[PUG] Is indoctrination of children abusive?

[Peguy]

He certainly was a profound thinker with deep influences on Western Thinking. That doesn't mean we should appreciate his views.
Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung were also profound thinkers (in different areas), but that doesn't mean we apply their thoughts to modern society.

One still needs to gain an understanding of Marx and Mao in order to understand much of political discourse and history for much of the past 200 years. So you're not making much of an argument here.

He was a Christian Theologian, his writings only apply to christianity, otherwise we have to start objectively questioning the origins and lines of thought of his work.

Aquinas was a Christian thinker, but that does not necessarily imply his teachings only have relevance to Christians. Aquinas himself was acquainted with the Jewish philosopher Maimonedes and the Islamic scholar Averroes. Of course he was also greatly influenced by the pagan philosopher Aristotle.

The point of philosophy is to arrive at the truth that applies to all men.

He references a character in a widely read work of fiction a lot. I'd discount him on that alone unless he, or you, has/have the math or objective observations with rational arguments to back up the existence of YHWH.

I just linked you above to such.

Good point, valid and I agree with it. Now prove God is real.

Don't use the bible, or I'll use Lord of The Rings to prove the existence of Uruk-Hai.

I havent used the Bible. BTW, LOTR is a Christian-themed novel series.

I can. I dislike Wagners music.

Irrelevant.

 

[Shai Gar]

I can obviously tell you don't know one damn thing about Catholicism. For one thing, St. Thomas Aquinas had much to say about the existence of God, not least of which his famous Five proofs. This should help you:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/existgod.html

I know a lot about Catholicisim. You're not providing your proofs though.

I don't see the math in St Thomas Aquinas's proofs there, just a lot of conjecture.

As for all that "violent, abusive, ultra-capitalistic, imperialistic, bigoted, sexist and ignorance sponsoring organisation" fuh fuh fuh. Well it's not even worth bothering with.

So, it's cool if the church you want to ally every state on the planet with is all of that, because, it's not worth bothering with.
Sounds like you're unable to disagree with any of it, and you just wanted to "foo foo" it away.
Debates don't work like that.

So it's better for children to ask them to act like animals, rather than uplift themselves to act like actual human persons?

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Homo Sapiens means Wise Man, or Knowing Man.

We are a Sapient member of the primate family. Therefore we do uplift ourselves and act like actual human persons. However, we're also the violent, lusting, hungry species of primate that has managed to dominate the animal kingdom with our knowledge. To deny our nature is to do ourselves harm.

And that's cool, if you're into self harm, either emotional or physical. However, most people are not.

Sounds rather narcisstic if you ask me.

Yes, it is. I'm rather narcissistic. At least I'm open and honest about it.

You want every nation to be Christian, unseparated from the Church.
Your religion above all others because the work of fiction you read and believed since you were a child seems superior to the other ones.

Sounds rather narcisstic if you ask me.

 

[Shai Gar]

One still needs to gain an understanding of Marx and Mao in order to understand much of political discourse and history for much of the past 200 years. So you're not making much of an argument here.

It is, because you just made an implied straw man, by ignoring which of your arguments my argument was addressing.

Straw Man Arguments only work with unintelligent, or uneducated, or both, people who are therefore unable to refute them.

Aquinas was a Christian thinker, but that does not necessarily imply his teachings only have relevance to Christians.

Given that most of his arguments concerned himself with the entity you insist is responsible for the creation of this planet (for which you've still given no evidence), the vast majority of his teachings can be ignored.

Aquinas himself was acquainted with the Jewish philosopher Maimonedes and the Islamic scholar Averroes. Of course he was also greatly influenced by the pagan philosopher Aristotle.

Wonderful, I'm a Satanist and Founder of The Order of Shai Gar who is also acquainted with Asian Philosophers, Middle Eastern Philosophy, Christian, Atheist and Jewish.

Doesn't mean I don't have to prove my points though.

The point of philosophy is to arrive at the truth that applies to all men.

Oh certainly it does. It also has to be objective in order to be Truth. Therefore it must be Proven.

Prove.

I just linked you above to such.

I saw no proofs. I saw philosophical conjecture.

I havent used the Bible. BTW, LOTR is a Christian-themed novel series.

No, you haven't. However, you've also not used anything other than some writings of a man who believed that work of fiction, and wrote some philosophy based on it.

LoTR might certainly have been written by a Christian Man, but that doesn't mean Orc-Folk aren't real. After all, the writers (other than of the Pauline epistles) were certainly Jewish who followed a Jewish Rabbi. That's in the New Testament anyway. In the Old Testament, they were just Jewish.

Irrelevant.

I note that you didn't bother refuting that he would have been influenced by a great many generations (centuries) of Anti-Semitic Christian teachings. The same religion you'd have allied with the state.

 

[Peguy]

I know a lot about Catholicisim. You're not providing your proofs though.

Saying so doesn't actually make it so.

I don't see the math in St Thomas Aquinas's proofs there, just a lot of conjecture.

Oh com'on, Ive heard better refutations of Aquinas even from other Christians!

So, it's cool if the church you want to ally every state on the planet with is all of that, because, it's not worth bothering with.
Sounds like you're unable to disagree with any of it, and you just wanted to "foo foo" it away.
Debates don't work like that.

I'm all for honest debate and discussion on the Church's history including it's darker chapters. Childish knee-jerking does not count as such.

Homo Sapiens means Wise Man, or Knowing Man.

We are a Sapient member of the primate family. Therefore we do uplift ourselves and act like actual human persons. However, we're also the violent, lusting, hungry species of primate that has managed to dominate the animal kingdom with our knowledge. To deny our nature is to do ourselves harm.

And that's cool, if you're into self harm, either emotional or physical. However, most people are not.

You're confusing man in the biological sense with man in the ethical sense.

Yes, it is. I'm rather narcissistic. At least I'm open and honest about it.

You want every nation to be Christian, unseparated from the Church.
Your religion above all others because the work of fiction you read and believed since you were a child seems superior to the other ones.

sounds rather narcissistic if you ask me.

I was an atheist for several years. Nice try.

 

[Shai Gar]

Saying so doesn't actually make it so.

That's a good one. I'll use that.

Oh com'on, Ive heard better refutations of Aquinas even from other Christians!

No you haven't. What you've seen is better worded refutations of Aquinas from people who wanted to believe that their safety blanket in the sky was real. They didn't attack the existence of your fairy tale.

I'm all for honest debate and discussion on the Church's history including it's darker chapters.

A thing may be judged on the fruits of its labours.
This is the religion you wish to be associated with the state? This violent sexist bigoted entity is what you wish to indoctrinate children into?

And you have something against LaVeyan Satanism?

Childish knee-jerking does not count as such.

Where was I childishly knee jerking? It seems to me that you want to argue your personal opinion as fact. You're not providing any evidence at all and you're demanding other people just acquiesce to your belief system. No.

You're confusing man in the biological sense with man in the ethical sense.

Ethics are subjective. Try again.

I was an atheist for several years. Nice try.

Okay, I'll reword.

Yes, it is. I'm rather narcissistic. At least I'm open and honest about it.

You want every nation to be Christian, unseparated from the Church.
Your religion above all others because the work of fiction you read and believed seems superior to the other ones.

Sounds rather narcissistic if you ask me.

 

[Peguy]

It is, because you just made an implied straw man, by ignoring which of your arguments my argument was addressing.

Straw Man Arguments only work with unintelligent, or uneducated, or both, people who are therefore unable to refute them.

There was no strawman. You argued that kids shouldnt read Marx or Mao despite their influence. I argued against that, even though I clearly don't agree with their views. Kids need a full education in order to be able to discern truth from falsehoods.

Given that most of his arguments concerned himself with the entity you insist is responsible for the creation of this planet (for which you've still given no evidence), the vast majority of his teachings can be ignored.

Only on your say so eh? Btw, we're not arguing about the existence of God, but largely whether children should be educated with religious philosophers.

Wonderful, I'm a Satanist and Founder of The Order of Shai Gar who is also acquainted with Asian Philosophers, Middle Eastern Philosophy, Christian, Atheist and Jewish.

Doesn't mean I don't have to prove my points though.

I see..........

Oh certainly it does. It also has to be objective in order to be Truth. Therefore it must be Proven.

Universal would be more apt actually. Objective truth applies to objective matters. Truth also has subjective factors in involved as well, as is greatly stressed in Existential philosophy("Truth is Subjectivity" - Kierkegaard).

I saw no proofs. I saw philosophical conjecture.

Fuh fuh fuh

No, you haven't. However, you've also not used anything other than some writings of a man who believed that work of fiction, and wrote some philosophy based on it.

Well the issue in question here is about religious education, so referring to religious philosophers goes without question.

LoTR might certainly have been written by a Christian Man, but that doesn't mean Orc-Folk aren't real. After all, the writers (other than of the Pauline epistles) were certainly Jewish who followed a Jewish Rabbi. That's in the New Testament anyway. In the Old Testament, they were just Jewish.

What's even your point?

I note that you didn't bother refuting that he would have been influenced by a great many generations (centuries) of Anti-Semitic Christian teachings. The same religion you'd have allied with the state.

I didn't bother refuting it because it has no real relevance on the larger issue in question here. Anti-Semitism within Catholicism has been addressed considerably, even with Pope Pius XI declaring "Spiritually we are Semites."

 

[bamf]

Is indoctrination of children abusive?
-No. Do I wish people wouldn't do it? Yeah, but I'm not going to stop people from trying to brainwash their kids. It's up to the individual to question their beliefs. These kids will have the chance to do so some day. Is it sad if they fall for it? Yeah, but in a sense we're all been brainwashed in one way or another. Stupidity isn't illegal, but I frown upon it.

 

[Shai Gar]

If you want to indoctrinate children into a religion, you need to first prove that you are not wasting their time with a non existent entity, when they could be studying things far more beneficial to

There was no strawman. You argued that kids shouldnt read Marx or Mao despite their influence. I argued against that, even though I clearly don't agree with their views. Kids need a full education in order to be able to discern truth from falsehoods.

The straw man was the implication that that is what I argued.

I argued that we should not necessarily believe what they wrote, not that we shouldn't read it. However, as this thread is concerned with religiously indoctrinating children, I was also arguing against the indoctrination into the beliefs of authors.

Only on your say so eh? Btw, we're not arguing about the existence of God, but largely whether children should be educated with religious philosophers.

We're not arguing about education, we're arguing about Indoctrination. Didn't you read the thread title or the OP?
If you want to indoctrinate children into this, first prove it exists.

Universal would be more apt actually. Objective truth applies to objective matters. Truth also has subjective factors in involved as well, as is greatly stressed in Existential philosophy("Truth is Subjectivity" - Kierkegaard).

Nope, wrong. Truth = Fact.

Truth is Objective. People may believe something and then say what they believe is Truth, but it doesn't make it so. It only makes it appear as if Truth is subjective. Though it isnt.

You're bowing an awful lot to authorities of accreditation instead of the authority of argument.

 

[Peguy]

No you haven't.

Ok whatever you say.

What you've seen is better worded refutations of Aquinas from people who wanted to believe that their safety blanket in the sky was real. They didn't attack the existence of your fairy tale.

fuh fuh fuh

A thing may be judged on the fruits of its labours.

Sure, let's look at some of these fruits shall we?

“The contribution of the religious culture of the early Middle Ages to the scientific movement was thus one of preservation and transmission. The monasteries served as the transmitters of literacy and a thin version of the Classical tradition(including science or natural philosophy) through a period when literacy and scholarship were severely threatened. Without them, Western Europe would not have more science, but less.”

--David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450 pg.157

"The Roman world still speaks to us. But we must remember that it speaks to us now only through books whose shapes came into being through the silent labor of generations of "technicians of the world" - lawyers, bureaucrats, and monks - in the centuries of Dark Age Christian Europe."

--Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 pg. 23

On ^^^ note, it should be mentioned that Irish monks pioneered the concept of placing spaces between words when writing.

There's plenty more, but I think this is good for now.

Where was I childishly knee jerking? It seems to me that you want to argue your personal opinion as fact. You're not providing any evidence at all and you're demanding other people just acquiesce to your belief system. No.

I find it ironic you denounce me for not providing evidence when yourself haven't bothered to other much in the way of argument for your perspective.

Ethics are subjective. Try again.

No they are not. Try reading Aristotle.

 

[Shai Gar]

I'm going to bed. I'll respond to the rest of your post after work tomorrow, but in the meantime.

I find it ironic you denounce me for not providing evidence when yourself haven't bothered to other much in the way of argument for your perspective.

I'm not the one trying to say something exists. The onus is on you.

 

[Peguy]

If you want to indoctrinate children into a religion, you need to first prove that you are not wasting their time with a non existent entity, when they could be studying things far more beneficial to

Religious education is not indoctrination, you're still confusing the two, which among other things is clouding much of your argument here.

The straw man was the implication that that is what I argued.

I argued that we should not necessarily believe what they wrote, not that we shouldn't read it. However, as this thread is concerned with religiously indoctrinating children, I was also arguing against the indoctrination into the beliefs of authors.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize but much of your argument isnt making much sense tbh.

We're not arguing about education, we're arguing about Indoctrination. Didn't you read the thread title or the OP?

Yes I'm familiar with the OP's argument. And I already brought up the issue of confusing religious education with indoctrination. You claimed that Satanism is more beneficial for young minds than anyother religion, and I questioned that.

Nope, wrong. Truth = Fact.

That only applies in empirical matters. In matter of principles, not necessarily.

Truth is Objective. People may believe something and then say what they believe is Truth, but it doesn't make it so. It only makes it appear as if Truth is subjective. Though it isnt.

Notice I said truth is both objective and subjective? And subjectivity is not the same as subjectivism - where something is true simply because one believes it so.

 

[Peguy]

I'm not the one trying to say something exists. The onus is on you.

No cause I never claimed to be arguing for God's existence in this debate.

 

[Duty]

I think I'm going to make a copy-paste document that includes a whole slew of common religious arguments so I can quickly and decisively refute every single unconvincing theist argument without putting forth renewed effort.

Seriously though, Aquinas' five "proofs" are as unconvincing as they come, besides Pascal's Wager of course.

 

[Peguy]

I think I'm going to make a copy-paste document that includes a whole slew of common religious arguments so I can quickly and decisively refute every single unconvincing theist argument without putting forth renewed effort.

Here - knock yourself out:
http://www.ccel.org/

BTW, Pascal's wager isn't about God's existence, not per se.

 

[Krumplenump]

Sure it's a form of abuse. But making it illegal would give rise to a whole kettle of problems like rehoming, reschooling etc. Anyway, the aim of a uniform society is utopian and quite honestly non-human. I suppose it's normal that there be different groups brought about by different methods of bringing up children, and these groups perpetual friction and opposition and swapping of prevalence is what defines humanity and the inanity of our existence.

 

[Shai Gar]

Religious education is not indoctrination, you're still confusing the two, which among other things is clouding much of your argument here. And I already brought up the issue of confusing religious education with indoctrination.

This thread is not about Religious Education. You're creating a straw man in order to avoid the topic.

If you want to discuss R.E. go and make another thread with a different topic.

You claimed that Satanism is more beneficial for young minds than anyother religion, and I questioned that.

I questioned all of your statements with knowledge of your side of the argument. You've thus far proven no knowledge of Satanism.

That only applies in empirical matters. In matter of principles, not necessarily.
Notice I said truth is both objective and subjective? And subjectivity is not the same as subjectivism - where something is true simply because one believes it so.

Existence of God, is empirical, not principle, not subjective.

If it's truth, it's Objective.

-------------------


I don't see why you greeted Satya as a rival in your intro thread. Rivals need to be equals, and he argues with a much greater level of skill than you do.

 

[Barnabas]

You may have found your religion on your own, and I applaud you for that. I believe people should find something to believe in on their own. However, you will find that while you may not have been forced into religion at a young age quite a few people were. I am not arguing that the government should have any say in what parents decide to teach their children, or how they raise them. I just wish people would see that planning a child's religion falls along the same lines as planning their career. I was raised in a very devout family and I was forced the memorize bible verses and hymns until eventually I could spit back any information you wanted. I was a good christian child, until I began to ask questions. No that was not allowed. You believed what you were told and that was that. Blind faith was what the expected from me and for years I gave it to them and now that I don't I am a disappointment because I didn't follow the path they set for me. It reminds me of when a child tells her overbearing mother that she's not applying to the college "they" decided on. The mother freaks out because the child is straying from the plan they had set and the child feels like she has let her mother down. She becomes the black sheep because she formed her own opinions and grew into her own person. I view it as living vicariously through your child.

Foolish and ignorant, though I don't mean to insult. That is what your view is. First off let's make the first connection Dawkins makes, that the damage done by a child molester is less then that of a parent who raises a child in a christian house. If you can not see the total absurdity in this then you must physically and mentally blind.

Second, the term indoctrination has been falsely and foolishly used. Raising a child with to have the same values you have is not indoctrination, by this standard you would have to raise your child without having any world view or religious claims. That would include the gambit not just Christianity or Islam, you would have to throw atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, paganism, socialism, capitalism(in the theological contexts of course) and just about anything used to teach morals and values(or maybe in this case morals and values). Because if not then your "indoctrinating" into your beliefs, surely you can see the ridiculousness in this.

Also, the women whom was molested by a clergy member, she feels worse about her friend being told she has gone to hell for being a protestant. Good Lord, why would you accept religious doctrine of any sort from a child molester, how could you hope to treat that as true. Not to say that her feeling aren't valid or that it wasn't terrible experience however,It's not common and it's not accurate of how a normal church works or the common upbringing of a child in the faith.

And as I mentioned in my last post, they completely(most likely intentionally) screwed up on their discription of how a christian family would raise their child. If you agree with these articles in any way, shape or form, you are for all purposes a fool.

Finally, could you possibly understand why your parents are upset, even a little. Think of it like this, you've told them that you have every intention of committing suicide, and there is no way they can convince you otherwise. Don't you get it, to the Christian this isn't just about how you live your life. It's a matter of life and death, and what parent in their right mind would not be disheartened by the fact that they can't save their child. Their not trying to live through you, their trying to help you live.


I hate this thread, and all of the ignorance in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
also, this isn't news. it's philosophy and should probably be moved to the appropriate section.

 

[Eric86]

This thread is exactly why I never bother discussing anything regarding religion with atheists, especially the ones who wish to do away with all religion. It's a pointless waste of time.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Peguy]

This thread is not about Religious Education. You're creating a straw man in order to avoid the topic.

If you want to discuss R.E. go and make another thread with a different topic.


I questioned all of your statements with knowledge of your side of the argument. You've thus far proven no knowledge of Satanism.


Existence of God, is empirical, not principle, not subjective.

If it's truth, it's Objective.

-------------------


I don't see why you greeted Satya as a rival in your intro thread. Rivals need to be equals, and he argues with a much greater level of skill than you do.

fuh fuh fuh

 

[Duty]

Foolish and ignorant, though I don't mean to insult. That is what your view is. First off let's make the first connection Dawkins makes, that the damage done by a child molester is less then that of a parent who raises a child in a christian house. If you can not see the total absurdity in this then you must physically and mentally blind.

If you're not considering the possibility that religious indoctrination is perhaps more damaging, then I'd say to take a minute. You're tossing something out because society calls one terrible and the other not. It's very possible that religious indoctrination is worse on a young mind and I don't think you're giving the argument a fair chance. Not an insult, but you're pulling a bad form of Si: "No, it is not what normal people think so I won't consider it."

All Dawkins is doing here is philosophizing. I don't think he is saying, "I know religious indoctrination is worse!" I think he is saying, "Religious indoctrination is bad and some people I've spoken to say it is more damaging then molestation."

To settle the debate, we need a definition of what "worse on a mind" means. What is it that is psychological damaging and how do we quantify it? There is more to it then just conjectures.

Second, the term indoctrination has been falsely and foolishly used. Raising a child with to have the same values you have is not indoctrination, by this standard you would have to raise your child without having any world view or religious claims. That would include the gambit not just Christianity or Islam, you would have to throw atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, paganism, socialism, capitalism(in the theological contexts of course) and just about anything used to teach morals and values(or maybe in this case morals and values). Because if not then your "indoctrinating" into your beliefs, surely you can see the ridiculousness in this.

It's pretty obvious what Dawkins intended to communicate by using the term "indoctrination." Consider what he is trying to say instead of imposing how you would use the term onto his words.

He isn't critical of moral indoctrination, but instead is more concerned with the indoctrination of bad beliefs. Telling children about hell is equal to a threat: If you don't do religion tells you to do then you're going to be punished severely. When they later question that religion (which in many places is itself grounds for severe sanction), it can be very toxic to the child as they now have a strong fear of burning for their curiosity.

Not as damaging, but certainly worth mentioning is the "fairy tale" status that religion has in Dawkins's mind. If you believe that religion is just a bunch of ridiculous myths, you quickly come to the conclusion that feeding those myths to children is just giving them misinformation or even lies. That's damaging too (especially if you want to educate children well, it can make it tougher to fill them with right information).

Going one step deeper and Dawkins has a feeling of disgust in this article. He accuses religion (and I think he's right about this one) of doing what tobacco companies do: get 'em while they're young. If you had an adult that grew up free of hearing religious stories or myths of any kind, and then you tried to tell them about sky-lords, world-wide floods, people dying and coming back to life, and all the other mythology in the bible, Dawkins postulates that they'll probably laugh at the foolishness of the whole thing. Leaders understand this, so they encourage religion when a mind is young and easily misdirected. There are sadistic and manipulative overtones to the whole operation admittedly.