Hi/Bye

[Nihilist Virus]

"Evangelicals" used to refer to those who evangelize, but today it picks out a specific cultural-denominational Christian movement, one that isn't embraced by all Christians. It came into its current form in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Evangelicals tend to practice polemical apologetics and debate rather than discussion, incorporate aspects of corporate public relations and officespeak culture into their belief and practice, and attempt to mirror aspects of popular culture. They have a heavy emphasis on formula-based self-discipline and order. Most popular creationists you may have had the displeasure of encountering are Evangelicals of one sort or another.

You didn't answer my question. In fact, you snipped it out.

What is it about indoctrination of children that you find more acceptable than proselytization of minds that are equipped to properly consider a proposition?

And yes, I'm being derogatory towards them and their beliefs. There is a place for being derogatory.

Ridiculous ideas should be ridiculed.

Okay, so you really have a view of knowledge that's pretty much the mainstream view: Certain knowledge is either highly restricted or impossible, but we can still have knowledge in the lesser sense of likelihood, justification, etc.

To tie us back, here's why I got on this track in the first place. Around posts #126 and #131 you talked about blind faith, and I made the point that there's something in between blind faith and an infinitely satisfying explanation or justification for a belief. You answered:



But now it seem that you do actually draw that line, because you accept that we can have something like uncertain knowledge.

No I don't draw a line. There is just a spectrum of certainty. The location of a
proposition on this spectrum is what informs my actions. But there is no line on the spectrum beyond which a proposition becomes absolute. You're the one that draws a line. You are relatively certain of most things but you are absolutely certain that Christ died and rose from the dead, right?

Just to clarify, we are disagreeing at this point over stipulative definitions. All I'm doing at this point is presenting the way that conditionals are used within philosophy, where they can either indicate the consequent in a conditional statement (your meaning), or the conditional statement as a whole. If you're saying, "they're wrong" then I don't know what to tell you. Language doesn't always work the way we would prefer it to. In the spirit of intellectual charity, I don't see why it's a sticking point.

Where were you trying to go with that line of thought?

I don't think I said that. I think that instead of "and" I said "=". Perhaps that is where the confusion arose.

To snip my comments and then not respond is one thing, but to snip my comments and then claim I'm confused is just not acceptable. You even quote me correctly as saying,

"x is conditional and x is identified as the statement, 'if y, then z'"

and then you ignore the "is identified as" part to say that "and" is not the same as "=". Um, that's a foul. Is there a difference between "x=7" and "x is identified as 7"?

I'm voicing a worry, really.


No, I just don't think they're using the word "defined" in the way you're using it (in the way that would entail meaninglessness). I believe I, myself, brought up primitivity earlier when discussing explanatory regress. Intuition and everyday experience do have a sort of definition and meaning, otherwise we couldn't deal with them.

I showed you articles explaining that mathematics starts with undefined terms. If you disagree, please define for me what a set is in mathematics using the formal language.

...you mean the one I chose not to argue against?

If you say you don't want to argue against an established scientific concept but also reject it, then why not just be a young earther?

I notice that you seem to be taking a sort of debate tone, the kind you might find in a public debate or other such format. I don't find such formats truth-conducive. I'd rather have conversation where both parties assume the best of one another and are intellectually charitable, seeking only a better grip on things.

When you refuse to acknowledge my sources and when you ignore my questions, I can only assume you are grappling for some kind of victory. I do not think you are trying to get a better grip on things, nor do I think you will ever seriously entertain my position or what I have to say.

I'm fully willing to listen to Christians here. I think the religion is so utterly debunked that I want to make sure I don't use bad arguments (there are so many good ones that there is no reason to pollute my collection) so I am fishing to see which arguments of mine can actually be defeated. So far I've given up one argument that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Umm we don't " indoctrinate anyone

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Umm we don't " indoctrinate anyone

Indoctrinate
To teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Christians do not do this to their young?

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Indoctrinate
To teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Christians do not do this to their young?

Indoctrination is forcing beliefs on people , so no

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Indoctrination is forcing beliefs on people , so no

I just defined it, so yes.

You are defining "indoctrination" in such a way that it is impossible to occur in order to get your religious community off the hook. You cannot surgically alter one's brain to compel them to accept a proposition; instead you reinforce the beliefs before the child is able to discern things reasonably for his or her own self. There is nothing more you can possibly even do to coerce belief. You cannot force someone to believe something; at best you can force feigned belief by threatening punishment for disbelief. But that's not actual belief, is it?

So can we hear you say that yes, Christians do indoctrinate their children?

 

[expos4ever]

The vast majority of attempts at answering my questions have been abysmal failures, which wasn't surprising, but what surprised me was the amount of vitriol and hate Christians have spewed at me. I've participated in this, sometimes instigating and sometimes rightfully responding to unprovoked attacks, and I simply do not see the love of Christ anywhere on these forums. I have no desire to be a jerk, but even if I did I should not receive rude comments back from a Christian. Am I wrong in thinking that Christians are held to a higher standard than I am?

In my time here I've seen hatred, mockery, and willful ignorance. What I haven't seen is love or intelligent discourse. Are atheists treated that way because we're not wanted here?

Its not only atheists that are treated this way. I have had it with the lying and insults on this site. The behaviour of many here who call themselves Christian is an embarrassment to those of us who are trying to take gospel imperative seriously. I am almost certainly going to seek interaction elsewhere.

 

[rakovsky]

I just defined it, so yes.

You are defining "indoctrination" in such a way that it is impossible to occur in order to get your religious community off the hook. You cannot surgically alter one's brain to compel them to accept a proposition; instead you reinforce the beliefs before the child is able to discern things reasonably for his or her own self. There is nothing more you can possibly even do to coerce belief. You cannot force someone to believe something; at best you can force feigned belief by threatening punishment for disbelief. But that's not actual belief, is it?

So can we hear you say that yes, Christians do indoctrinate their children?

Nihilist Virus,

Hello. Sure, many people of every community, religious or atheist, might indoctrinate their children, that is, teach them certain things about religion. Imagine growing up in a country where atheism is strongly encouraged officially. Would that count as indoctrination?

Some families, Christian or not, raise the children to decide about religion on their own when they are old enough.
But I think it's hard to demand that people will or won't teach their children certain things about religion. The children themselves are interested: "Mom, Dad, what do you think about this," they will ask.

 

[rakovsky]

"yeah, God is the King over death as well, that at God's command, the dead rise."

Yes, God is a kind of king over life and death. It says in the Torah:

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god besides me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
(Deuteronomy 32)

It is a very powerful passage.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist Virus,

Hello. Sure, many people of every community, religious or atheist, might indoctrinate their children, that is, teach them certain things about religion. Imagine growing up in a country where atheism is strongly encouraged officially. Would that count as indoctrination?

Some families, Christian or not, raise the children to decide about religion on their own when they are old enough.
But I think it's hard to demand that people will or won't teach their children certain things about religion. The children themselves are interested: "Mom, Dad, what do you think about this," they will ask.

Atheists generally teach their children how to think, not what to think. That is, critical thinking skills. If a nation encouraged atheism (I'm guessing that you are picking on China?) to the point that parents told their children from a young age that there is no God, then that would be indoctrination.

Are you really suggesting that there's a nation that does this? As a tutor I've worked with Chinese children, one of whom knew so little English that he didn't know the word "church" (among many other words). When I tried to explain it to him, he didn't understand - he didn't say, "Oh it's that religion stuff that is all false" - and I ultimately had to show him a picture on my phone. He recognized it because of having seen it here in America.

 

[rakovsky]

"Atheists generally teach their children how to think, not what to think."

I think it's inevitable that atheists are going to make the sAmerican comments about god that they do to their friends. It's not like they are going to joke with other people that "There is no sky daddy", but never make such comments to their kids ever. I would be really surprised if Sam Harris had a kid and never repeated any of his teachings to his kid.

I had a Russian teacher who was a patriot and came from Stalin time and when I would ask her about religion, she would just answer "I came from No Religion Country".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Atheists generally teach their children how to think, not what to think."

I think it's inevitable that atheists are going to make the sAmerican comments about god that they do to their friends. It's not like they are going to joke with other people that "There is no sky daddy", but never make such comments to their kids ever. I would be really surprised if Sam Harris had a kid and never repeated any of his teachings to his kid.

I had a Russian teacher who was a patriot and came from Stalin time and when I would ask her about religion, she would just answer "I came from No Religion Country".

And you would classify those throw-away comments as being the same thing as religious indoctrination?

 

[rakovsky]

And you would classify those throw-away comments as being the same thing as religious indoctrination?

I don't think Sam Harris would consider his discussions to be throw away comments. If you inform your child repeatedly that there is or isnt a god and your reasons for thinking it, then in a sense you are teaching them this.

 

[Philip_B]

I think it is hard to be an a-theist, because it requires you to know something. In that sense atheism is in itself a faith position. I think most people are agnostic, because that means they do not know. Some of us are believing agnostics who have come to the end of our knowledge and reached out one step further - faith, and some of us are disbelieving agnostics because the step requires more resources and trust than they feel they can commit to the step at this time.

I like the story of an Orthodox priest visiting an old lady who confides that she has trouble praying, and so he talked to her about what gave her a sense of content and a sense of worth. She told him that she enjoyed sitting in the conservatory knitting because of the peace and serenity, because of the order out of chaos, and because what she made had a purpose. They chatted some more, and the priest made ready to leave, and she asked, 'what about my prayers?', and he replied 'knit more'.

Whatever your decision here, let it be authentic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think it is hard to be an a-theist, because it requires you to know something. In that sense atheism is in itself a faith position. I think most people are agnostic, because that means they do not know. Some of us are believing agnostics who have come to the end of our knowledge and reached out one step further - faith, and some of us are disbelieving agnostics because the step requires more resources and trust than they feel they can commit to the step at this time.

I like the story of an Orthodox priest visiting an old lady who confides that she has trouble praying, and so he talked to her about what gave her a sense of content and a sense of worth. She told him that she enjoyed sitting in the conservatory knitting because of the peace and serenity, because of the order out of chaos, and because what she made had a purpose. They chatted some more, and the priest made ready to leave, and she asked, 'what about my prayers?', and he replied 'knit more'.

Whatever your decision here, let it be authentic.

Atheists do not claim that they can prove there is no God. Rather, we say that there is insufficient reason to believe. Atheist just means not theist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think Sam Harris would consider his discussions to be throw away comments. If you inform your child repeatedly that there is or isnt a god and your reasons for thinking it, then in a sense you are teaching them this.

I was referring to your "sky daddy" remark. In any case, it sounds like you think it's reasonable to say that atheist parents indoctrinate their children on the level that Christians do. I do not find that to be a reasonable position.

 

[com7fy8]

What is it about indoctrination of children that you find more acceptable than proselytization of minds that are equipped to properly consider a proposition?

In case this is relevant to what you are asking > example is very important, to go along with whatever we teach or propose to our children.

If a child is not satisfied by what we tell a child and train a child to do, or how we try to influence the child, in due time the child could decide to do who-knows-what, in order to get satisfaction. And this can mean becoming a nicotine addict in order to fit in with peers who seem to be giving the child satisfaction.

So, if parents have been tell-tell-telling their children, while the parents themselves have only been acting in order to fit in, the child possibly will not be satisfied to only try to join in their parents' church acting.

But if we are real with God and in example of how to relate in real love; God's love perfectly satisfies us, and this will work for a child, too . . . if the child gets into living our example.

you are absolutely certain that Christ died and rose from the dead, right?

satisfied by love, not only absolutely intellectually certain

The Bible says that through Christ's resurrection we have God's love and peace making us more and more like Jesus and experiencing His Heavenly rest and eternal love life > 1 Peter 1:3, Romans 5:10, Romans 5:5, 1 John 4:17, Matthew 11:28-30.

Indoctrinate
To teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Christians do not do this to their young?

I understood you meant to teach, but I did not take you to mean it would be received "uncritically"; I think doctrine can be taught along with the humble encouregment to evaluate what you are being taught. I have heard various preachers say to check what they say to see if the Bible says it or not, and don't believe them if what they say is not in the Bible. Also, I find, the real meaning of anything right is discovered in how God has us living it in love, the love meaning . . . not only an intellectual explanation.

Indoctrination is forcing beliefs on people , so no

That is one definition, but not the only one . . . maybe like how to "dictate" can mean to be a tyrant, or dictation can mean saying the exact words which you want someone to write for you. In English, a same word can have exact opposite meanings, in some cases, for example: "citation"

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul answers how ones were saying there is no resurrection. He first clearly represents what they are saying; he does not turn it into what they are not saying; then he presents his case about how they are wrong.

But in certain debating methods people might deliberately misrepresent what someone says or asks, in order to get away from a subject they are not competent to handle.

But our Apostle Paul does not do this, I think, in 1 Corinthians 15:12-33. Also, I notice how he is very generous in answering to what he does not agree with I see that he puts in things which can help any of us who are receptive; he does not only fight with and debate and criticize whoever he does not agree with, but shares what can feed anyone who can benefit

 

[Lulav]

Hey Folks!
This Thread seems to have run it's course
and is permanently closed.