As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Indoctrination

Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
"Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.

Thanks, Dawkins. :(

Burden of Proof on
«13456789

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.

    Thanks, Dawkins. :(
    There are different types of abuse. I doubt Dawkins was referring to sexual; more likely emotional/psychological abuse.

    Thanatos on
  • Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    He was positively referring to psychological abuse. I was just trying to point out how harsh it would seem to people he is supposedly interested in converting.

    I don't know about you guys, but I find that being overly insulting towards someone's beliefs doesn't exactly inspire them to hear you out afterwards.

    Burden of Proof on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.

    Thanks, Dawkins. :(
    It's harsh, but I think I agree. Taking your child to church every Sunday before the child even has the capacity to reason, or understand English, making the child go through repetitive rituals to induce unquestioning belief, making him sit down and stand up on the pews when the preacher leads a sermon, like clockwork, forcing the child to listen to sermons about heaven and hell, essentially bullying the child to believe what you believe—I certainly think "brainwashing" is a form of child abuse.

    Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?

    I mean, you might be upset if your child grows up without sharing your faith. You might also be upset if your child grows up without sharing your political affiliation as well, but you wouldn't condone taking infants to Democratic ritual conventions where they're brainwashed into reciting scripture from Barrack Obama's book, and threatened with hellfire and eternal torment if they turn Republican. You certainly wouldn't label your child a "Democratic child" before he's old enough to decide for himself.

    So why on earth is this type of behavior uncritically condoned regarding religion?

    Qingu on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    He was positively referring to psychological abuse. I was just trying to point out how harsh it would seem to people he is supposedly interested in converting.

    I don't know about you guys, but I find that being overly insulting towards someone's beliefs doesn't exactly inspire them to hear you out afterwards.
    I think Dawkins probably feels like most of the people he's insulting aren't going to be inspired to hear him out regardless of how polite or insulting he is.

    Thanatos on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.

    Thanks, Dawkins. :(

    Even most child molesters aren't convinced that what they're doing is inherently harmful to their victims - that's part of the paraphilia. I know what you mean though, the long-term effects of indoctrinating a child into a cult or religion vary from one situation to another, arguably more so than cases of child abuse. Although they're both circumstances that significantly influence mental and interpersonal development.

    Glyph on
  • Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think Dawkins probably feels like most of the people he's insulting aren't going to be inspired to hear him out regardless of how polite or insulting he is.

    He's claimed that one of the purposes of his book was to knock religious moderates and agnostics off the fence. He admits that he will have little influence over fundamentalist and extremist, so his interest doesn't lie there.
    Glyph wrote: »
    Even most child molesters aren't convinced that what they're doing is inherently harmful to their victims - that's part of the paraphilia. I know what you mean though, the long-term effects of indoctrinating a child into a cult or religion vary from one situation to another, arguably more so than cases of child abuse. Although they're both circumstances that significantly influence mental and interpersonal development.

    Certainly, and I have no problem admitting that atheism is far less likely to be the result of such negative influences.

    Burden of Proof on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The idea that teaching children about religion is abuse because you're forcing a belief on them should be slapped of of people's skulls. Just because it's that stupid. You don't need to force children into unquestioning belief. They have that already. All their parents have to do is tell them it's true, and they'll beleive (99 time out of 100 if afraid of absolutes). The idea that you should wait until they can make their own decisions is just idiocy. That same logic could be applied to any sort of morality whatsoever. And that's just stupid. No one teaches their child to not do things if they have thought about it and decided they empirically agree it's a bad idea. You can try with your child if you want, but keep the little bastard away from my child. Children, it turns out, have weak impulse control and will kind of run loose without a little direction. And being authoritarian with your children and never letting them question, it turns out, isn't a religious belief it's just bad parenting. The fact you relate it most strongly with religion doesn't mean that's the cause.

    edit: I apparently need to stop thinking my posts through. It's making me get woefully behind in the thread. besides which I'm not very articulate today.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Qingu wrote: »
    "Indoctrination is child abuse" is pretty damn harsh. I want to share something with my children that has made me happy and played a positive role in my development as a person, and suddenly I'm comparable to child molester.

    Thanks, Dawkins. :(
    It's harsh, but I think I agree. Taking your child to church every Sunday before the child even has the capacity to reason, or understand English, making the child go through repetitive rituals to induce unquestioning belief, making him sit down and stand up on the pews when the preacher leads a sermon, like clockwork, forcing the child to listen to sermons about heaven and hell, essentially bullying the child to believe what you believe—I certainly think "brainwashing" is a form of child abuse.

    Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?

    I mean, you might be upset if your child grows up without sharing your faith. You might also be upset if your child grows up without sharing your political affiliation as well, but you wouldn't condone taking infants to Democratic ritual conventions where they're brainwashed into reciting scripture from Barrack Obama's book, and threatened with hellfire and eternal torment if they turn Republican. You certainly wouldn't label your child a "Democratic child" before he's old enough to decide for himself.

    So why on earth is this type of behavior uncritically condoned regarding religion?

    That is certainly a fair opinion, but my argument wasn't about whether or not he should criticize typical religious practices. I simply don't agree with his methods at times. Actually, I don't really agree with the assertion that indoctrination is inherently wrong either, but that may just be because I'm religious myself. I don't see it as "bullying" a child into believing in your personal god, but simply sharing something you love with your children. Basically, what you'd have parents do is keep religion away from their children altogether, which is clearly impossible if your faith is an important part of your life.
    Well, I don't think Dawkins would advocate that. I certainly have no problem with parents sharing their beliefs with their children. There is a difference between "sharing beliefs" and "brainwashing"—though sometimes its a fine line.

    Qingu on
  • Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yeah, I can't really speak on what Dawkins actually condones and doesn't, as I haven't actually read his book :P. I do frequent his official forum though, and his fans would certainly be in favor of such a thing. They're a unique bunch.

    Burden of Proof on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    The idea that teaching children about religion is abuse because you're forcing a belief on them should be slapped of of people's skulls. Just because it's that stupid. You don't need to force children into unquestioning belief. They have that already. All their parents have to do is tell them it's true, and they'll beleive (99 time out of 100 if afraid of absolutes).

    See now, that's the bit that makes people consider religious indoctrination abusive. Its taking advantage of gullibility, and setting the child up for a life of impaired critical thinking, not to mention emotional turmoil - children believe too hard. I grew up being told that all my schoolfriends would be killed at armageddon because they didn't go to the same church as we did, or knock on doors, or even read he bible at all. I was expressly told that it didn't matter how nice or good they were, they were still to be rejected. I spent more nights of my childhood than I care to remember crying and praying that my friends would be okay when the world ended, which that belief system states could be any minute. No, scratch praying. Flat-out pleading. And then I read that scripture that says someone who rejects god after hearing about him was more evil than people who were ignorant of god, and realised that every time we knocked on a door we were in effect screwing someone else over, unless they accepted our message.

    You think that emotional torture wasn't abusive? Wasn't a direct result of my religious indoctrination?


    Whoever mentioned earlier in this thread that talking to many religious people is like talking to a stubborn child is absolutely right. The nature of their beliefs hampers their ability to think logically. Hamstrings their intellect. Although it may be kind of a chicken/egg thing, given the dropout rate of most religions, I think its extremely bad form to rely on juvenile indoctrination to maintain numbers. If you can't convince a rational adult of the rightness of your belief, how good is it really?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    The idea that teaching children about religion is abuse because you're forcing a belief on them should be slapped of of people's skulls. Just because it's that stupid. You don't need to force children into unquestioning belief. They have that already. All their parents have to do is tell them it's true, and they'll beleive (99 time out of 100 if afraid of absolutes).

    See now, that's the bit that makes people consider religious indoctrination abusive. Its taking advantage of gullibility, and setting the child up for a life of impaired critical thinking, not to mention emotional turmoil - children believe too hard. I grew up being told that all my schoolfriends would be killed at armageddon because they didn't go to the same church as we did, or knock on doors, or even read he bible at all. I was expressly told that it didn't matter how nice or good they were, they were still to be rejected. I spent more nights of my childhood than I care to remember crying and praying that my friends would be okay when the world ended, which that belief system states could be any minute. No, scratch praying. Flat-out pleading. And then I read that scripture that says someone who rejects god after hearing about him was more evil than people who were ignorant of god, and realised that every time we knocked on a door we were in effect screwing someone else over, unless they accepted our message.

    You think that emotional torture wasn't abusive? Wasn't a direct result of my religious indoctrination?


    Whoever mentioned earlier in this thread that talking to many religious people is like talking to a stubborn child is absolutely right. The nature of their beliefs hampers their ability to think logically. Hamstrings their intellect. Although it may be kind of a chicken/egg thing, given the dropout rate of most religions, I think its extremely bad form to rely on juvenile indoctrination to maintain numbers. If you can't convince a rational adult of the rightness of your belief, how good is it really?

    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    Not that I agree with Pants Man, but I think teaching a child to reject anything that might be outside of their experience out of hand to be just as bad. In fact, exactly the same.

    Fencingsax on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    Not that I agree with Pants Man, but I think teaching a child to reject anything that might be outside of their experience out of hand to be just as bad. In fact, exactly the same.

    You're fucking delusional if a) you think that's what atheists tell their kids b) that's not taught in school science class, and c) that its even slightly as damaging as believing a big bloke in the sky will kill you for being born to the wrong people.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    i'm not trying to condescend to you, and i definately don't think that your experience was okay or in any way justified. all i'm saying is that your experience isn't even remotely similar to how millions of other kids were raised in religious families. you're using your own personal experience and then projecting it onto everyone else.

    my family, for instance, is Episcopal. but my experience, while still probably "indoctrination" by your standards, was totally different. i was taught the Bible stories and learned about Jesus and heaven and hall and all that stuff, but it was never put into the context of anybody else. i was always told that people were responsible for their own actions in the eyes of God, and that that relationship is something that each individual person has to cultivate. basically, you can't force someone to be a Christian, that's a decision that they have to make for themselves; and by that same token, you can't "convince" God to let you into heaven or save you from eternal damnation or whatever, that's His choice.




    and i really don't think that my religious belief hampers my ability to think logically. that's just an easy out if you disagree with someone.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Agem wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    c) that its even slightly as damaging as believing a big bloke in the sky will kill you for being born to the wrong people.

    But didn't you read the Divine Comedy? The Noble Pagans don't really get punished forever in hell, they just never get to be truly happy! It's sort of like Hell Lite! How could that possibly be unfair?

    Yes, I remember they granted Salah al-Din that place in their kooky echelon.

    Limbo. Generous.

    Glyph on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    i'm not trying to condescend to you, and i definately don't think that your experience was okay or in any way justified. all i'm saying is that your experience isn't even remotely similar to how millions of other kids were raised in religious families. you're using your own personal experience and then projecting it onto everyone else.

    Aren't you then projecting your experience onto "millions of other kids" in religious families? I'm assuming you haven't actually lived in every, or any, Episcopalian households apart from your own long enough to gauge to what degree religion has had a positive or negative effect on their children's overall development.

    Glyph on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    Not that I agree with Pants Man, but I think teaching a child to reject anything that might be outside of their experience out of hand to be just as bad. In fact, exactly the same.

    You're fucking delusional if a) you think that's what atheists tell their kids b) that's not taught in school science class, and c) that its even slightly as damaging as believing a big bloke in the sky will kill you for being born to the wrong people.

    ... that's not what I said. I was commenting more on the attitude of the thread.

    Fencingsax on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    And that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't actually projecting at all, just letting you know what my experience was and why I think therefore that its a bad idea to teach these doctrines to children. Teach them to adults all you want.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    iiii think you might be projecting your own experiences to encompass the experiences of all kida who grew up in religious households.

    and not only that, but you're making some pretty huge generalizations about how religious people think.


    Don't you condescend to me. I wouldn't have posted that if it wasn't a shared experience. And do you really think that just because not everybody has it so bad that it makes it ok to treat a child like that?

    i'm not trying to condescend to you, and i definately don't think that your experience was okay or in any way justified. all i'm saying is that your experience isn't even remotely similar to how millions of other kids were raised in religious families. you're using your own personal experience and then projecting it onto everyone else.

    Aren't you then projecting your experience onto "millions of other kids" in religious families? I'm assuming you haven't actually lived in every, or any, Episcopalian households apart from your own long enough to gauge to what degree religion has had a positive or negative effect on their children's overall development.

    you just proved my point. both stories are completely anecdotal, and you can't generalize using either. i don't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that i did, and Cat shouldn't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that she did.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    And that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't actually projecting at all, just letting you know what my experience was and why I think therefore that its a bad idea to teach these doctrines to children. Teach them to adults all you want.

    okay, i see what you're saying. but i when i was little, i was told about the Bible and Jesus and all that good stuff, and then told to come to my own conclusions later on. that's why i was given the chance to either take or give up the chance to be Confirmed. i don't think that's really such a bad way to go about things.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    you just proved my point. both stories are completely anecdotal, and you can't generalize using either. i don't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that i did, and Cat shouldn't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that she did.

    well its a bloody good thing I don't, then! I'm illustrating What Can Go Wrong here, and stating that the risk of that is more than early-life indoctrination is worth.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    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.

    Thanatos on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    you just proved my point. both stories are completely anecdotal, and you can't generalize using either. i don't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that i did, and Cat shouldn't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that she did.

    well its a bloody good thing I don't, then! I'm illustrating What Can Go Wrong here, and stating that the risk of that is more than early-life indoctrination is worth.

    Yes, and how do you suggest we go about doing this, without completely ripping up the Constitution?

    Edit: Obviously things would be different over there, but still. How do we go about doing this without completely screwing over civil rights?

    Fencingsax on
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The difference though is that you don't actually have to teach children to think critically early in life in order to "indoctrinate" them into that mode of thought. Ideologically left to their own devices, they'll learn what's practical through trial and error because empiricism isn't based on faith, it's just the way the physical universe works.

    Introduce science and philosophy to them when they're adults and they'll easily incorporate that into their lives. Tell them there was once a man who died on a cross so that they wouldn't be sent to a fiery dungeon after they die, but they still have to follow a certain set of rules anyway, and they might question where you got that idea.

    Glyph on
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    In fact the entire reason it came into existence was to counter ID claims that it was an alternative theory that should be taught alongside evolution.

    yeah, and as long as it's used in that context i'm coll with it. teaching intelligent design in schools is just fucking retarded.

    that said, i would say that 75% of the time i see it used nowadays is just to make fun of religion in general.
    well its a bloody good thing I don't, then! I'm illustrating What Can Go Wrong here, and stating that the risk of that is more than early-life indoctrination is worth.

    great, but it's still anecdotal. i can come up with an anecdotal reason for What Can Go Wrong here for a billion things, but since it'll still be anecdotal, it'll still be a crappy argument.

    if you had statistics that said "early-life indoctrination is shown to have detrimental effects on childhood devleopment," that'd be one thing. but instead you're trying to use a personal story to prove your point.



    what's ironic is that you're using a highly illogical and unscientific way of trying to make your argument that early-life religious indoctrination isn't worth the risk to the child.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • AgemAgem Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    And that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't actually projecting at all, just letting you know what my experience was and why I think therefore that its a bad idea to teach these doctrines to children. Teach them to adults all you want.

    okay, i see what you're saying. but i when i was little, i was told about the Bible and Jesus and all that good stuff, and then told to come to my own conclusions later on. that's why i was given the chance to either take or give up the chance to be Confirmed. i don't think that's really such a bad way to go about things.

    If it's not such a bad way to go about things, then why do children tend to have the same religion as their parents? Most people are aware that the choice of religion for the vast majority of people on the planet (but not their own choice, I mean of course) was determined by nothing more than the accident of which family they were born into.

    Indoctrination doesn't do much other than, well, indoctrinate. Might it not be better to not teach children your religion so you know that if they choose it then it's because that's what they wanted, rather than just because you indoctrinated them into choosing it?

    Agem on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA 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.

    There was a good article on salon (i think) abut rumspringa recently. And honestly, the threat of being shunned by your community and family is a far greater contributor to retention rates than anything else, closely followed by the kids' knowledge that an 8th grade education and a complete lack of familiarity with the broader culture (beyond the local bar scene) mean that they won't have a fun time if they really truly leave.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    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.
    There was a good article on salon (i think) abut rumspringa recently. And honestly, the threat of being shunned by your community and family is a far greater contributor to retention rates than anything else, closely followed by the kids' knowledge that an 8th grade education and a complete lack of familiarity with the broader culture (beyond the local bar scene) mean that they won't have a fun time if they really truly leave.
    You really think there's less of a threat of being shunned in the case of, say, Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance?

    Thanatos on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    you just proved my point. both stories are completely anecdotal, and you can't generalize using either. i don't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that i did, and Cat shouldn't assume that all religious kids had the same upbringing that she did.

    well its a bloody good thing I don't, then! I'm illustrating What Can Go Wrong here, and stating that the risk of that is more than early-life indoctrination is worth.

    Yes, and how do you suggest we go about doing this, without completely ripping up the Constitution?

    Edit: Obviously things would be different over there, but still. How do we go about doing this without completely screwing over civil rights?

    Why jump to 'we have to make a law'? We don't. A cultural shift is required, though. I'm not a fan of legislative solutions to social problems - i prefer to leave that tactic to the board conservatives.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Agem wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    And that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't actually projecting at all, just letting you know what my experience was and why I think therefore that its a bad idea to teach these doctrines to children. Teach them to adults all you want.

    okay, i see what you're saying. but i when i was little, i was told about the Bible and Jesus and all that good stuff, and then told to come to my own conclusions later on. that's why i was given the chance to either take or give up the chance to be Confirmed. i don't think that's really such a bad way to go about things.

    If it's not such a bad way to go about things, then why do children tend to have the same religion as their parents? Most people are aware that the choice of religion for the vast majority of people on the planet (but not their own choice, I mean of course) was determined by nothing more than the accident of which family they were born into.

    Indoctrination doesn't do much other than, well, indoctrinate. Might it not be better to not teach children your religion so you know that if they choose it then it's because that's what they wanted, rather than just because you indoctrinated them into choosing it?

    because by not teaching your child anything, that's still conditioning then for something. do you see what i'm getting at? an inquisitive and smart kid is going to eventually make his or her own decision anyway. you're right, a dumb or lazy kid is going to probably stay the same religion as his or her own parents, but that cuts both ways; a lazy kid raised by a nonreligious family is just as likely to stay nonreligious as a lazy kid is to stay religious in a religious family.

    since it doesn't matter either way because the kid is going to follow what the parent does anyway, it's ultimately up to the parents to decide what they want for their kids. you can't avoid that just by saying "figure it out for yourself"

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    You really think there's less of a threat of being shunned in the case of, say, Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance?
    No, actually. I mean, its a bit different - your family don't necessarily have to shun you, just your associates (although some families are brutal about it). I lived through this, remember? Still, that's the only reason a lot of JW's stay. They're also not as badly isolated though, in that they're allowed to participate in the culture and get at least a HS diploma. So the retention rates are lower, but still far higher than other faiths that don't practice any form of shunning.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    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.

    There was a good article on salon (i think) abut rumspringa recently. And honestly, the threat of being shunned by your community and family is a far greater contributor to retention rates than anything else, closely followed by the kids' knowledge that an 8th grade education and a complete lack of familiarity with the broader culture (beyond the local bar scene) mean that they won't have a fun time if they really truly leave.

    oh man, i saw a documentary about rumspringa and it was fucked up. if you think college freshman are bad, amish kids doing rumspringa are about a billion times worse. the idea that these kids would somehow be able to find an identity for themselves outside of the religion that has isolated them from the rest of the world for 90% of their lives is ridiculous.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Agem wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    And that leaves aside the fact that I wasn't actually projecting at all, just letting you know what my experience was and why I think therefore that its a bad idea to teach these doctrines to children. Teach them to adults all you want.

    okay, i see what you're saying. but i when i was little, i was told about the Bible and Jesus and all that good stuff, and then told to come to my own conclusions later on. that's why i was given the chance to either take or give up the chance to be Confirmed. i don't think that's really such a bad way to go about things.

    If it's not such a bad way to go about things, then why do children tend to have the same religion as their parents? Most people are aware that the choice of religion for the vast majority of people on the planet (but not their own choice, I mean of course) was determined by nothing more than the accident of which family they were born into.

    Indoctrination doesn't do much other than, well, indoctrinate. Might it not be better to not teach children your religion so you know that if they choose it then it's because that's what they wanted, rather than just because you indoctrinated them into choosing it?

    because by not teaching your child anything, that's still conditioning then for something. do you see what i'm getting at? an inquisitive and smart kid is going to eventually make his or her own decision anyway. you're right, a dumb or lazy kid is going to probably stay the same religion as his or her own parents, but that cuts both ways; a lazy kid raised by a nonreligious family is just as likely to stay nonreligious as a lazy kid is to stay religious in a religious family.

    since it doesn't matter either way because the kid is going to follow what the parent does anyway, it's ultimately up to the parents to decide what they want for their kids. you can't avoid that just by saying "figure it out for yourself"

    You're really missing the point. If a person is brought up religiously, it hampers his very capacity to work within a rational universe, since you've effectively raised him in an irrational one with overriding presumptions based on cultural fabrication.

    Glyph on
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    You're really missing the point. If a person is brought up religiously, it hampers his very capacity to work within a rational universe, since you've effectively raised him in an irrational one with overriding presumptions based on cultural fabrication.

    uggghhh please stop trying to equate all relious people with fundamentalists. i don't think the world is flat, i don't believe in ID over evolution, i don't think the world is 8,000 years old, and i do think dinosaurs roamed the earth. just not at the same time as cavemen.

    i can have the same scientific and analytical mind as anyone else, believe it or not. my religious upbringing didn't hamper me, and it's more than likely that it hasn't hampered millions of others. again, stop with the ridiculous generalizations.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    You're really missing the point. If a person is brought up religiously, it hampers his very capacity to work within a rational universe, since you've effectively raised him in an irrational one with overriding presumptions based on cultural fabrication.

    uggghhh please stop trying to equate all relious people with fundamentalists. i don't think the world is flat, i don't believe in ID over evolution, i don't think the world is 8,000 years old, and i do think dinosaurs roamed the earth. just not at the same time as cavemen.

    But you acknowledge that if weren't for rational and empirical minds, you'd have never known otherwise. So why embrace the ideology that would have kept you in ignorance and deny that which would enlighten you?

    Science as a Candle in the Dark.

    Glyph on
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    You're really missing the point. If a person is brought up religiously, it hampers his very capacity to work within a rational universe, since you've effectively raised him in an irrational one with overriding presumptions based on cultural fabrication.

    uggghhh please stop trying to equate all relious people with fundamentalists. i don't think the world is flat, i don't believe in ID over evolution, i don't think the world is 8,000 years old, and i do think dinosaurs roamed the earth. just not at the same time as cavemen.

    But you acknowledge that if weren't for rational and empirical minds, you'd have never known otherwise. So why embrace the ideology that would have kept you in ignorance and deny that which would enlighten you?

    Science as a Candle in the Dark.

    some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds the world has ever known were deeply religious.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    You're really missing the point. If a person is brought up religiously, it hampers his very capacity to work within a rational universe, since you've effectively raised him in an irrational one with overriding presumptions based on cultural fabrication.

    uggghhh please stop trying to equate all relious people with fundamentalists. i don't think the world is flat, i don't believe in ID over evolution, i don't think the world is 8,000 years old, and i do think dinosaurs roamed the earth. just not at the same time as cavemen.

    But you acknowledge that if weren't for rational and empirical minds, you'd have never known otherwise. So why embrace the ideology that would have kept you in ignorance and deny that which would enlighten you?

    Science as a Candle in the Dark.

    some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds the world has ever known were deeply religious.

    Deeply religious? Or deeply scientific and philosophical, and religious by default for fear of being burned at the stake?

    Glyph on
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Deeply religious? Or deeply scientific and philosophical, and religious by default for fear of being burned at the stake?

    hahahahahahah okay

    [HTML]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel[/HTML]


    start there. holy crap dude. hahahahahahah

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Deeply religious? Or deeply scientific and philosophical, and religious by default for fear of being burned at the stake?

    hahahahahahah okay

    [HTML]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel[/HTML]


    start there. holy crap dude. hahahahahahah

    oops, my bad, here you go

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Sign In or Register to comment.