| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2010 07:06:36 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd agree if atheist parents raised their child to be atheist it would also be indoctrination. Fact of the matter, unless you're born in a vaccumn you can't escape indoctrination. Those raised in western societies will have a leaning toward western ideals and so on and so forth. Ultimately it's up to the individual to realize this and then start questioning everything. |
This is my point and it makes the word unuseful. Why even bring it up if everything is taught in this manner? It's a garbage word and garbage words are usually only brought up to throw stones at the other side. "Bigot" is another classic. The word is used exclusively for someone who believes something you do not. Nobody declares someone who is on their side of an issue to be "bigoted". So it basically boils down to a covert insult or dismissal of the position out of hand; and that, my friend, is not the "free thinking" you are espousing. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 07:24:02 PM · #277 |
Stick and stones may break my bones but words can't make me bristle.
No doubt they can.
"Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). 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."
Is one of the references in Yanko's link. If that's a good one then in further response to the post to which I originally responded, then yes, maths is indoctrinated.
I hasten to add that dictionaries of English do not 'define' words, but rather offer a guide to common usage. Words may well be and often are defined in the contexts of legal or scientific documentation. You may say that this is wrong and that dictionaries do define words and indeed show some support for your contention, thus demonstrating that you and I define 'define' differently. Tee hee.
Actually I've just read the last Yanko post that says everyone gets some sort of 'indoctrination' unless they've been raised by sheep - possibly even then ... Which Dr then says renders the word meaningless.
The question then is, do you bristle because of the word itself or because of a siege mentality? |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 07:27:35 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by raish:
The question then is, do you bristle because of the word itself or because of a siege mentality? |
Did you read the rest of my post? |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 07:32:25 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The word as I've seen it used in these threads are pretty consistent with the definitions found here. |
Yep, there is no more accurate term for the process of religious education, and that is the original sense of the word. If critical thought were involved or encouraged, then religions would either be far more diverse among families and cultures or, if any demonstrable evidence of a god existed, a single belief would gain dominance worldwide.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why the assumption I've been indoctrinated? Does anybody who talks to me with any regularity on these threads truly think I do not critically evaluate things? |
You've declared that you were raised Christian, and your posts tend to rely heavily on fallacy and familiar religious dogma. Though you may critically evaluate SOME things, such responses demonstrate rationalization rather than critical thought, and are strongly indicative of indoctrination. AFAIK, you have continued to evade the repeated question of how you know the Christian god is the correct one. Most people tend to hold the faith they were raised to believe, and will seek out evidence confirming that belief rather than actually question it. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 07:36:42 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
The word as I've seen it used in these threads are pretty consistent with the definitions found here. |
Yep, there is no more accurate term for the process of religious education, and that is the original sense of the word. If critical thought were involved or encouraged, then religions would either be far more diverse among families and cultures or, if any demonstrable evidence of a god existed, a single belief would gain dominance worldwide.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why the assumption I've been indoctrinated? Does anybody who talks to me with any regularity on these threads truly think I do not critically evaluate things? |
You've declared that you were raised Christian, and your posts tend to rely heavily on fallacy and familiar religious dogma. Though you may critically evaluate SOME things, such responses demonstrate rationalization rather than critical thought, and are strongly indicative of indoctrination. AFAIK, you have continued to evade the repeated question of how you know the Christian god is the correct one. Most people tend to hold the faith they were raised to believe, and will seek out evidence confirming that belief rather than actually question it. |
Hehe. You've never told us how you were raised, so I'm going to make the assumption you were indoctrinated as well. Does that mean I should disregard everything you say? It would make my life easier.
I have answered "Why I am a Christian" more than once. You can search through the posts to find it. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 07:41:09 PM · #281 |
I found it for you. It was from...duh duh duh...2006...although I found a repeated quote from 2007. I have to say, this demonstrates more openness and honesty than I have seen coming from you about your background. Willing to change that and tell us why you are the way you are and what your upbringing was?
Why I am a Christian:
Rational reasons:
1) The natural world.
I am a scientist. I have spent years and years learning about the universe, our world, life, and ourselves. The more I learn, the more I conclude that it is a larger leap to believe it is all random chance than it is to believe there was a Creator. From the idea that the universe has a beginning to the complexity of the human cell, I see signs of The Watchmaker.
2) Natural Law.
CS Lewis does a far better job with this argument than I could. Anybody who wants to hear it in an eloquent way should read the first 25 pages of Mere Christianity. Basically it can be summed in the argument in the posts above. I sense the world is broken. It is not as it ought to be. Instead of driving me away from God, this drives me to Him because I realize if there were no God I would have no basis to suppose the world had âgone wrongâ at all.
The above two arguments are why I am not an atheist.
3) The historical Jesus.
I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death). I would think at least one of them would have âfessed upâ under the tortures they endured. I also find it hard to explain that the person after Jesus most responsible for spreading Christianity to the world, Paul, was originally hell-bent on stopping it by all means necessary. I cannot rationally explain such a conversion.
Personal reasons:
4) Grace
I fully accept that much, if not all of the reasons I am a Christian are out of my control. I was born in a time, place, and position to hear about Jesus. I was given the intelligence and personality to hear and accept it. This is all from God. I am blessed.
5) The hole in my heart.
After all the rational arguments above, I am acutely aware that my heart yearns and longs for something it cannot find on Earth. Nothing I have tried has satisfied it. Being an American, I have had my fill of pleasure and possessions. They do nothing for me. One of my favorite quotes is by Albert Camus and greets people on my personal blog. âBecause I longed for eternal life, I went to bed with harlots and drank for nights on end. I slept in bliss, but awoke with the bitter taste of the mortal state.â To me, this is Truth. You can rip away each and every argument above and I would still know in a way more intense than anything else that I am incomplete.
Message edited by author 2010-06-18 20:04:31. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 08:13:11 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is my point and it makes the word unuseful. Why even bring it up if everything is taught in this manner? It's a garbage word and garbage words are usually only brought up to throw stones at the other side. "Bigot" is another classic. The word is used exclusively for someone who believes something you do not. Nobody declares someone who is on their side of an issue to be "bigoted". So it basically boils down to a covert insult or dismissal of the position out of hand; and that, my friend, is not the "free thinking" you are espousing. |
Is that directed at me? Have I insulted you? I'm pretty sure I didn't call you a bigot or even brought up the indoctrination let alone use it as a negative. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 08:38:13 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is my point and it makes the word unuseful. Why even bring it up if everything is taught in this manner? It's a garbage word and garbage words are usually only brought up to throw stones at the other side. "Bigot" is another classic. The word is used exclusively for someone who believes something you do not. Nobody declares someone who is on their side of an issue to be "bigoted". So it basically boils down to a covert insult or dismissal of the position out of hand; and that, my friend, is not the "free thinking" you are espousing. |
Is that directed at me? Have I insulted you? I'm pretty sure I didn't call you a bigot or even brought up the indoctrination let alone use it as a negative. |
No, sorry. It was not aimed at you. I was just using your phrase because I agree, if we dismiss something without even listen as "indoctrination" or dismiss someone without listening as a "bigot" then we are actually doing exactly what we accuse the other of.
Everybody have a great weekend! I'm tired. Hugely busy day at work. Grass pollen has got everybody miserable. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 09:25:24 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Bigot" is another classic. The word is used exclusively for someone who believes something you do not. Nobody declares someone who is on their side of an issue to be "bigoted". So it basically boils down to a covert insult or dismissal of the position out of hand; and that, my friend, is not the "free thinking" you are espousing. |
I would tend to disagree with your position in this instance. It may very well occur that we might agree on the basics of an argument, but that one of us carries this view to an extreme... and that could be considered a bigoted viewpoint.
Therein lies the difference... at least in my view.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 09:29:28 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
AFAIK, you have continued to evade the repeated question of how you know the Christian god is the correct one. |
I have answered "Why I am a Christian" more than once... |
Your response does not answer the question. Setting aside that all five of your points are fallacious, the only one that even addresses a Christian god vs. others is #3, and it doesn't really make that distinction either. There were plenty of martyrs who died for their faith in every other major religion, too. If a political figure who was hell bent on fighting gay marriage suddenly revealed that HE was gay and started pushing for gay rights, would you jump on that bandwagon? Not likely. So really the ONLY reason you've given for assuming the Christian god is the correct one is that you were told a story you found compelling, and point #4 basically basically acknowledges that indoctrination. BTW, having Jesus and most of his disciples tortured to death isn't a very comforting thought if you expect help from above.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have to say, this demonstrates more openness and honesty than I have seen coming from you about your background. Willing to change that and tell us why you are the way you are and what your upbringing was? ...You've never told us how you were raised, so I'm going to make the assumption you were indoctrinated as well. Does that mean I should disregard everything you say? |
Originally posted by scalvert, 04/11/2008 12:40:21 PM:
I'm from central Pennsylvania, so it's no surprise that my background is Methodist. |
Yep, totally indoctrinated by a deeply religious family in a deeply religious community. Before I could even walk, I was being told that everyone is a sinner, God created the universe, snakes talk, and all the other stuff we're expected to accept without question or critical thought. I participated in all the formal rituals, served as acolyte and sang in the chorus. Why that should have any bearing whatsoever on whether you disregard or accept everything I say is a fallacy of necessity on your part. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 09:44:44 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by raish:
"Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). 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."
Is one of the references in Yanko's link. If that's a good one then in further response to the post to which I originally responded, then yes, maths is indoctrinated. |
Math (or as Achoo expanded, "everything") is NOT indoctrinated. You missed the distinction between education and indoctrination. A teacher doesn't say, "You must believe 1+1=2 because this book says so." She'll have you count on your fingers or shuffle pennies to demonstrate the fact, and you may question it or apply critical thinking to your heart's content. "Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine." |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 10:13:00 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd have to say you don't evaluate outside of your comfort zone. All your conclusions are predictable. |
Pfft. Are anybody else's conclusions not predictable? Come on.
We've talked on IM a lot, but I have to say your last two posts about me seem to reveal you don't have a very high opinion of who I am. |
Stop feeling sorry for yourself. I treat everyone with intellectual honesty -- everyone worth talking to, that is. Anyway, your "Pffff" is one of those examples of your dismissiveness and less-than-interesting responses. Nasty, even. Anyway, enough of dragging personalities into the discussion.
I had thought about adding, "In answer to your predicted response that everyone's conclusions are predicatable...", but decided to wait.
If there were incontrovertible evidence to upset my opinion, my conclusion would be exactly the opposite of what it would be without it. Obviously. I don't think that can be said for the die-hard believers. An admission that their faith could potentially be founded on falsehoods is a kind of heresy. Doesn't happen.
So, no, not everyone's conclusions are predictable -- that is, predetermined. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 10:15:09 PM · #288 |
| Based on no evidence whatsoever, I've got to bet that if there are gods of some kind, the vast majority of them have moved on to something more interesting by now. At least I'd hope so. I look at the world and think what a waste we've made of it. How very sad. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 10:19:14 PM · #289 |
| There's a beautiful Bowie song called "Seven", with the line, "The gods forgot they made me, so I forgot them too." Your post reminded me of it. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 11:18:37 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Based on no evidence whatsoever, I've got to bet that if there are gods of some kind, the vast majority of them have moved on to something more interesting by now. |
I think Loki's been lowballing my score for most of the week, and the update button is making my finger Thor. |
|
|
|
06/18/2010 11:58:58 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If there were incontrovertible evidence to upset my opinion, my conclusion would be exactly the opposite of what it would be without it. Obviously. I don't think that can be said for the die-hard believers. An admission that their faith could potentially be founded on falsehoods is a kind of heresy. Doesn't happen. |
Bollocks Louis. If there were "incontrovertible evidence to upset my opinion", my conclusions too would be exactly the opposite of what it would be without it. The problem is there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence in these discussions is there? So your claim, to put it bluntly, is all for show. I declare that every person here that is talking on these threads would not deny "incontrovertible evidence". This is how I am different from you. I allow that of my opponent. I understand they are intelligent. It's a courtesy I rarely receive in return.
As far as your earlier comment about me not thinking outside my comfort zone, how about that Oxford Bible Commentary you gifted me? What was your motive for that? I doubt it was because it's a commentary that would be accepted far and wide by the rank and file Christian. I know it was because you felt it would be my first step down the path you took. That the points the Commentary would raise were the ones that drove you from your own faith. I knew that going in. Yet I accepted it, AND I use it. I think it's a great aid for the very reason it takes a look from outside the circle of believers. It is unbiased in that regard. Is that not a willingness to think outside my comfort zone?
How about the fact I enjoy(ed) talking to you on IM? Is it outside the die-hard Christian's comfort zone to seek out conversation with a person such as yourself? That I participate on these threads because I feel it is worthwhile to know why people don't hold the beliefs I do? |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 10:00:04 AM · #292 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is how I am different from you. I allow that of my opponent. I understand they are intelligent. It's a courtesy I rarely receive in return. |
I disagree, and I accuse you of routinely confusing an attack against the positions you hold and the way you go about presenting them with an attack against your character. Nobody has called you a meathead or a moron. Plenty of people have called your reasoning flaccid and your positions weak, for good reason, and in all fairness. Making the connection between a weak argument and low intelligence is a mistake you're making.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as your earlier comment about me not thinking outside my comfort zone, how about that Oxford Bible Commentary you gifted me? What was your motive for that? |
Lovely. I had a "motive". I have to say, that's pretty insulting. I give shit to people all the time because I can. It seemed the most appropriate thing to give someone like you at Christmas. I had no ulterior motive; I have no way of knowing the depth of the fundamentalist views you hold, and, being the scientist you are (as you so often remind us), scholarship and a something close to your views seemed apropos. My bad, I guess.
About the Commentary not being "main stream" enough for the rank-and-file, just read the first paragraph of the introduction. "We envisage that the Commentary will be used by pastors preparing sermons, by groups of people reading the Bible together in study or discussion groups, and by anyone who seeks a clearer perspective on a text that they hold in reverence as religiously inspiring." Your suspicions of scholarship are unsettling.
Repeatedly bringing this stuff up here, IM etc., is bad form, and is, in fact, an appeal to emotion that I am particularly resistant to.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2010 10:57:53 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by Louis:
About the Commentary not being "main stream" enough for the rank-and-file, just read the first paragraph of the introduction. "We envisage that the Commentary will be used by pastors preparing sermons, by groups of people reading the Bible together in study or discussion groups, and by anyone who seeks a clearer perspective on a text that they hold in reverence as religiously inspiring." |
Had to go look that up.......sounds REALLY good!
Description:
Whether you see the Bible as the living word of God, or as a highly significant document from the ancient world, or as one of the classic works of world literature, The Oxford Bible Commentary will put in your hands everything you need to study and understand the biblical text.
Here is a monumental, line-by-line critical commentary on the Bible, covering all the books that appear in the NRSV. An essential reference work, this definitive book provides authoritative, non-denominational commentary written by an international team of more than 70 leading scholars from various religious backgrounds. Incorporating the latest research, the contributors examine the books of the Bible in exhaustive detail, taking a historical-critical approach that attempts to shed light on the scriptures by placing them in the context in which their first audiences would have encountered them, asking how they came to be composed and what were the purposes of their authors. The Commentary includes a general introduction, extensive introductions to both testaments and the Apocrypha, and briefer introductions to the particular books, plus an essay with commentary on important post-biblical Jewish and Christian literature. Each article concludes with a bibliography that points the reader toward the most important supplemental works in English, including major reference works, introductions, and so forth.
A truly stunning work of biblical scholarship, The Oxford Bible Commentary will be an invaluable resource for pastors preparing a sermon, for students, for those in study or discussion groups, and indeed for anyone--whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian--who seeks a clearer perspective on a text that has been held in reverence for thousands of years.
Is this considered to be a definitive work among scholars outside the Oxford folks?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2010 11:10:21 AM · #294 |
| Probably just among those who wear Oxford shirts. |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 11:18:23 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Nobody has called you a meathead or a moron. Plenty of people have called your reasoning flaccid and your positions weak, for good reason, and in all fairness. |
Awww, baby, you know I think you are beautiful, even if you do have an ugly mug. I don't think that would have gotten me too far on the dating scene.
Originally posted by Louis:
Repeatedly bringing this stuff up here, IM etc., is bad form, and is, in fact, an appeal to emotion that I am particularly resistant to. |
Apparently we are both robots then.
Feel free to IM me if you ever want to smooth things over...
Message edited by author 2010-06-19 11:38:23. |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 12:19:08 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd agree if atheist parents raised their child to be atheist it would also be indoctrination. Fact of the matter, unless you're born in a vaccumn you can't escape indoctrination. Those raised in western societies will have a leaning toward western ideals and so on and so forth. Ultimately it's up to the individual to realize this and then start questioning everything. |
This is my point and it makes the word unuseful. Why even bring it up if everything is taught in this manner? It's a garbage word and garbage words are usually only brought up to throw stones at the other side. "Bigot" is another classic. The word is used exclusively for someone who believes something you do not. Nobody declares someone who is on their side of an issue to be "bigoted". So it basically boils down to a covert insult or dismissal of the position out of hand; and that, my friend, is not the "free thinking" you are espousing. |
I call BS.
Are children indoctrinated to not to not believe in Zeus, or is not believing in Zeus an implication of being indoctrinated to believe in God instead?
I can tell you for a fact that religion is a non-issue in my parents house, and was only mentioned when the children brought it up, and then pretty much waved off with a 'we don't do that like some people do, but your grandparents were Protestant if anything'. I was certainly NOT indoctrinated into my atheism/agnosticism. THERE IS NO DOCTRINE. There was no teaching. There was no express transfer. Is simple osmosis indoctrination? I don't think so.
I'm sure there are some indoctrinated atheists. But please. You're making the same mistake as calling atheism a faith or religion. It's a freakin' absence! And it's a way of thinking that most people, here in this religion saturated society, must come to all by themselves because they certainly aren't being taught it in churches or schools. Quite the opposite.
To proffer a self-serving analogy... you're making the same mistake as people who think gays recruit kids into 'the lifestyle' when kids just are gay and us older folks simply aren't turning them away from the club. People come to it themselves. Just like atheism, in the US at least. |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 01:23:37 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as your earlier comment about me not thinking outside my comfort zone, how about that Oxford Bible Commentary you gifted me? What was your motive for that? |
Lovely. I had a "motive". I have to say, that's pretty insulting. |
I didn't read it that way. Personally, I don't think "motive" is a negative term, but a neutral one. The way I read Doc's question, he's saying "If you didn't give me the commentary to shake me lose from my comfort zone, then why did you give it?" In context, it seems a reasonable question, since you've been implying that he never DOES leave his comfort zone...
I'm just a rubbernecker at this little scene-of-carnage, but it seems to me both sides are being a tad bit prickly...
R.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2010 06:28:03 PM · #298 |
Gosh, guys, give it a break. Don't you have family? Friends? Significant others? The great out of doors? SOMETHING else you can do?
Heretofor or whatever that term is (that looks wrong): From now on:
Jason is granted his inalienable right to his god - he does not have to justify that god to anyone other than himself if he doesn't want to. Louis is granted his inalienable right to have no god, and that doesn't even need to be the same no god for Shannon. Though I would love to know why one is better than the other, I would also like to ask that those WITH gods allow others with different gods the right to breathe the same air. It is not divided among the godly, godless or "my god is better than yours" - just pretty much exists kinda evenly (not counting altitude) everywhere. Let it be.
Go outside. Play with your loved ones. Enjoy the fact that as man, we take and take and take and rarely give back. Heck even when we die, most put their bodies in a sealed container so the earth can't even reclaim what little is left.
And I promise to seek professional help in the near future, really, I do.
:-) |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 06:39:39 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Very wise and intelligent and rational people who have given long and hard thought to the problem have come to diametrically opposed conclusions. |
Wise and intelligent and rational people can still believe ridiculous propositions.
There was an actual historical figure in ancient times who taught a devoted sect of followers temperance, harmony and transmigration of the soul. He is apparently said to have walked on water, raised the dead, turned water into wine, and ascended bodily into heaven. Women were given equal opportunity to study the faith, the sect was persecuted, and his disciples likely murdered for their beliefs. He didn't write anything down, and what is known of his life and teachings comes from the varying accounts of four principle authors and many lesser writers. Surprise: this person was Pythagoras, who lived about 500 years before Jesus! The stories of Jesus may be compelling to some, but they're hardly unique or original.
Message edited by author 2010-06-19 19:28:54. |
|
|
|
06/19/2010 10:38:10 PM · #300 |
| Is he the guy who is responsible for a^2 + b^2 = c^2? |
|
