Indoctrination

[Tycoon]

Here is a note I posted on my Facebook account just now, and I invite you to read and debate.

This note is not likely to convince anybody of anything, but I feel like putting it up anyways. Perhaps, by some small chance, somebody to read this will open their mind to new ideas. Before I start, I would like to give you some background information about myself. I was baptized in a church in a time that I cannot remember. When my family and I moved to ______, we started going to the Episcopalian church up ______. I sang in the church choir for ten years, served as an acolyte, and went to the church youth group. I believed fully in the ideas taught by Christianity, but when I was exposed to new ideas during my sophomore year, I started questioning Christianity and eventually settled on atheism. Nobody is born into a religion. As a baby, we are completely neutral. We are a blank sheet to be written on. When we are young, our parents are the most important authority figures in our lives, even if we occasionally defy them. When we are repetitively that something is the absolute truth, we, in general, accept it. Such is the case with religion, and in particular Christianity. A lot of people would disagree firmly, saying that teenagers are rebellious and would most certainly rebel from their religion unless they truly believed in it. To counter this, I present these three stages: 1. Childhood: Children accept the religion of their parents because they are taught to. There is no reason to question it at this point in life. 2. Adolescence: Teenagers, particularly Christian teenagers, stick to their religion because they want to fit in, either with their family or with their classmates, most of whom will be Christian. 3. Adulthood: Belief has become a habit. Why question what you have consistently maintained to be true? But me presenting these stages is not good enough - I have to give some sort of reason for you to believe in them. Consider children who have parents of different religions, say one Jewish parent and one Christian parent. They often refer to their own religion as "half Jewish, half Christian". This is obvious evidence that they have not put actual thought into their beliefs, but rather received them directly from their parents. They couldn't really believe both. Consider children of different religions. Children born in Muslim households are guaranteed to be Muslim themselves, because that's how they were raised. Children born in Jewish households are guaranteed to be Jewish themselves, because that's their heritage. The same can be said of Christianity and Hinduism and every other religion out there. So, in conclusion, I invite you to open your mind and throw off the habitual lazy thought that maintains your religious beliefs. Some of you out there will not see how this relates to you, and figure you know your religion better than the way I described it, you're not just blindly following. This is not the case. You have simply been taught better, and like a sheep, have followed. Does the bible not constantly refer to its own followers as sheep? So, open your mind. Think about why you believe what you believe. There's no need to completely throw it out the window, and I doubt anybody would do that so easily, but hopefully I've shaken your world view a little. It's good to have our world views shaken every now and then, unless we should get too comfortable.

[HelioPrime]

You should talk to your grandparents. As mine have told me religion was not something everyone was very concerned about when they were young. Drinking, women, and money were the concern of young men in the 1940-today.

Eventually however everyother either dies young or gets old. And when they get old they often turn back to the church. Kinda breaks up your simple steps there. Just because someone is very agnostic or uncaring about religion in college doesn't mean they will remain that way. Studies suggest this is especially true of women who become more conservative as time passes.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime You should talk to your grandparents. As mine have told me religion was not something everyone was very concerned about when they were young. Drinking, women, and money were the concern of young men in the 1940-today.

It wasn't a concern for them because it was an assumption. They'd been indoctrinated into it and didn't have people like Dawkins or things like the internet to read into. Sure, they may not have been fundies, but that doesn't mean they weren't indoctrinated theists.

Eventually however everyother either dies young or gets old. And when they get old they often turn back to the church. Kinda breaks up your simple steps there.

They didn't "turn back" to the church because they never went away from the church. They may not have been bible thumpers, but (again) I doubt they were ever non-theists. While Tycoon's steps may not be accurate for everyone everywhere, your example proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that indoctrination occurred. To be sure, grown adults don't spontaneously start believing in things as nonsensical as cosmic Jewish zombies... not unless someone taught them from an early age that such idiocy is acceptable.

Just because someone is very agnostic or uncaring about religion in college doesn't mean they will remain that way. Studies suggest...

Link to three or admit that you just made that up. Do so in your next post.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Zhavric It wasn't a concern for them because it was an assumption. They'd been indoctrinated into it and didn't have people like Dawkins or things like the internet to read into. Sure, they may not have been fundies, but that doesn't mean they weren't indoctrinated theists.

You act like Dawkins in something new?

Even as early as greek times people have discussed the possibility of no god/gods. Can't remember who but it was a greek who left writings about his lack of any worries of his impending execution. As in he had lived a long, good life. To him either an eternity of peaceful nothing or an eternal reward would be acceptable.

They didn't "turn back" to the church because they never went away from the church. They may not have been bible thumpers, but (again) I doubt they were ever non-theists. While Tycoon's steps may not be accurate for everyone everywhere, your example proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that indoctrination occurred. To be sure, grown adults don't spontaneously start believing in things as nonsensical as cosmic Jewish zombies... not unless someone taught them from an early age that such idiocy is acceptable.

Theism and atheism seem like opposites: when times are good people would rather indulge in pleasure and not think about religion. When times are bad or mortality comes to mind suddenly Xbox 360 and jerking off are secondary issues.

I'm not going to touch on the education part since that would be a separate thread.

Religion is spread by teachings. That's a fact that has always existed. Your the only one who seems to think thats a failing.

Link to three or admit that you just made that up. Do so in your next post.

John Lott's website

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/Stonecash.pdf - Page 6 and beyond

FOXNews.com - Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise - Opinion

Over the course of women's lives, their political views on average vary more than those of men. Young single women start out being much more liberal than their male counterparts and are about 50 percent more likely to vote Democratic. As previously noted, these women also support a higher, more progressive income tax as well as more educational and welfare spending. But for married women this gap is only one-third as large. And married women with children become more conservative still. Women with children who are divorced, however, are suddenly about 75 percent more likely to vote for Democrats than single men. So as divorce rates have increased, due in large part to changing divorce laws, voters have become more liberal.

[mirutsa]

Quote by: Tycoon You have simply been taught better, and like a sheep, have followed. Does the bible not constantly refer to its own followers as sheep?

I still don't see what's wrong with sheep. They're tasty, and they make good sweaters.

Everyone compares following the masses as being a sheep, but, in that we must follow someone, should we stick with the masses or attend to the fringe?

Also, I don't understand the implication of the three stages. Are these intended to apply only to Christians, or to human belief systems overall?

[Tycoon]

Everyone compares following the masses as being a sheep, but, in that we must follow someone, should we stick with the masses or attend to the fringe?

We don't have to follow anyone. The point I am trying to make here is that Christians are not thinking about their beliefs, they are letting others do it for them. Such is the case of a sheep, who has to be guided and shown where to go and what to do.

Also, I don't understand the implication of the three stages. Are these intended to apply only to Christians, or to human belief systems overall?

Human belief systems where indoctrination is employed.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: HelioPrime You act like Dawkins in something new?

Vocal atheists who get on the news and write books intent on converting people to atheism? Who has done that prior to Dawkins that folks would have been reading in the 1940's?

Even as early as greek times people have discussed the possibility of no god/gods.

You're changing the context. I know that people talked about there being no gods and there have always been atheists. What I'm saying is that it's stupid to claim that people in the 40's weren't indoctrinated. It's an idiotic argument to claim that people who were born in Christian households and who were taken to church at an early age weren't indoctrinated.

Theism and atheism seem like opposites: when times are good people would rather indulge in pleasure and not think about religion. When times are bad or mortality comes to mind suddenly Xbox 360 and jerking off are secondary issues.

Irrelevant. People who grew up in 1940's America in Christian households / attended church were indoctrinated.

Religion is spread by teachings.

You're confusing teaching with indoctrination. While indoctrination involves what could be construed as teaching, it also involves making sure very young people (or emotionally crippled adults) adopt a bad set of logical rules for a particular set of claims. That's not teaching.

John Lott's website

This is...

1. Not a study. It's an op-ed piece that refers to other studies.
2. Has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with politics which is a different kind of indoctrination all together.
3. Completely fails to meet the burden you were challenged to come up with. Effectively, I have challenged you to provide a study showing that flying is dangerous and you have produced an editorial about how driving is dangerous.

Horrible reply.

http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/Stonecash.pdf - Page 6 and beyond

Yet another issue of politics... and from the prestegious university of akron ohio. Wow. Great find.

FOXNews.com - Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics? History Suggests Otherwise - Opinion

And a foxnews article.

So, did you not see where I bolded the word studies? Do you really not understand the difference between an op-ed piece and an academic study? Also, what do you think political conservatism has to do with religious indoctrination (other than Karl Rovi-ian abuses of recent years)?

[mirutsa]

Quote by: Zhavric Vocal atheists who... write books intent on converting people to atheism? Who has done that prior to Dawkins that folks would have been reading in the 1940's?

Charles Darwin. He came up with the theory of atheism, supported by natural selection. He, however, was a quack.

Quote by: Zhavric ... it also involves making sure very young people (or emotionally crippled adults) adopt a bad set of logical rules for a particular set of claims.

I don't necessarily agree with "bad." As children, many of us are indoctrinated against committing crime. I wouldn't say that's bad logic. I realize the overall context is religious indoctrination, but in simply contrasting it with teaching, indoctrination has many faces.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: mirutsa Charles Darwin. He came up with the theory of atheism, supported by natural selection. He, however, was a quack.

I'm going to assume that you stated this to be funny and don't actually mean what you stated there.

I don't necessarily agree with "bad." As children, many of us are indoctrinated against committing crime.

That's different. When we're told not to committ crimes, we don't need a special set of logical rules for the claims surrounding committing crimes. We aren't told that evidence doesn't matter or that there's a magical police man in the sky.

I realize the overall context is religious indoctrination, but in simply contrasting it with teaching, indoctrination has many faces.

Religious indoctrination necessarily involves forcing people to adopt logic that they don't use anywhere else. Regardless of how many alleged eyewitnesses there are, a Christian will (in general) not believe that Elvis came back from the dead because Elvis coming back from the dead is impossible, but believe that Jesus coming back from the dead is perfectly reasonable. I remember having a debate with a Christian about the empty tomb Jesus was allegedly put into. The Christian had decided it was impossible for the Roman soldier guarding the tomb to be bribed or tricked, but that it was perfectly reasonable that a magic angel came and took Jesus' corpse. So, this flagrant abuse of the word "impossible" is a clear example of indoctrination.

[Jack]

Darwin came up with the theory of atheism? That's going to be difficult to substantiate.

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[11] In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[14] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[15] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[16] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[17] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[18] theist in 1662;[19] theism in 1678;[20] and deism in 1682.[21] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[22]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that theists often think that the theory of evolution was proposed as a rebuttal to religious belief in creationism. They fail to appreciate that science follows the evidence. If its conclusions offend religion, it's an unintended and unimportant side-effect. Debunking religion is not the goal of science, increased knowledge is. If increased knowledge counters belief then perhaps belief should be re-examined.

[mirutsa]

Quote by: Jack Darwin came up with the theory of atheism? That's going to be difficult to substantiate.

Quote by: Zhavric I'm going to assume that you stated this to be funny and don't actually mean what you stated there.

It was a joke. I thought the "he was a quack" bit would make it obvious.

Quote by: Zhavric When we're told not to committ crimes, we don't need a special set of logical rules for the claims surrounding committing crimes. We aren't told that evidence doesn't matter or that there's a magical police man in the sky.

No magic police, true. I was more referring to such adages as "Crime doesn't pay," and other such nonsense that lead Superman to turn bad guys over to "justice" instead of just lighting them up with some heat-ray vision.

Quote by: Zhavric Religious indoctrination necessarily involves... logic that they don't use anywhere else.

I'll agree to that.

[Jack]

I thought the "he was a quack" bit would make it obvious.

Sorry I misunderstood.
<shameless self-promotion> If you read my latest blog post (Radical Atheist » Christians believe the darndest things) you might understand why I took it seriously. These days I'm having trouble discerning satire from true belief on these matters.

[GeminiBrian]

We are born with no beliefs...

People tend to absorb the prevailing religious mindset of their particular community as they grow up, unthinkingly in most cases. That remains the status quo, unless an effort is made to re-assess such beliefs without prejudice.

However, all systems of belief are inevitably prone to collapse under the application of rationality, so the thinking person invariably dies with no beliefs, only the assurance that he or she is free from delusion...

[loser]

I'm going to assume that you stated this to be funny and don't actually mean what you stated there.

If you weren't indoctrinated to believe in a fairy, phony scientist wannabe, you would know that was a very serious (and accurate) remark about the fairy quack.

The fact that many people have actually swallowed such an illogical fairy tale such as evolution just proves how easy it is to indoctrinate confused (non-religious) 'sheep'.

When religion is discarded, intelligence is seriously compromised

The point I am trying to make here is that Christians are not thinking about their beliefs, they are letting others do it for them.

.

It's atheists that are not thinking about their beliefs, they are the ones who let others do their thinking for them. Atheists are ALL indoctrinated into their aberrant beliefs.

...it also involves making sure very young people (or emotionally crippled adults) adopt a bad set of logical rules for a particular set of claims. That's not teaching.

It's EXACTLY teaching (schooling, brainwashing, deceiving...whatever you call it)!

I know that theists often think that the theory of evolution was proposed as a rebuttal to religious belief in creationism.

Study the life of Charles Darwin and it is inconceivable that one would reach any other conclusion. It was Darwin's rejection of his religious belief and his disdain for the religious school that he milked surreptitiously that pushed him to falsify data and make illogical and unreasonable claims concerning the origins of life.

As stated earlier, he was nothing but a quack...but a quack with an agenda, nonetheless.

They fail to appreciate that science follows the evidence.

That's not true. If science followed the evidence, ALL scientists would agree that ID is a scientific fact. It is the indoctrination of gullible minds that has caused evidence to take a back seat to desire. The truth will come out eventually but it will take quite some time...but not four billion years...lol.

Debunking religion is not the goal of science, increased knowledge is. If increased knowledge counters belief then perhaps belief should be re-examined.

As an elite mind and a premier scientist, I am doing all that I can to increase knowledge and counter silly beliefs (like evolution). If the hopelessly indoctrinated would just re-examine their beliefs...

It was a joke. I thought the "he was a quack" bit would make it obvious.

Then the joke is really on you because Darwin was a quack...if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.

Idiocracy is making me lonely.

[mirutsa]

Quote by: loser Then the joke is really on you because Darwin was a quack...if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.

Ha ha. It's okay, long as there's a joke somewhere. Back to indoctrination...

[demt]

carniverus indoctrination

im sure the news headlines do that

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Idiocracy is making me lonely.

Well, say something intelligent once in a while and we'll keep you company.

Seriously, man, I don't even bother reading most of your posts anymore. Why don't you do us all a favor and just copy and paste "Ur dumb cuz u don't believe in gawd!1!!" and save us all a lot of time?

[Matt W]

Let's drop the personal attacks.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Tycoon Here is a note I posted on my Facebook account just now, and I invite you to read and debate. This note is not likely to convince anybody of anything, but I feel like putting it up anyways. Perhaps, by some small chance, somebody to read this will open their mind to new ideas.

What {new} ideas? The {new} idea that there is no God? Or maybe the idea that Facebook is {new?}

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun.

Quote by: Tycoon Before I start, I would like to give you some background information about myself. I was baptized in a church in a time that I cannot remember. When my family and I moved to ______, we started going to the Episcopalian church up ______. I sang in the church choir for ten years, served as an acolyte, and went to the church youth group. I believed fully in the ideas taught by Christianity, but when I was exposed to new ideas during my sophomore year, I started questioning Christianity and eventually settled on atheism.

Quote by: Tycoon Nobody is born into a religion.

You were baptized in a church at a Time that you cannot remember, you sang in the choir for 10 years, served as an acolyte, and went to church youth group, and yet, you insist that nobody is born into a religion. Are you missing something here? Were you not born into an Episcopalian or religious household? How about those who are born into Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or atheist households? Are they not born into a religion?

Quote by: Tycoon As a baby, we are completely neutral. We are a blank sheet to be written on.

Have you not seen some of the latest research? Has an individual such as yourself, who is known to be a great man of science, not seen some of the latest research? Well, if you have not, according to those observations, your comment is…..well, shall we say, debatable:

1. Babies not as innocent as they pretend

2. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

3. Children are born to know right from wrong, new research shows

4. Babies choose right from wrong in study

5. Babies 'can tell friend from foe'

Quote by: Tycoon When we are young, our parents are the most important authority figures in our lives, even if we occasionally defy them. When we are repetitively that something is the absolute truth, we, in general, accept it. Such is the case with religion, and in particular Christianity.

Well, then, can you please explain why the “Christians’” {general} acceptance of the {absolute} truth, which was taught to them by their parents, is showing up as what appears to be {general} abandonment? Can you please explain why statistics are showing that that which you call {general} acceptance is appearing as this:

1. Believers OK with MANY PATHS
Religion findings show divergence from traditional doctrines

Is this your definition of acceptance? Is one accepting that which he diverges from?

Secondly, to be the most important authority figure in a life, does not mean that one will remain that way. And so, an even more important question is, in what is known as {western} civilization, do parents remain the most {important} authority figure in a child’s life? Are parents always the most {important} authority figure in every child’s life?

Quote by: Tycoon A lot of people would disagree firmly, saying that teenagers are rebellious and would most certainly rebel from their religion unless they truly believed in it. To counter this, I present these three stages: 1. Childhood: Children accept the religion of their parents because they are taught to. There is no reason to question it at this point in life. 2. Adolescence: Teenagers, particularly Christian teenagers, stick to their religion because they want to fit in, either with their family or with their classmates, most of whom will be Christian. 3. Adulthood: Belief has become a habit. Why question what you have consistently maintained to be true?

Though there are some differences, this almost sounds like the author Morgan Scott’s four stages of human spiritual development, which was posted on another thread. Minorwork Christians and Evidence POST#43

Secondly, again, some of that which you have written about your stages appear to contradict that which is seen in research. For example, in the stage of Adolescence, how do you account for the rebellion, which, at this Point, has shown itself to be prevalent in many societies? How is rebellion a sign of sticking to the parents religion? Or is their no rebellion amongst “Christian” adolescents? Or, are “Christian” adolescents not part of a society where rebellion is witnessed?

Thirdly, again, it also appears that your assumption about Adulthood is inconsistent with some observations?

1. Americans are Switching Religions in Droves

2. Believers OK with MANY PATHS
Religion findings show divergence from traditional doctrines

It appears that many “Christian” adults are questioning? And if they are not, then how do you account for all the people who are switching religions in droves? How do you account for all of those individuals who are diverging from traditional doctrines? In your own estimation, are these not the Actions and Movements of individuals who have questioned what they have been taught?

Cont…

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

…Cont

Quote by: Tycoon But me presenting these stages is not good enough - I have to give some sort of reason for you to believe in them. Consider children who have parents of different religions, say one Jewish parent and one Christian parent. They often refer to their own religion as "half Jewish, half Christian". This is obvious evidence that they have not put actual thought into their beliefs, but rather received them directly from their parents. They couldn't really believe both.

Actually, one could argue that, without any further elaboration, you just feeding us the assumption that these children couldn’t really believe in both religions is what is not {good} enough.

Now, why could the children not possibly believe in both religions? What led you to that conclusion? What led you to conclude that it is {impossible} for an individual to believe in two, three, four, or even five religions at one time? What is your reasoning behind that conclusion? From your experience, have you found it {impossible} to believe 2 things at one time? Is it impossible to be believe 2 things at one time?

So, again, you just telling us that, a child could not really believe in two religions, doesn’t tell us why we should see a child believing in two religions as an {impossibility.} And, if it doesn’t tell us why we should see that conclusion as an {impossibility,} then why should we accept your assumption as {spot-on?}

Quote by: Tycoon Consider children of different religions. Children born in Muslim households are guaranteed to be Muslim themselves, because that's how they were raised. Children born in Jewish households are guaranteed to be Jewish themselves, because that's their heritage. The same can be said of Christianity and Hinduism and every other religion out there.

And how does being born in a “Christian” household guarantee that one’s child will grow up to be “Christian?” How does being born in a “Jewish” household guarantee that one’s child will grow up to be “Jewish?” Hindu? Buddhist? Atheist?

Now, the reason why that question is asked, is because, if one examines, they will see that that which is said to be guaranteed, is subject to force and influence. And if subject to force and influence, then that which is said to be guaranteed also exists as probable. Therefore, since that is the case, we can say, that as a result of force and influence, it exists that the children who grow up in “Christian” households will not grow up to be “Christians.” And of course, this fact is {Evidenced} by recent findings:

1. Americans are Switching Religions in Droves

2. The Most


3. More in U.S. jump to new faiths, poll finds

4. US religious identity is rapidly changing

5. Believers OK with MANY PATHS
Religion findings show divergence from traditional doctrines

So, please explain to us again about your {guarantee?} Explain to us how being born in a “Christian” household {guarantees} that one’s child will grow up to be “Christian?” Because, from the research, it appears that that which you have proposed is not what is occurring?

Quote by: Tycoon So, in conclusion, I invite you to open your mind and throw off the habitual lazy thought that maintains your religious beliefs.

Yes, and please invite them to do some research regarding the assertion, which claims that growing up in a “Christian” household {guarantees} that a child will grow up “Christian.” We wouldn’t want them to become like those “Christians,” who without questioning, generally accept what their parents have told them. Don’t want them to be lazy and automatically accept what you have just proposed.

Quote by: Tycoon Some of you out there will not see how this relates to you, and figure you know your religion better than the way I described it, you're not just blindly following.

Or blindly assuming?

Quote by: Tycoon This is not the case. You have simply been taught better, and like a sheep, have followed. Does the bible not constantly refer to its own followers as sheep?

But here are some questions: Do all sheep follow blindly? Are all sheep without sight? Are they all not able to see who they follow? Is a sheep not aware of who his master is? Can sheep not hear? Do all not know their master’s call? Do you yourself not follow? Are you yourself not a sheep? Are you yourself not someone’s sheep?

Quote by: Tycoon So, open your mind. Think about why you believe what you believe. There's no need to completely throw it out the window, and I doubt anybody would do that so easily, but hopefully I've shaken your world view a little. It's good to have our world views shaken every now and then, unless we should get too comfortable.

Especially if you were an individual, who has gotten comfortable with the thought that, at this Point In Time, the fact that one has been raised in a “Christian” households, guarantees that he will grow up to be “Christian.”