Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indoctrination
#26

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 01:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

You can tell them this:

Jesus was supposed to save humankind after the fall of man, but evolutionary theory proves there was no fall of man.  The Bible is mythology, as both science and careful scholarship show.

Also, brain studies show consciousness is brain-dependent.  We therefore do not have immortal souls.

Your opinions are improbable in the extreme, so I can confidently say I know you are wrong.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Chas, epronovost
Reply
#27

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 06:30 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview.  You are so full of shit.

Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.

That would be true if it only contained the specific instruction that you are referring to here. But it does not, so you are simply cherry-picking here. The Bible compels both peaceful and violent actions. Moreover, you've screwed up the very verse that you are drawing upon. The commandment to love your neighbor as thyself is the SECOND greatest commandment, behind the duty to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Where the two conflict, the first takes precedence. The very first of the ten commandments is that you shall have no other God before Yahweh. What was the example given? Christians persecuting people who put other gods before Yahweh. The very argument you made about a Christian's duty to indoctrinate their children depends upon the putting of God first being an ultimate imperative, a fact you seem to have overlooked. The only person here who is obviously wrong is you. You're twisting the bible to fit your own agenda. It does not say what you want it to say. In fact, it's quite otherwise.

Hell, we have Christians today arguing that their religious belief allows them to persecute gay people with discrimination. The church itself has a long history of persecution. Jesus himself advised his followers that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and instructed his followers to sell what they had in order to buy swords. No, Steve, in order to show that I am wrong, you need to show that these actions which you lay at the foot of individuals' consciences was not driven by the clear commands in the bible, but by something else. I suggest you get to showing that tout de suite.

Speaking of which, the only person here doing mental gymnastics by being vague here is you. You're a hypocrite, Steve. When vagueness suits you, you indulge. When it doesn't, you bitch.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • mordant, Chas
Reply
#28

Indoctrination
Parents teach their children plenty of things that simply are not true. Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, when we know damn well how wrong it is to trick them into believing something for a few years before ripping it from them. We need to do away with teaching kids these things when they are gullible and have not yet reached the age of reason. The same goes for teaching religious mythology disguised as faith to those who are simply too young to do anything except accept what their parents are teaching them.

If parents waited until their children have reached the age to reason on their own, there would be less religious people in the world. Childhood indoctrination is an evil that needs to end.
The following 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post:
  • Glossophile
Reply
#29

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 01:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

This is a great example of needing to be vague because the underlying support for such a position evaporates or becomes an obvious list of unsupported opinions if examined.

1. The Hebrew messiah was not ever the one to "die for sin". That was never the role of the "anointed one". Christians cooked that up when the end-times didn't happened, as they expected.
All of Christianity does not flow from Hebrew culture as claimed, (the OT). It's ALL bogus, as any scholar of the OT knows.

2. 500 people did not rise on Easter with Jesus, and walk about Jerusalem, as claimed. (Someone secular would have mentioned it. They didn't). No rocks were documented as "split", no temple curtain was torn, as no Jew mentioned this monumental event. No graves were documented as being "opened". No Roman occupier mentions all the dead people walking about.

Conclusion :
Your gospels are metaphorical, and nothing but the retelling of the beliefs of believers. It was an age of "miracles". The literacy rate was quite low. Yeah ... it's all bullshit.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • mordant, brunumb
Reply
#30

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 01:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

This is a great example of needing to be vague because the underlying support for such a position evaporates or becomes an obvious list of unsupported opinions if examined.
Shifting the burden of proof. How......disingenuous.
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#31

Indoctrination
If there were as much truth and virtue in christianity as some of you would have me believe, after 2000 years the whole world should be christian.

That has not happened, even after periods of time where whole populations were subjected to forced conversion.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#32

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 02:27 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

This is a great example of needing to be vague because the underlying support for such a position evaporates or becomes an obvious list of unsupported opinions if examined.
Shifting the burden of proof. How......disingenuous.

How expected. Dodgy
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#33

Indoctrination
As soon as you start trying to regulate emotional responses -- for example, trying to guilt-trip people over the alleged sacrifice of Jesus; encouraging people to see themselves as "filthy rags"; or anything that plays upon fear of hell -- you are clearly in indoctrination territory.

I somehow managed to get good marks in high school geometry without worshipping Pythagoras or having nightmares about isosceles triangles, so the comparison to regular schooling is an epic fail.
The following 9 users Like Astreja's post:
  • Deesse23, Szuchow, possibletarian, Alan V, mordant, epronovost, brunumb, Tres Leches, Glossophile
Reply
#34

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 11:36 AM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: You are asserting that the worldview was not critically assessed. How would you know that apart from a question begging argument (Christians are wrong, therefore we know they have not critically assessed their worldview)?

From personal experience and by talking with other people.  Just because many Christians may attempt to critically assess their beliefs doesn't mean they can be successful in doing so. They need access to the tools which will enable them to do so, the information and the thinking tools.  Without those, they merely flounder around.

This is where the restriction of information in indoctrination systems really takes its toll.  People can be well-meaning and sincere, and still be trapped.

That is quite a claim. If I understand you right, you are claiming that Christians can't think critically (or often can't). That requires a huge burden of proof. What non-special pleading or question-begging basis can show to this to be even remotely true?

Quote:
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere. 

Evolutionary theory is a very successful argument for naturalism as well as for atheism if understood properly.  So are scientific advances in brain studies.

Not at all. "Evolutionary theory" is not an argument. Since I don't want to derail this thread with what are justified inferences from what we know about evolution, I will grant you for this discussion that anything you want to believe about evolution is true. It simply does not follow, at all, that naturalism is true. It is a non sequitur. Brain studies do nothing for naturalism either. There are no good positive arguments for naturalism and you can't actually defeat the arguments for supernaturalism--at best you have "we just don't know". There is also the Argument from Reason (both Lewis and Plantinga) where evolution actually hurts the case of naturalism. All this does NOT add up to "very successful".

Quote:
(03-09-2020, 03:19 AM)SteveII Wrote: A belief cannot be warranted unless a person has been presented with conflicting opinions? 

Someone's belief can't be warranted if they are merely indoctrinated.  I'm not addressing specifics, but general principles.

That's not an answer to my question. You are hiding behind vague concepts that you, ironically, don't have warrant for. Say a child was reared in an entirely atheistic culture. Then by your own logic they do not have warrant to believe in naturalism without understanding all the different claims/divisions of supernaturalism? Your desire to deny the Christian their beliefs has left with a twisted up epistemology that you can't defend.

If you are tempted to say that naturalism is right and Christianity is wrong and that is the difference, you have begged the question unless you can prove either right or wrong. No one can, so again, how do you defend your claim?
Reply
#35

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 02:08 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 01:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

You can tell them this:

Jesus was supposed to save humankind after the fall of man, but evolutionary theory proves there was no fall of man.  The Bible is mythology, as both science and careful scholarship show.

This is what I taught them: The first three chapters of Genesis are linguistically different from the rest of Genesis both in style and come from a different time in history (use of older language). The context was that there were other creation accounts from other civilization (including the recent 400 years the Jews spent in Egypt) and it is likely that the Jews were passing this one down long before Genesis was written to teach their children the distinctions from other religions: that the world is a created entity (no endowed with its own spirituality) and done so by the monotheistic God they worshiped. The actual Hebrew is poetic and highly structured--which is easier to recite and teach from generation to generation (oral tradition) and clearly not meant to be a science text (since very few science text are written in poetic form).

So, was it 6 days, 6 periods, 6 billion years? Who knows. As long as you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the cosmos and humans are in the image of God, there are a variety of ways you can assemble a systematic theology and still be internally consistent.

They also can tell the difference between the 66 books that you lump together and characterize by just three chapters. Is accuracy part of critical thinking?

Quote:Also, brain studies show consciousness is brain-dependent.  We therefore do not have immortal souls.

I certainly believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Souls require a body to be conscious. Probably why the Bible teaches we are to get new bodies that do not decay. Anyway, you have another non sequitur there. You have no idea if we have a soul or not.

Quote:Your opinions are improbable in the extreme, so I can confidently say I know you are wrong.

Well, that just shows either a disregard for logic and/or the definition of 'know'. It is also obvious because it sets up fallacious arguments left and right.
Reply
#36

Indoctrination
Firstly, I'm sorry to hear that SteveII is apparently indoctrinating his children with the antiquated dogma
of Christianity—in a scientifically enlightened 21st century.  In my opinion, as a lifelong atheist, I consider
this to be a form of psychological child abuse, considering that those same religious tenets are denying his
children, at least in part, the right of an education based upon logic, the sciences, rationale, and suitable
frames of reference.  To be teaching any child in a contemporary, educated society that supernatural entities
and paranormal phenomena exist in the real world is a deceptive and unfair imposition.

Steve Wrote:Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

He also says that "There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere".   Apart
from not understanding what "literal" means, of course there is no argument for atheism...duh.  It's simply
a singular, personal state of mind held by an individual—just like anger, happiness, or fear, or sadness.  There
are no atheist dogma, holy books, temples of worship, preachers, rules and regulations, superstitions, or fear
of the unknown or an imaginary afterlife.

Steve Wrote:It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance.

And herein lies the major problem with Christianity (and most other religions). The belief in dark ages fantasies
of imaginary, mythical gods, superstitious fears, scientific ignorance, deliberate distortions of fact,  third-party
hearsay, selective misrepresentations, and even outright lies.

That anybody living today determines their lifestyle, or morals or ethics utilising a millennia-old text written by a
scientifically-unenlightened, geographically-isolated, disparate group of desert nomads is both laughable and
worrisome.  And SteveII is a perfect example of exactly what that ignorance can lead to.      Pity his children.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#37

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:02 PM)SteveII Wrote: I certainly believe that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Souls require a body to be conscious. Probably why the Bible teaches we are to get new bodies that do not decay. Anyway, you have another non sequitur there. You have no idea if we have a soul or not.

Do you claim to know ?

And why believe the Bible ? Can you show it is inspired in any way by a being who would know ?
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#38

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:21 PM)SteveII Wrote: If you are tempted to say that naturalism is right and Christianity is wrong and that is the difference, you have begged the question unless you can prove either right or wrong. No one can, so again, how do you defend your claim?

All of your denials are based on outdated philosophical arguments.  Philosophy is no basis for knowledge.  Science and scholarship are, as I have said before.  I am arguing that I know certain things on the basis of science and scholarship.  If you want to deny my knowledge as I define the word "knowledge," then you had better be able to demonstrate where science and scholarship say I'm incorrect.  You can't do that because nothing you say is based on either.

Again, your knowledge claim that "no one can know" is incorrect, because it is based on philosophical arguments alone. You need verifiable factual premises.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • SYZ, possibletarian
Reply
#39

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 06:30 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: 3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview.  You are so full of shit.

Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.

I'd love to meet, in the real world, someone who actually practices the version of christeranity whose rosy portrait you attempt to paint. What we typically see in real life is the christeranity that leads to the murder of doctors who work at women's clinics.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 2 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Fireball, Tres Leches
Reply
#40

Indoctrination
deleted: Double Post
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#41

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:02 PM)SteveII Wrote: So, was it 6 days, 6 periods, 6 billion years? Who knows. As long as you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the cosmos and humans are in the image of God, there are a variety of ways you can assemble a systematic theology and still be internally consistent.

Sure you can if you believe it to be wrong in its details, Seems an awfully long winded way to say a few sentences, why all the silly (false) detail in a book written by a god ?  Truth is you can make any myth up and make it internally consistent, being internally consistent is no measure or indication that something is  true. 

Differing theologies show this, not all can be true, yet all could be untrue.


Quote:They also can tell the difference between the 66 books that you lump together and characterize by just three chapters. Is accuracy part of critical thinking?

Well if it's so symbolic why take the rest literally ?  Did Donkeys really talk, Did the sun and moon stand still, was there a flood, do people float about on clouds and chariots ?

Quote:Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.

That is what we would expect of a people led by a real god who really puts his spirit in people, yet all we see in Christianity is the same mumbo jumbo and acts we see from other religions.  What we see is a faith that claims good rules yet it's laws are definitely not written on the hearts of believers.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#42

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:31 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: I'd love to meet, in the real world, someone who actually practices the version of christeranity whose rosy portrait you attempt to paint. What we typically see in real life is the christeranity that leads to the murder of doctors who work at women's clinics.

The issue is that christianity has distanced itself from the biblical version of christ.
Reply
#43

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 04:31 PM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: I'd love to meet, in the real world, someone who actually practices the version of christeranity whose rosy portrait you attempt to paint. What we typically see in real life is the christeranity that leads to the murder of doctors who work at women's clinics.

The issue is that christianity has distanced itself from the biblical version of christ.

Depends what 'biblical version' you cherry-pick out. You can support just about any version you want, from angry warlord to peaceful hippy, with the proper selection of cherry-picked verses.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#44

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 02:11 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-09-2020, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 06:30 PM)Dānu Wrote: Funny how out of this side of your mouth you argue that holding the Christian worldview and ideology is incompatible with any other, that it is exclusive as you say, and that to not act upon that information would make one not Christian, yet out of the other side of your mouth you claim that Christian persecution of Pagans is a consequence of individual Christians' choices, and not a consequence of the ideology or worldview.  You are so full of shit.

Your point requires that this Christian "information" be vague. It is not vague. It is specific. It is certainly a core Christian belief that understanding and accepting the Gospel is of the utmost importance. On the other side of your point, it is decidedly not a Christian ideal to persecute anyone. So, your point is obviously wrong: Christianity compels AND limits actions.

That would be true if it only contained the specific instruction that you are referring to here.  But it does not, so you are simply cherry-picking here.  The Bible compels both peaceful and violent actions.  

Ah, so you want to conflate instructions given to govern an ancient theocracy with those given in the NT addressed to those who would be Christians and call them all Christian? Especially when they are contradictory. No, NT instructions on how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians are not vague and none remotely compel violence.

Quote:Moreover, you've screwed up the very verse that you are drawing upon.  The commandment to love your neighbor as thyself is the SECOND greatest commandment, behind the duty to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.  Where the two conflict, the first takes precedence.  

Matt 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

When would they ever conflict?

Quote:The very first of the ten commandments is that you shall have no other God before Yahweh.  What was the example given?  Christians persecuting people who put other gods before Yahweh.  The very argument you made about a Christian's duty to indoctrinate their children depends upon the putting of God first being an ultimate imperative, a fact you seem to have overlooked.  The only person here who is obviously wrong is you.  You're twisting the bible to fit your own agenda.  It does not say what you want it to say.  In fact, it's quite otherwise.

See my first point.

Quote:Hell, we have Christians today arguing that their religious belief allows them to persecute gay people with discrimination.  The church itself has a long history of persecution.  Jesus himself advised his followers that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and instructed his followers to sell what they had in order to buy swords.  No, Steve, in order to show that I am wrong, you need to show that these actions which you lay at the foot of individuals' consciences was not driven by the clear commands in the bible, but by something else.  I suggest you get to showing that tout de suite.

Persecuting gay people is against the second greatest commandment. In context, Jesus was referring to how hard it would be for the early Christians--something they did not yet realize.

Speaking of which, the only person here doing mental gymnastics by being vague here is you.  You're a hypocrite, Steve.  When vagueness suits you, you indulge.  When it doesn't, you bitch.

When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.
Reply
#45

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: Ah, so you want to conflate instructions given to govern an ancient theocracy with those given in the NT addressed to those who would be Christians and call them all Christian?  Especially when they are contradictory. No, NT instructions on how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians are not vague and none remotely compel violence.

And yet those who call themselves Christians do partake in violence, sexual misconduct, theft, lies, deceit, evidence that in fact their alleged commune with the almighty is simply untrue. But it exactly what we would expect if it were all made up.



Quote:Persecuting gay people is against the second greatest commandment. In context, Jesus was referring to how hard it would be for the early Christians--something they did not yet realize.

And yet the same alleged god ordered that they be stoned.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#46

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.

Well isn't the notion of god and the supernatural vague in itself, it's defined in such a way to be indistinguishable from non existence itself.
Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid.
Reply
#47

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 04:54 PM)SteveII Wrote: When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.

If we change that to "I believe  you are wrong," on what grounds would you challenge that belief?  Absent evidence that is up to the other person's standards, you're going to have a hard time changing that person's mind.  Until that happens, they believe what they believe and there isn't a lot you can do about that.

As for your statement "There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere," that is flat-out hyperbole.  The existence of one person with a naturalistic worldview is sufficient to support it.  The same as for atheism -- The existence of one atheist is sufficient.  I can be that hypothetical person, if you'd like.  I see a naturally-occurring universe, and inadequate evidence for gods.  My view of the universe simply cannot be arbitrarily gainsaid, declared "unsuccessful," merely on your say-so.
The following 3 users Like Astreja's post:
  • Alan V, TheGentlemanBastard, Glossophile
Reply
#48

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 01:05 PM)mordant Wrote:
(03-08-2020, 04:18 PM)SteveII Wrote: I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Quote:Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>



A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

Nice try, and I would have made a very similar argument 30 years ago.

While there are of course individual variances in the degree to which Christian beliefs are allowed to be fairly compared and contrasted with other beliefs and with good-faith critiques, in my experience and observation such permissiveness is very much the exception, not the rule.

The basic problem with presuppositionalism is that it asserts non-falsifiable premises. You can talk about "natural and revealed theology", the stories from the first century, and personal experience all you want, but you can't get around that.

I don't subscribe to presuppositional apologetics.

Quote:For this reason you are obliged to teach your children that something is truth, which cannot be actually established as truth. And if you are anything but utterly indifferent to the judgments your children make about that, or whether they choose to follow it, then you by definition ARE indoctrinating them.

Teaching a belief that you have warrant to believe is true is not equivalent to indoctrination. I didn't say that indoctrination does not happen. But the vast majority of you claim it happens because of the nature of the belief. Notice the difference in the two things an atheist can claim?

Quote:All that said, I am not suggesting this is done with nefarious (or anything really but the best) intent. To the extent people are limiting the beliefs of their children, or "protecting" them from divergent beliefs ("error" or "heresy"), they do it because they themselves are indoctrinated to fear and loathe such "wrong" beliefs, and to imagine that they lead to unhappiness and depravity, and ultimately, to perdition.

You are taking the more modest claim - indoctrination happens. I agree.
Reply
#49

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 02:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Parents teach their children plenty of things that simply are not true. Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, when we know damn well how wrong it is to trick them into believing something for a few years before ripping it from them. We need to do away with teaching kids these things when they are gullible and have not yet reached the age of reason. The same goes for teaching religious mythology disguised as faith to those who are simply too young to do anything except accept what their parents are teaching them.

If parents waited until their children have reached the age to reason on their own, there would be less religious people in the world. Childhood indoctrination is an evil that needs to end.

My wife, who has never seen the point of religious faith and had only the most minimal exposure to religion as a child, took the position with her children that they should make up their own minds about such matters. Her daughter was always curious about the Bible stories and so on, so she was given a children's Bible and my wife used to read to her out of it at bedtime. The daughter went to her birth father's mainline denominational church throughout her childhood.

When she reached her teen years she started to Ask Questions. Finally in her senior year in HS she joined a catechism class which was presented as an "open, objective inquiry". Problem was they expected a very particular conclusion to be drawn as a result of this "inquiry". At the end of the class when she was supposed to present her own findings, her finding was that "god doesn't exist". Everyone else's jaws were on the floor. She just shrugged and said "I was supposed to draw my own conclusions, so I did". She never even discussed any of this with us, BTW.

She has not attended church since, and it's been 8 years now.

By contrast my stepson never bought it in the slightest, has always been an atheist from the cradle, like his Mom, although far more militant about it. Religion offends his sense of integrity in a profound way.

If you leave kids the freedom to explore all options and you give them access to all options and answer their questions objectively when asked, then if they end up embracing some religion or other it was probably going to happen anyway. If they don't, though, then they've come by their convictions freely. If they drink some Kool-Air or other at least it is not because you foisted it upon them, and they probably will get more from their beliefs that way ... as well as knowing on some level they aren't permanently welded to them if they don't work out like they hope.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Alan V, brunumb, Phaedrus
Reply
#50

Indoctrination
(03-09-2020, 03:13 PM)Astreja Wrote: As soon as you start trying to regulate emotional responses -- for example, trying to guilt-trip people over the alleged sacrifice of Jesus; encouraging people to see themselves as "filthy rags"; or anything that plays upon fear of hell -- you are clearly in indoctrination territory.

You are making statements that show that you are unclear about the teaching and process. If you become a Christian because of fear of hell, you have misunderstood the gospel. Four paragraphs into the Wiki on "The Gospel" and still no mention of hell, filthy rags, or guilt that Jesus died:

Quote:In Christianity, the gospel (Greek: εὐαγγέλιον, translit. euangélion; Old English: gōdspel; Latin: ēvangelium, Ecclesiastical Latin: [evanˈdʒeli.um]), or the Good News, is the news of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1,Mark 1:14-15). The message of good news is described as a narrative in the four canonical gospels.

The message of good news is described as theology in many of the New Testament letters. It relates to the saving acts of God due to the work of Jesus on the cross and Jesus' resurrection from the dead which bring reconciliation ("atonement") between people and God. The apostle Paul's gospel is of Jesus's death on the cross and resurrection to restore people's relationship with God. It may also include the descent of the Holy Spirit upon believers and the second coming of Jesus. Paul gave the following summary (translated into English) of this good news (gospel) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,one of his letters to Christians in the city of Corinth:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NASB)

Christian theology describes the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ not as a new concept, but one that has been foretold throughout the Old Testament and was prophetically preached even at the time of the fall of man as contained in Genesis 3:14–15,[1] which has been called the "Proto-Evangelion" or "Proto-Gospel".[2][3][4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gospel

Quote:I somehow managed to get good marks in high school geometry without worshipping Pythagoras or having nightmares about isosceles triangles, so the comparison to regular schooling is an epic fail.

I don't remember making such a comparison.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)