A case for religion, and against AA.

[PingviN]

No, I will not stoop to allowing you to show just how much you do not understand about the Bible!!

Indoctrination has only one meaning. Telling your children God exists and that Jesus died for their sins is indoctrination. Telling children God created man, heaven and earth is indoctrination. Religion require the indoctrination of children to survive.

Gotcha, you have no arguments. A rational mind would question its beliefs if it were unable to argue for them. But rationality and religion is much like oil and water, they do not mix.

 

[Retro Rob]

Indoctrination has only one meaning. Telling your children God exists and that Jesus died for their sins is indoctrination. Telling children God created man, heaven and earth is indoctrination. Religion require the indoctrination of children to survive.

Gotcha, you have no arguments. A rational mind would question its beliefs if it were unable to argue for them. But rationality and religion is much like oil and water, they do not mix.

I think you need to be more clear on what indoctrination is. By definition, it doesn't expect the recipient to question. Indoctrination can be your employer expecting you to follow company guidelines without question.

Indoctrination is broadly used negatively, much like "propaganda" is. Nothing is inherently wrong with indoctrination, propaganda, criticism, and other words which are often narrowly-defined by narrow-minded people.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Indoctrination has only one meaning. Telling your children God exists and that Jesus died for their sins is indoctrination. Telling children God created man, heaven and earth is indoctrination. Religion require the indoctrination of children to survive.

Gotcha, you have no arguments. A rational mind would question its beliefs if it were unable to argue for them. But rationality and religion is much like oil and water, they do not mix.

That is why I will not discuss this with you. You already have your mind made up as do I! You do not know the various meanings of the word -- indoctrination. You only use the meaning the you were indoctrinated !

 

[PowerEngineer]

That is why I will not discuss this with you. You already have your mind made up as do I! You do not know the various meanings of the word -- indoctrination. You only use the meaning the you were indoctrinated !

I think it's fair to say that these discussions about belief do lead to some impasses that we can't just get around, however the definition of English words shouldn't be among them. Merriam-Webster defines indoctrinate as: "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs". If you've made up your mind to apply your own personal definitions to the words in your posts (e.g. your "cat" is our dog), then it comes out as gibberish (even without actually building your own Tower of Babel). :whiste:

I think you need to be more clear on what indoctrination is. By definition, it doesn't expect the recipient to question. Indoctrination can be your employer expecting you to follow company guidelines without question.

I agree with this.

Indoctrination is broadly used negatively, much like "propaganda" is. Nothing is inherently wrong with indoctrination, propaganda, criticism, and other words which are often narrowly-defined by narrow-minded people.

Frankly, I think indoctrination (much like propaganda) deserves its negative connotation because it is a biased attempts to impart conclusions (rather than an objective effort to convey facts that trigger independent thought - and a residue of doubt). There may be some circumstances (such as teaching young children) where indoctrination is sensible as a temporary measure, but IMHO only with the caveat that the indoctrinated ideas will be thoroughly and objectively reexamined later (when children become young adults). Overall I give indoctrination: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

 

[disappoint]

ask the author of the piece I copied and pasted....because no matter what I say you will have some off the wall remark........

As if morality based on your atheism will be any better..lolol

It makes no sense to say "morality based on disbelief of a deity".

Secular morality is based on common sense, as is the morality found in the bible. The difference is that the morality from the bible is based on the common sense of the delusional, vengeful, spiteful, hateful, out of touch with reality, knuckledragging, slave condoning, evil without a clue dimwits found therein.

 

[Retro Rob]

Frankly, I think indoctrination (much like propaganda) deserves its negative connotation because it is a biased attempts to impart conclusions (rather than an objective effort to convey facts that trigger independent thought - and a residue of doubt). There may be some circumstances (such as teaching young children) where indoctrination is sensible as a temporary measure, but IMHO only with the caveat that the indoctrinated ideas will be thoroughly and objectively reexamined later (when children become young adults). Overall I give indoctrination: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

I understand, and generally agree. But I think that he's attempting to push a prejudiced view of religion and religious people by attaching a negative term exclusively to them.

I see more and more atheists use this tactic, as if by having religious parents, we are going to lose in the field of technology and science because of children believing in God -- just appeals to fear, in my opinion.

This is partly why I think an open atheist would never become President. I don't think that religious folks fear atheism because its atheism as much as they see open hostility to religion, the bible, God etc. I think those concerns aren't really worrisome, but they are valid ones, though.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Secular morality is based on common sense

now that is funny.......and pathetic and delusional.....

 

[disappoint]

now that is funny.......and pathetic and delusional.....

The laws of the land (at least in the nation I live in) are based on what the people can agree on. Common sense.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The laws of the land (at least in the nation I live in) are based on what the people can agree on. Common sense.

The key is what you said people can agree on.....which basically means that you and your atheist friends can agree on and me and my Christian friends can agree on...so where does this go...again...your response was expected.......

 

[disappoint]

The key is what you said people can agree on.....which basically means that you and your atheist friends can agree on and me and my Christian friends can agree on...so where does this go...again...your response was expected.......

Which is very different from what the writers of the Bible agreed on isn't it?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Which is very different from what the writers of the Bible agreed on isn't it?

If that is what you and your Atheist friends believe.....

 

[sandorski]

If that ids what you and your Atheist friends believe.....

No need to consider the Atheist on this point when there are thousands of fellow Christian groups that will disagree with you.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I understand, and generally agree. But I think that he's attempting to push a prejudiced view of religion and religious people by attaching a negative term exclusively to them.

It's hard not to characterize teaching intended to illicit unquestioning religious belief as indoctrination. Indoctrination isn't exclusive to religious teaching, but IMHO is still distasteful (even deceitful).

I see more and more atheists use this tactic, as if by having religious parents, we are going to lose in the field of technology and science because of children believing in God -- just appeals to fear, in my opinion.

Just to be sure that you and I are clear on this point, I have no real issue with religious parents (or people) when their beliefs aren't pushed forward as a substitute for the best theories that science has to offer. I do have a big problem, however, when (as an example) believers start pushing creationism (a.k.a. "intelligent design") as a substitute for evolution. I also have to push back in cases where believers want this country to be guided by biblical prophecies or their personal revelations from their god (e.g. the 100% support for Israel). There are believers out there doing things like this; hopefully they are a minority. I wouldn't call it a "fear", but certainly it is a concern of mine.

This is partly why I think an open atheist would never become President. I don't think that religious folks fear atheism because its atheism as much as they see open hostility to religion, the bible, God etc. I think those concerns aren't really worrisome, but they are valid ones, though.

My first thought on reading this was to remember that in the 1940's and 50's no one thought a Catholic could be elected to the presidency. Even into the 1980's, no one thought that we'd see a black president in our lifetimes (or see a credible female candidate). I am confident that we will someday have a non-Christian president, and I suspect that electing an atheist/agnostic will be more palatable to Christian voters than an alternative of a non-Christian believer. I hope I live long enough to find out.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's hard not to characterize teaching intended to illicit unquestioning religious belief as indoctrination. Indoctrination isn't exclusive to religious teaching, but IMHO is still distasteful (even deceitful).

I think its worth being careful how you label it as lables are entirely subjective.

Just to be sure that you and I are clear on this point, I have no real issue with religious parents (or people) when their beliefs aren't pushed forward as a substitute for the best theories that science has to offer. I do have a big problem, however, when (as an example) believers start pushing creationism (a.k.a. "intelligent design") as a substitute for evolution. I also have to push back in cases where believers want this country to be guided by biblical prophecies or their personal revelations from their god (e.g. the 100% support for Israel). There are believers out there doing things like this; hopefully they are a minority. I wouldn't call it a "fear", but certainly it is a concern of mine.

Yeah, I agree. Even as a believer myself, I wouldn't want any religion/ID/Creationism taught to my kids -- that's my responsibility if I so choose.

But some of your prominent atheists do speak of it as a legit fear. Bill Nye basically lived on it with his debate with Ham -- urging parents to not tell their kids their doubts about evolution based on their religion, or we will lose out place as one of the top producers of scientists. From his POV, I see where he is coming from. But if you don't want them in your classrooms, stay out of our home. That's basically my point as well.

I agree with your points about the presidency, but I did say that my objections to an atheist president wasn't worrisome...it's just what I think some religious people are concerned about.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No need to consider the Atheist on this point when there are thousands of fellow Christian groups that will disagree with you.

Same can also be said that there are thousands of Christian groups that would agree with me..............see how this goes round and round.....

 

[sandorski]

Same can also be said that there are thousands of Christian groups that would agree with me..............see how this goes round and round.....

So which thousands read the Bible correctly and how can you be sure of that?

 

[JEDIYoda]

No need to consider the Atheist on this point when there are thousands of fellow Christian groups that will disagree with you.

You posed the statement first...you tell me which thousands of Christian groups disagree with me.....you first...seeing as how you did state for certain that there were thousands that would disagree with me...

 

[sandorski]

You posed the statement first...you tell me which thousands of Christian groups disagree with me.....you first...seeing as how you did state for certain that there were thousands that would disagree with me...

You know that there are such groups with different beliefs. Stop being coy.

 

[PingviN]

I think you need to be more clear on what indoctrination is. By definition, it doesn't expect the recipient to question. Indoctrination can be your employer expecting you to follow company guidelines without question.

I do not disagree, but like PowerEngineer said, the word is well defined. However, adults have tools to deal with indoctrination. Even if your employer asks you to follow company guidelines without question, you'll be able to turn that off when you go home. It takes serious effort to brain wash an adult, it doesn't take much to brain wash a susceptible child. Unlike believing Santa Claus is real, most will not be able to accept that God does not exist when they grow up.

Indoctrination is broadly used negatively, much like "propaganda" is. Nothing is inherently wrong with indoctrination, propaganda, criticism, and other words which are often narrowly-defined by narrow-minded people.

Indoctrination of children should always be considered very much an evil thing.

I understand, and generally agree. But I think that he's attempting to push a prejudiced view of religion and religious people by attaching a negative term exclusively to them.

I don't. However, you cannot seriously disagree with the fact that religious groups require children to be indoctrinated to survive? How many people has turned Amish once adult? How many atheists (not agnostic theists) turn religious?

That is why I will not discuss this with you. You already have your mind made up as do I! You do not know the various meanings of the word -- indoctrination. You only use the meaning the you were indoctrinated !

There is only one meaning. You confuse indoctrination with teaching. They are separate.

I'm sure your mind is made up, that doesn't make you right. If you can't argue your opinion then it's likely not built on a very sturdy foundation.

 

[witeken]

I think you need to be more clear on what indoctrination is. By definition, it doesn't expect the recipient to question. Indoctrination can be your employer expecting you to follow company guidelines without question.

Indoctrination is broadly used negatively, much like "propaganda" is. Nothing is inherently wrong with indoctrination, propaganda, criticism, and other words which are often narrowly-defined by narrow-minded people.

Indoctrination is inherently wrong. Let's visit Wikipedia:

"[...] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

Teaching people not to be critical is very, very wrong, in my opinion. Another part of the definition that Wikipedia misses is that controversial (in case of religion: wrong) information is taught as a fact.

 

[Retro Rob]

I do not disagree, but like PowerEngineer said, the word is well defined. However, adults have tools to deal with indoctrination. Even if your employer asks you to follow company guidelines without question, you'll be able to turn that off when you go home. It takes serious effort to brain wash an adult, it doesn't take much to brain wash a susceptible child. Unlike believing Santa Claus is real, most will not be able to accept that God does not exist when they grow up.

Well, I have no reason to believe Santa Clause is real anyway.

Most people cannot accept that God doesn't exist because he does exist. No adult believes Santa exists because he doesn't exists.

This is extremely simple.

I don't. However, you cannot seriously disagree with the fact that religious groups require children to be indoctrinated to survive? How many people has turned Amish once adult? How many atheists (not agnostic theists) turn religious?

I do disagree with it, because religion is less interested in survival and more interested in teaching their kids what they believe is right. Survival is a result of that. People sincerely believe what they believe.

We look at you all the same way. Now you guys have an atheist channel. This is viewed as a recruitment tool. And I am willing to bet your kids wouldn't learn that God isn't real. This knife cuts both ways.

Grow up in an atheist home and you're likely to be one as an adult, grow up in a religious one, same result. WE need to admit that our beliefs are based more on our culture and when/where we're born, and less on facts.

I think atheists are afraid to admit that their atheism is a result of their culture.

I think religion becomes only interested in survival when the bible is "reinterpreted" to fit into social norms. Now Churches are reexamining the bible in light of them wanting to get and keep gay members.

This is when they want to "survive".

 

[PingviN]

Well, I have no reason to believe Santa Clause is real anyway.

Most people cannot accept that God doesn't exist because he does exist. No adult believes Santa exists because he doesn't exists.

This is extremely simple.

Because that's your religious doctrine. You don't view it in a critical way. You just state that God exist because you believe so and you believe so because you were taught to believe so.

I do disagree with it, because religion is less interested in survival and more interested in teaching their kids what they believe is right. Survival is a result of that. People sincerely believe what they believe.

Yes, instead of teaching the kids to have an open mind they, in a way, force their beliefs on them. The result is a lot of kids that are permanently damaged by their parents abuse.

We look at you all the same way. Now you guys have an atheist channel. This is viewed as a recruitment tool. And I am willing to bet your kids wouldn't learn that God isn't real. This knife cuts both ways.

Grow up in an atheist home and you're likely to be one as an adult, grow up in a religious one, same result. WE need to admit that our beliefs are based more on our culture and when/where we're born, and less on facts.

The difference being that atheism isn't a belief system or a religion. You're not raised as an atheist. An atheist might tell their children that God isn't real if the child asks about God and can back that up by rational thought and argument. Telling a child that God exists because it says so in the Bible is very different. One is teaching, the other is indoctrination.

It's scary how you can even admit that your view is based on a religious doctrine rather than facts.

I think atheists are afraid to admit that their atheism is a result of their culture.

You draw a parallel between religion and atheism, that's fundamentally wrong. Atheism is neither a belief or a set of values.

I think religion becomes only interested in survival when the bible is "reinterpreted" to fit into social norms. Now Churches are reexamining the bible in light of them wanting to get and keep gay members.

This is when they want to "survive".

The Bible has been reinterpreted hundreds of time over. There isn't one christian faith, there are several. Which is the real one?

 

[Retro Rob]

Because that's your religious doctrine. You don't view it in a critical way. You just state that God exist because you believe so and you believe so because you were taught to believe so.

Well, according to my sacred text (the Bible), God has always used humans to tell others about him. So if I leaned from some who carry God's message, I have no issue with that.

Science has fortified my belief in God though, or a higher power, if you will. If it takes intelligence to have something as simple as a book, or complex has a CPU, then how much more is intelligence required to have the earth or the very complex human brain?

In short, arguing the existence of God/higher power is just as asinine as arguing that the earth is flat.

So, I simply don't engage in debating the existence of God, just like I don't engage in debates with flat earthers. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of a creator.

The Bible has been reinterpreted hundreds of time over. There isn't one christian faith, there are several. Which is the real one?

For us, time will tell. There are many, though.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, according to my sacred text (the Bible), God has always used humans to tell others about him. So if I leaned from some who carry God's message, I have no issue with that.

Science has fortified my belief in God though, or a higher power, if you will. If it takes intelligence to have something as simple as a book, or complex has a CPU, then how much more is intelligence required to have the earth or the very complex human brain?

In short, arguing the existence of God/higher power is just as asinine as arguing that the earth is flat.

So, I simply don't engage in debating the existence of God, just like I don't engage in debates with flat earthers. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of a creator.

For us, time will tell. There are many, though.

All that you ascribe to your creator is blasphemy. If your god is infinite, then it is likewise unknowable, and therefore cannot be qualified or quantified. All attributes given are meaningless and unprovable, just as its existence. Any who claim to know or understand your god are liars, as it is unknowable.

 

[witeken]

Well, I have no reason to believe Santa Clause is real anyway.

Most people cannot accept that God doesn't exist because he does exist. No adult believes Santa exists because he doesn't exists.

This is extremely simple.

This is absolutely incorrect. Even your argumentum ad populum fallacy doesn't prove God exists because most people reject your god. Even if it were a valid proof, but if isn't, you could only say that a god exists, and then you have to prove which one of the thousands of them really exists.

I do disagree with it, because religion is less interested in survival and more interested in teaching their kids what they believe is right. Survival is a result of that. People sincerely believe what they believe.

No, you have science if you want to teach kids facts. Science made religion totally obsolete. There's no need to have faith anymore. Also, religion really is interested in survival because that's why religion still exists. It's a religious natural selection of the best indoctrinating religions.

And this is proven by the stats: less and less people believe God exists (just 500-1000 years ago it was 100%) because they got educated and learned to think for themselves and be critical.

We look at you all the same way. Now you guys have an atheist channel. This is viewed as a recruitment tool. And I am willing to bet your kids wouldn't learn that God isn't real. This knife cuts both ways.

Grow up in an atheist home and you're likely to be one as an adult, grow up in a religious one, same result. WE need to admit that our beliefs are based more on our culture and when/where we're born, and less on facts.

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a word for people who aren't religious. Everyone is an atheist when they're born, if you don't get indoctrinated to believe god exists, you (mostly) won't start to believe in him suddenly when you're an adult because there's no evidence.

You really have to separate religion and atheism, they're not the same. It's not abnormal to be an atheist and has nothing to do with culture or where you're born, but for being religious you need a certain culture and being born in a christian,... family. If god does exists, people would automatically start believing in him, even when they're an adult or if they believe in the wrong god.

I think atheists are afraid to admit that their atheism is a result of their culture.

There are tons of religious people who became atheist.