the oft-repeated fallacy of assuming that religion is supposed to be a logical, rational thing.

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

For me, it was :lol:

I was given a choice after the first one though, so it was a one shot deal. Like "see if you like it, if not, then don't come again."

On topic: The point is about the placement of locus of control and whether or not religious indoctrination is superior to, equal to, or inferior to other modes of teaching morality.

Andrew_Jay · April 2007

Zetetic Elench wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

If you take them every single night and inculcate into them the idea that the ideals presented in the opera are the only truth, and that everyone who doesn't go to the opera will go to hell, then yes.

By that standard, then, very few parents who take their kids to church are abusing or indoctrinating them.

Doc · April 2007

Andrew_Jay wrote: »

Zetetic Elench wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

If you take them every single night and inculcate into them the idea that the ideals presented in the opera are the only truth, and that everyone who doesn't go to the opera will go to hell, then yes.

By that standard, then, very few parents who take their kids to church are abusing or indoctrinating them.

Percentage-wise, yeah. But that translates to a lot of kids.

Zetetic Elench · April 2007

Andrew_Jay wrote: »

Zetetic Elench wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Is it abuse to take your kid to the opera?

If you take them every single night and inculcate into them the idea that the ideals presented in the opera are the only truth, and that everyone who doesn't go to the opera will go to hell, then yes.

By that standard, then, very few parents who take their kids to church are abusing or indoctrinating them.

Don't mistake my comment for a specifically anti-christian one. I was just pointing out that pretty much any activity which is carried out with extreme zeal, plus some off-hand comments that the parents don't give a second thought to but the child will think about all night; that will probably end in some psychological abuse. It just happens we see a lot more batshit crazy zeal from the wilder extremes of religion and even some of the more moderates, since that's the nature of the beast.

MentalExercise · April 2007

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I also had things explained to me as a child, not ordered from up on high. And when I did break the rules I discussed it with my parents. I was punished a scant handful of times my entire life. The fact that you associate authoritarian parenting with being religious doesn't mean religion actually requires people to be authoritarian with their children, or that they would stop doing it if they were atheists. Sorry.

Greger · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Oh my Lord you idiot. I'm not sure I have the words... but I'll try.

Yes, you are sure wery christlike arent you. WWJD

Greger wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

Glyph wrote: »

Greger wrote: »

Glyph wrote: »

Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

On another note, In what way is buddism more superstituous than christianity and why is it bestial and idol worhsipping in comparsion to christianity? I think they got it all wrong.

I'm sure in their mind they had it right. Nevermind that Buddha was a teacher, to them he's one of those "other gods" that man isn't meant to have before The One.

MentalExercise wrote: »

Actually I would guess it's because most people that consider themselves Buddhist go to animist temples and leave offerings for spirits. Less so in places with denser populations and more education like big cities. Which is not to say that makes it OK to be hating on those people, but y'know... some people think everyone else should be taught to think just like they do.

Greger wrote: »

Christianity thinks everyone else should be taught what they believe. Buddists dont go out and mission. Its higly against their interests.

MentalExercise wrote: »

Yes, everyone should beleive in christianity. By their own personal choice. Not by force. Idiot.

That was pretty much directed at the fact that its christianity FORCES its belief on others. Buddism doesent even preach, contrary to what you said.

If you cant understand that then you are the idiot. And beside, SHOULD is not the same as IS.

Greger wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

To me, it smacks very much of hypocrisy for someone to say children should only be taught critical thinking and logic

Whats wrong with that? It makes you think for yourself, thats all. But you dont like that now do you.

I don't have a problem with teaching children critical thinking and logic. I encourage it. Idiot.

Greger wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

if you think that the only possible conclusions on life are your conclusions. It implies to me you disaprove of indoctrination simply because without it everyone would agree with you, not because there are good reasons against it. Apart from the fact that I think you're wrong about the conclusions thing.
and logic

If indoctrination is required for religious belief then its still wrong.

MentalExercise wrote: »

Religious belief doesn't require indoctrination. That doesn't mean we would choose to not teach our children our religion. Science doesn't require indoctrination either, but we still begin to teach our children about it at a very young age.

Science isnt the same as religion. And religious belief often requires indoctrination. Science explains itself, religion does not, to accept the bible as truth, you have to ignore things around you.

Greger wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

edit: and no I don't think that there are no good arguments against indoctrination. I just suspect they aren't at the core of the reason most of the people here don't like it.

You do seem to think its a positive thing in general though.

MentalExercise wrote: »

That kind of depends on how you define the word. If you mean that I thinks it's a positive thing to teach your child not to question, then no I do not think it's a good thing in general. If however you mean I think you should start to teach your child the things you beleive, both about religion and many other subjects such as morality, from a young age then yes I do think it's a good thing. You teach your children to behave the way you think people should. And as they get older you allow them to choose their own way.

Why do you force your religion unto your kids? Is it true belief when they have had it fed to them before they had anything else to compare it too?

Its not free will if theres only one option. If you dont want your kids to have a choice when it comes to religion, at least stand for it.

I do agree that behaviour isnt a thing that can be all free choice, but behaviour isnt really the same thing as the wiew on the world.

Sarcastro · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

Sarcastro wrote: »

Actually, there is very little difference between 'burning in hell' and proposing any other alternative hypothetical downside. In both cases, the results are imperceptable at the individual level. It's just swapping one hypothesis for another.

I see the same sort of prejudicial characture of the faith cropping up everywhere, where all questions about why you shouldn't do something bad resorts to 'burning in hell' and all questions about why we should do something good is because 'God will smile on you'. This is a very unrealistic portrayal of a faith based family, grossly exaggerated and oversimplified. Describing causality is an important part to any faith, and it uses its own terms.

In interior locus of morality makes our own selves the only person we are truly accountable to. As the tendancy of people is to be self-concerned first, there needs to be a counter culture in place which places emphasis on the importance of others. Theistic doctrine is this counter-movement away from worshipping one's own self.

Then please describe the base reason Christianity has for why people should not steal. I understand that it's in the 10 Commandments. The punishment for breaking the 10 Commandments is that they are god's law and must be followed. Punishment by god for breaking god's law is, dum dum dum, damnation. There may be other, newer interpretations but the root for the arguments seem pretty basic which is why they can be so effective on children. I'm sure there are other reasons but the core of it is pretty cut and dried.

This is again, a vastly over-simplified characture of the nature and consequences to sin. The idea that God is there to spank you for doing wrong is like saying the law is just there hanging out waiting for you to fuck up. The followup for why stealing is bad is, just like without religon, contained in the messages parents give to thier children. You seem to be under the idea that scrit is simply read to a child and that's the end of it. No discussion, no examples, no further thought. The reality is much different. One is presented with a rule - such as stealing = bad - and then discussion is invited to explain why that is something true, why that law is nessecesary. In the end, the actual moral guidelines come from the parents, but they are guided towards specific discussion topics by the tenents and principles of the faith. As the morals and understanding of parents differ, so do the results and understanding differ in their children.

I think your understanding of what an interior locus of moral authority means is off. It means that one derives moral right and wrong not from an outside power but from one's own moral understanding. It does not deny that others are important. Rather, their importance to you is determined by your own judgment of them. You actually get rid of many scenarios in which the worth/rights of others are demeaned based solely on religious doctrine or interpretation (the entire "this marriage is wrong because of what this book says" in the cases of gay marriage and/or intermarriage between people of different faiths).

Oh, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on that thank you. You see, its nothing new. The idea has been kicked around for a very long time, and the war between the two opposing viewpoints has continued over thousands of years. The 'interior locus' model has long been a primary tenent of the satanic faiths, and the exterior locus the primary tenant to all of the major religious faiths.

That's the whole point of critical thinking. Each person will come to his or her conclusions and is encouraged to do so. However, they will at least be able to have a debate without the fallback of "God says this is so and therefore you're wrong." Each idea will be subjected to scrutiny. Critical thinking is already taught in every school and you haven't seen a cult of critical thinkers spring up, all having the same beliefs and ready to die for it. No single thought is ok or not ok. Thoughts of all kinds are good because critical thinking is honed by examining the process of thinking from a rational, logical point of view.

I need some examples, as this sounds like prejudicial bullshit at the moment. Where are these hampered debates? Which principles are being neglected by the existance of beleivers? Do you actually have any thoughts that are unable to be expressed because of the existance of religon? Do you really? You don't seem like you have any problems expressing or debating these ideas, is there something you wish to say but cannot? Give an example.

You seem to want a world in which everyone thinks the same way and believes in the same things. That world sounds like hell to me. Humanity's greatest achievements come from dissenters, those willing to challenge the status quo with clear, prescient ideas. We should be encouraging individuals to think for themselves and giving them the tools to explore this world with open minds, not rote dogma.

Then you aren't listening very closely. It should be quite clear that I beleive in unlimited diversity. Think what you want, beleive what you want, come to your own conclusions. When something impedes that ability, my birthright as a free willed human is being trifled with. I get to make my own choices, and do what i think is right. It is nothing but hypocrisy to say that you beleive in the right to come to your own conclusions, when you are quite content shitting on the conclusions of others. If you really beleived in your own garbage, then you would recognize the right of differed thinkers to be left the fuck alone.

It's like a freaking animal farm addendum, Everybody can beleive what they want. -- As long as they beleive what we do.

Yar · April 2007

Greger wrote: »

Why do you force your religion unto your kids? Is it true belief when they have had it fed to them before they had anything else to compare it too?

Why do you force your art onto your kids? Your morality? Your music? Your taste in interior design? You beat-up old jalopy? Answer: because they're your kids. That's sort of how it works.

Greger wrote: »

Its not free will if theres only one option. If you dont want your kids to have a choice when it comes to religion, at least stand for it.

Everyone has a choice once they become adults. They aren't your kids anymore then.

sanstodo · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I also had things explained to me as a child, not ordered from up on high. And when I did break the rules I discussed it with my parents. I was punished a scant handful of times my entire life. The fact that you associate authoritarian parenting with being religious doesn't mean religion actually requires people to be authoritarian with their children, or that they would stop doing it if they were atheists. Sorry.

That's not my argument at all if you bothered to read. I am arguing that most theistic religions, at least the ones in question here (I assume the big 3) are inherently authoritarian. This does not mean that every religious person will be authoritarian with their children and every atheist will not be authoritarian. What it does show is that you and I agree that critical thinking and rational approaches to teaching morality are far more important than indoctrination. Apparently your parents came up with far better explanations for right and wrong than "god says x or god says y." That's why I believe that religious indoctrination is harmful. It places the emphasis on WHO teaches, not WHAT is taught and WHY.

Greger · April 2007

Yar wrote: »

Greger wrote: »

Why do you force your religion unto your kids? Is it true belief when they have had it fed to them before they had anything else to compare it too?

Why do you force your art onto your kids? Your morality? Your music? Your taste in interior design? You beat-up old jalopy? Answer: because they're your kids. That's sort of how it works.

"Thats sort of how it works" Is not a valid argument in my eyes. Traditition, or just what is usually the case is no real argument or motivation.

There is a huge difference between petty things as music and interior design compared to religion.

Greger wrote: »

Its not free will if theres only one option. If you dont want your kids to have a choice when it comes to religion, at least stand for it.

Everyone has a choice once they become adults. They aren't your kids anymore then.[/QUOTE]

If you want your kids to be free-thinking individuals, that can make their own personality, then you must love them no matter what they believe. Otherwise, they will simply do what you say, because thats the only thing they been taught, not for choosing it.

Manning'sEquation · April 2007

Hey, Hey guys kids=!adults.

Stop acting like they have the same mental capacity and rights they don't, and for good reason.

If your arguments are based on the above then your argument is flawed.

Greger · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I also had things explained to me as a child, not ordered from up on high. And when I did break the rules I discussed it with my parents. I was punished a scant handful of times my entire life. The fact that you associate authoritarian parenting with being religious doesn't mean religion actually requires people to be authoritarian with their children, or that they would stop doing it if they were atheists. Sorry.

That's not my argument at all if you bothered to read. I am arguing that most theistic religions, at least the ones in question here (I assume the big 3) are inherently authoritarian. This does not mean that every religious person will be authoritarian with their children and every atheist will not be authoritarian. What it does show is that you and I agree that critical thinking and rational approaches to teaching morality are far more important than indoctrination. Apparently your parents came up with far better explanations for right and wrong than "god says x or god says y." That's why I believe that religious indoctrination is harmful. It places the emphasis on WHO teaches, not WHAT is taught and WHY.

Christianity is a perfect example of an authoritarian religion within family specifically.

Isnt it even said in the commandments to honor your father and mother?

It doesent say WHY there is no conditions, there is just BLIND, UNQUESTIONING submission.
Rules like that are strictly authoritarian. Simply because of the above reasons. You are forced to honor your parents, REGARDLESS of what they do. Simply because there isnt any grey lines.

Its like god giving an order, and you have no choice but to do it, regardless if your parents are assholes etc.

Its like the perfect root of UNQUESTIONING.

Manning'sEquation · April 2007

Greger wrote: »

sanstodo wrote: »

MentalExercise wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I also had things explained to me as a child, not ordered from up on high. And when I did break the rules I discussed it with my parents. I was punished a scant handful of times my entire life. The fact that you associate authoritarian parenting with being religious doesn't mean religion actually requires people to be authoritarian with their children, or that they would stop doing it if they were atheists. Sorry.

That's not my argument at all if you bothered to read. I am arguing that most theistic religions, at least the ones in question here (I assume the big 3) are inherently authoritarian. This does not mean that every religious person will be authoritarian with their children and every atheist will not be authoritarian. What it does show is that you and I agree that critical thinking and rational approaches to teaching morality are far more important than indoctrination. Apparently your parents came up with far better explanations for right and wrong than "god says x or god says y." That's why I believe that religious indoctrination is harmful. It places the emphasis on WHO teaches, not WHAT is taught and WHY.

Christianity is a perfect example of an authoritarian religion within family specifically.

Isnt it even said in the commandments to honor your father and mother?

It doesent say WHY there is no conditions, there is just BLIND, UNQUESTIONING submission.
Rules like that are strictly authoritarian. Simply because of the above reasons. You are forced to honor your parents, REGARDLESS of what they do. Simply because there isnt any grey lines.

Its like god giving an order, and you have no choice but to do it, regardless if your parents are assholes etc.

Its like the perfect root of UNQUESTIONING.

You are wrong.

It is obey your parents unless it is illegal or it is a sin. For instance if your Father told you to have sex with your sister and you didn't do it, then it would not be a sin for you to disobey.

Isn't good for a religion to teach children to obey their parents? Afterall, most parents have more information, life experience, and reasoning power than their 14 year old hormone laden child.

MentalExercise · April 2007

Sanstodo that's not what this thread is about. We're not discussing the possible flaws of the three major religions, we're talking about whether it is Ok to indoctrinate your child into any religion. Which depends heavily on how you define the word itself, complicating the issue. I only brought up my own religion as an example, not to get into a debate about my faith with someone that obviously knows little about the subject anyway.

edit: and not to get dragged back in... but to you to Gregor I also point out that the Bible is not Kantian. Jesus did not lay out a strict set of authoritarian rules. He gave examples in deed and in parable of how to behave. To be thought about critically, understood, and incorporated into our every day lives.

SithDrummer · April 2007

Greger wrote: »

Yar wrote: »

Greger wrote: »

Why do you force your religion unto your kids? Is it true belief when they have had it fed to them before they had anything else to compare it too?

Why do you force your art onto your kids? Your morality? Your music? Your taste in interior design? You beat-up old jalopy? Answer: because they're your kids. That's sort of how it works.

"Thats sort of how it works" Is not a valid argument in my eyes. Traditition, or just what is usually the case is no real argument or motivation.

Why don't you go ahead and define what you mean by "forcing," Greger?

sanstodo · April 2007

Sarcastro wrote: »

This is again, a vastly over-simplified characture of the nature and consequences to sin. The idea that God is there to spank you for doing wrong is like saying the law is just there hanging out waiting for you to fuck up. The followup for why stealing is bad is, just like without religon, contained in the messages parents give to thier children. You seem to be under the idea that scrit is simply read to a child and that's the end of it. No discussion, no examples, no further thought. The reality is much different. One is presented with a rule - such as stealing = bad - and then discussion is invited to explain why that is something true, why that law is nessecesary. In the end, the actual moral guidelines come from the parents, but they are guided towards specific discussion topics by the tenents and principles of the faith. As the morals and understanding of parents differ, so do the results and understanding differ in their children.

You and I agree that the whole point is the what and not the who. It makes the entire point of divine authority completely moot. The argument about picking and choosing then crops up here as well. What if parents decide to include some of entirely abhorrent parts of the Bible to teach to their children that can be legitimately considered tenets and principles of the faith? At that point, what recourse does the theist have? Probably to secular ideas of humanism, human rights, etc. Why even bother bringing holy texts and deities into the equation? Isn't it better just to teach the what and why without muddying the waters?

Oh, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on that thank you. You see, its nothing new. The idea has been kicked around for a very long time, and the war between the two opposing viewpoints has continued over thousands of years. The 'interior locus' model has long been a primary tenent of the satanic faiths, and the exterior locus the primary tenant to all of the major religious faiths.

Yet you characterized it as "worshipping one's self" which is completely not true. Sure, some may do that but I would venture to say that most atheists do not. Also, we can point to the violence perpetrated by those with exterior loci of control (you can count communists and Nazis in here) and those with interior loci of control (most of the modern atheist movement for one) to see which is working better in this day and age.

I need some examples, as this sounds like prejudicial bullshit at the moment. Where are these hampered debates? Which principles are being neglected by the existance of beleivers? Do you actually have any thoughts that are unable to be expressed because of the existance of religon? Do you really? You don't seem like you have any problems expressing or debating these ideas, is there something you wish to say but cannot? Give an example.

That's pretty easy, actually. Abortion and gay marriage quickly spring to mind. The main groups opposed to abortion and gay marriage are religiously motivated and debate is non-existent. There are a few in those camps who are not but overwhelmingly, it holds true. For abortion, the two sides talk past each other because one is quoting chapter and verse and using arguments based on concepts like the soul while the other is talking about reproductive rights. Gay marriage is largely the same. There is a lack of engagement because the two sides cannot agree on what is allowable as an argument and what is not. It is the religious, in these cases, who are talking past the non-religious. Both sides grasp upon scientific research that supports their position and agree that we are talking about what happens here on Earth. However, it is the religious who then present arguments based upon a premise that is not shared by non-believers, namely that god is exists, their god is right, and that what is written in certain holy texts is truth. It is at that point that religion stifles discourse.

Then you aren't listening very closely. It should be quite clear that I beleive in unlimited diversity. Think what you want, beleive what you want, come to your own conclusions. When something impedes that ability, my birthright as a free willed human is being trifled with. I get to make my own choices, and do what i think is right. It is nothing but hypocrisy to say that you beleive in the right to come to your own conclusions, when you are quite content shitting on the conclusions of others. If you really beleived in your own garbage, then you would recognize the right of differed thinkers to be left the fuck alone.

It's like a freaking animal farm addendum, Everybody can beleive what they want. -- As long as they beleive what we do.

I think you're shifting the burden the wrong way here. It is the religious right in the US and radical Muslims in other parts of the world who are trying to push their agendas and beliefs upon others. The vast majority of atheists would never, ever tell you that you are going to be punished for your beliefs or that you do not have a choice to believe them. That is demonstrably not true for radical Christianity and Islam considering the massive political power that both wield today.

I think you need to rethink what you consider shitting on the opinions of others. Do we disagree? Yes, we do. Do I think you're wrong? Yes, I do. Would I defend your right to believe what you believe to the death? Yes, yes I would.

If you think that I'm a hypocrite for disagreeing with you, I think you need to reconsider what I am saying and what you really believe about intellectual freedom.

sanstodo · April 2007

MentalExercise wrote: »

Sanstodo that's not what this thread is about. We're not discussing the possible flaws of the three major religions, we're talking about whether it is Ok to indoctrinate your child into any religion. Which depends heavily on how you define the word itself, complicating the issue. I only brought up my own religion as an example, not to get into a debate about my faith with someone that obviously knows little about the subject anyway.

edit: and not to get dragged back in... but to you to Gregor I also point out that the Bible is not Kantian. Jesus did not lay out a strict set of authoritarian rules. He gave examples in deed and in parable of how to behave. To be thought about critically, understood, and incorporated into our every day lives.

I've already pointed out that I oversimplified purposefully to prove the point that theistic religions are inherently authoritarian despite what other arguments are made (the mere existence of a deity implies a higher power which in turn implies absolutely authority). Please address that argument if you're going to argue anything. Btw, it is fair to limit this to theistic religions because that is what Dawkins was addressing. If you would like to discuss other theistic religions other than the big 3, feel free.

Teaching your children that there is an authority to be obeyed no matter what, no matter how much you disagree after reflection, is indoctrination in my book. Saying that any conclusion is off limits (such as, God does not exist) is telling a child to turn off their brain when they should be questioning and examining every inch of their world as much as possible.

Sarcastro · April 2007

sanstodo wrote: »

You and I agree that the whole point is the what and not the who. It makes the entire point of divine authority completely moot. The argument about picking and choosing then crops up here as well. What if parents decide to include some of entirely abhorrent parts of the Bible to teach to their children that can be legitimately considered tenets and principles of the faith? At that point, what recourse does the theist have? Probably to secular ideas of humanism, human rights, etc. Why even bother bringing holy texts and deities into the equation? Isn't it better just to teach the what and why without muddying the waters?

To some extent, one must acknowledge the culture already in play, and realize that good ideas are only as meaningful as their application to those around them. Theism works (when it works) because millions of people are already on approximately the same page. When you discard an aspect to culture, there needs to be a viable alternative to keep those same social bonds in play. Much like a renovation, you can't just go about removing walls in the interior of your house just because you don't like the configuration. Those structures, those roles and behaviors, perform certain neccesary tasks.

In the case of deism, the diety exists as an example of perfection, something to aspire to. This is Jesus's role in Christianity, because it is impossible to aspire to being God. A human example is required embodying specific principles to have something tangible to relate to. This sort of role example is common amongst all major faiths, each has a human role model embodying the ideals to that faith. The problem with the individualistic critical thinking model is the same one that plauged early religion, there is no definitive human example to follow - nor could there ever be. Modern informational media dissallows ignorance of certain humanistic traits that allow one to fall within the realm of deist or symbolic stature.

Oh, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on that thank you. You see, its nothing new. The idea has been kicked around for a very long time, and the war between the two opposing viewpoints has continued over thousands of years. The 'interior locus' model has long been a primary tenent of the satanic faiths, and the exterior locus the primary tenant to all of the major religious faiths.

Yet you characterized it as "worshipping one's self" which is completely not true. Sure, some may do that but I would venture to say that most atheists do not. Also, we can point to the violence perpetrated by those with exterior loci of control (you can count communists and Nazis in here) and those with interior loci of control (most of the modern atheist movement for one) to see which is working better in this day and age.

Actually, a Nazi would be a perfect example of the interior loci. Following orders because thier knowledge tells them that what they are doing (slaughtering civilians) is correct. They have successfully rationalized their actions with thier beliefs.

Much like a group of friends with a resident fucktard, it falls to exterior loci to correct the action. Somebody has to come in from outside of that world, that mindset and give a forcible "WTF are you doing?!" The interior loci model ignores the possibility that people can become caught up in thier own beliefs, thier own thoughts, and thus perpertrate actions which would otherwise be abhorrent. In the end our actions are not granted value by ourselves, but by those in the world around us. It is the exterior loci model which embodies this principle, that in order to have a meaningful life, one must successfully overcome their own desires and ideas of morality in order to bring real and tangible value to the lives of those around them.

I need some examples, as this sounds like prejudicial bullshit at the moment. Where are these hampered debates? Which principles are being neglected by the existance of beleivers? Do you actually have any thoughts that are unable to be expressed because of the existance of religon? Do you really? You don't seem like you have any problems expressing or debating these ideas, is there something you wish to say but cannot? Give an example.

That's pretty easy, actually. Abortion and gay marriage quickly spring to mind. The main groups opposed to abortion and gay marriage are religiously motivated and debate is non-existent. There are a few in those camps who are not but overwhelmingly, it holds true. For abortion, the two sides talk past each other because one is quoting chapter and verse and using arguments based on concepts like the soul while the other is talking about reproductive rights. Gay marriage is largely the same. There is a lack of engagement because the two sides cannot agree on what is allowable as an argument and what is not. It is the religious, in these cases, who are talking past the non-religious. Both sides grasp upon scientific research that supports their position and agree that we are talking about what happens here on Earth. However, it is the religious who then present arguments based upon a premise that is not shared by non-believers, namely that god is exists, their god is right, and that what is written in certain holy texts is truth. It is at that point that religion stifles discourse.

In the end, every descision is going to be black and white. You either got the abortion or you didn't. You either fucked that guy's ass or you didn't. There is no debate, because the debate is over. The very first time someone heard about the idea of an abortion, they quickly decided whether or not killing a fetus was a good thing to do. Some don't think so, some do. Some require information on the circumstances.

The sacrifice of lives is not a scientific question. Science can tell us what can be done, morals tell us what should be done. There are grey areas to the faith, and there is still debate within the faith about these items. But when a particular denomination is asked "What do you believe about x?" then it's leaders come together and provide the best answer they can. That answer is unlikely to change. This is not the same as saying 'there is no discussion', the discussion occured - the answer was made.

Of course there is no discussion after, why would there be? No new information comes to light. You can't persuade a faith, it's not a movie critic or a newspaper editor. Its a set of guidlines. You inquire as to the guidline regarding X, you get an answer. Saying there is no discourse is like going to the dictionary to look up the word 'milk', and then bitching about Webster because it's not the definition you want. Milk is fucking milk, there isn't a whole lot of debate to be had on that. Is milk considered to be a dangerous threat to critical thought on a global scale? No, because that would be retarded and it does a body good.

I think you're shifting the burden the wrong way here. It is the religious right in the US and radical Muslims in other parts of the world who are trying to push their agendas and beliefs upon others. The vast majority of atheists would never, ever tell you that you are going to be punished for your beliefs or that you do not have a choice to believe them. That is demonstrably not true for radical Christianity and Islam considering the massive political power that both wield today.

And radical athiests fall into the same spell. Pushing one's ideas onto another. There is a line somewhere, between offering an alternative and ramming it down someone's throat. Atheists often belittle and mock the opposition, a strategy as contemptible as inquisition. An athiest might be willing to allow you your own slice of ignorance, but will consistantly attempt to discredit the thought patterns of the theist. That's the new status marker in the information age - one's ability to think. It's the cerebral equivilent to saying 'Dem XXXXX can't get jobs nohow.' Christianity only threatens with a negative afterlife, which should present no real harm to the athiest anyway. Islam is exceptionally tricky, because you could describe as pushing, but you could also describe it as pushing back.

Now, here's where to tread careful like, because 'agenda pushing' is some dangerous ground. You can accuse the 'religious right' of it and be on what seems to be solid ground. If you were to accuse 'Jews in the movie business' of the same thing, you'd wind up on the news issuing an apology. Secret agendas and conspiracy theories are a common tactic used by war-mongers and hate groups.

In the end, it must be recognized that every group has to some extent the right to spend their time and money how they see fit. If that group happens to have a majority in a democratic system, then yes, other
people who do not believe the same things are going to find themselves in a country where that view has shaped the law, culture and ammenities. But you either abide by democracy or you don't. Awesome if you are the majority, sucks when you are not. This is the way the system works. You can rail against the representational abilities of your countries current system if you wish, but it is not the fault or the responsibility of those groups that hold that majority. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Penny Arcade

Indoctrination

Posts