RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Indoctrination (11/21/2012 1:25:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I do not see a problem. Both are important but religion is more important, and it gets more attention. Religion gives a child cosmic dimension while science adds to it practical aspect for everyday life on Earth.


Breaking News - There are no religious assholes in the vacuum of space. Go have a look for yourself.



mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/21/2012 1:27:28 PM)

Even the Magic invisible sky wizard comes to walk in the cool of the garden, they wrote a book about that.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/21/2012 1:48:38 PM)

You seem to be arguing my point, GotSteel.

It is a matter of values, personality and other such factors that are independent of faith in itself. One could argue that there are values I've absorbed over the years that are harmful or whatever, but you're not attacking values you have a problem with, but rather religion and faith, which is a different thing. If mine imparted only positive values, from what you've said, it seems you'd have a problem with it anyway. Which doesn't even address the matter of intrinsic character.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/23/2012 5:54:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
It is a matter of values, personality and other such factors that are independent of faith in itself.

I consider conflating wild speculation with truth to be harmful in and of itself.

Furthermore, I don't think it's independent. That belief propped up by faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in a brain as part of a world view. It ends up getting used as a premise from which to calculate other positions and that's the thing, no matter how perfect ones logic if garbage goes in to that logic what comes out is also going to be garbage.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/26/2012 7:33:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

belief propped up by faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in a brain as part of a world view. It ends up getting used as a premise from which to calculate other positions and that's the thing, no matter how perfect ones logic if garbage goes in to that logic what comes out is also going to be garbage.

Speaking of indoctrination and belief, and garbage in particular...

American Atheists > FAQ > Religion

In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody.

Religion is exquisitely profitable, with most adherents tithing a portion of their income. The churches, synagogues, and mosques, which do little to serve their community outside of "outreach programs" (marketing and recruiting), pay almost no taxes.

Religion spreads like disease through societies, rarely coexisting with pre-existing mythologies, rather preferring to conquer or be conquered. Religion is anything but tolerant.

American Atheists is not afraid to point out that which is true: religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.

The bald absolutism with which these sweeping claims are pronounced demonstrates that ignorance and vitriol work just as well as faith in the garbage department, and garbage is still garbage.

K.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/26/2012 8:12:45 PM)

quote:



Speaking of indoctrination and belief, and garbage in particular...

The bald absolutism with which these sweeping claims are pronounced demonstrates that ignorance and vitriol work just as well as faith in the garbage department, and garbage is still garbage.

So, you mean there is no truth in any of those statements?

And how do these Atheist observations on a website constitute "indoctrination?"

Speaking of vitriol, you seem terribly angry, K. [:D]



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/27/2012 10:05:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

So, you mean there is no truth in any of those statements?

There is no way you could get to that from what I actually said, so I want to thank you for providing yet another example of the garbage principle at work without the slightest need for faith or religion to drive it, certain qualities of character being sufficient on their own.

K.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/27/2012 12:06:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

So, you mean there is no truth in any of those statements?

There is no way you could get to that from what I actually said, so I want to thank you for providing yet another example of the garbage principle at work without the slightest need for faith or religion to drive it, certain qualities of character being sufficient on their own.

K.

Well, the way I arrived at the question was because you said the remarks in their absolutist form (as you saw it) were garbage, or derived as garbage input.

But . . . no need to answer beyond your dodge [:)]



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/27/2012 1:49:51 PM)


Truth is just like anything else you might consider putting in your mouth. If it's polluted, it's garbage. You could be right, there might be a nice piece of strawberry cheesecake buried somewhere in that pile of muck. But if you're going digging, you'll want boots and an apron.

K.










Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/27/2012 6:16:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

So, you mean there is no truth in any of those statements?


There's usually a kernel of truth in any statement, which is not to say there is any more than a kernel in those.

quote:

And how do these Atheist observations on a website constitute "indoctrination?"


It's only indoctrination if those ideas are foisted on people. I don't know if they have been, but they're certainly prevalent.

quote:

Speaking of vitriol, you seem terribly angry, K.


He has good reason to be. Imagine someone dealing with all the social ills of poverty in America, and pinning it all on the blacks. This is precisely the same thing in principle.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/28/2012 10:02:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Truth is just like anything else you might consider putting in your mouth. If it's polluted, it's garbage. You could be right, there might be a nice piece of strawberry cheesecake buried somewhere in that pile of muck. But if you're going digging, you'll want boots and an apron.

K.


Maybe all 'truth' is tainted to various degrees but that is another discussion.
How do you answer GotSteel's claim that Faith is a faulty premise that pollutes logic in solving other issues?



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/28/2012 10:07:39 AM)

quote:

It's only indoctrination if those ideas are foisted on people. I don't know if they have been, but they're certainly prevalent.

Foisted on people? I can't imagine how. You give Atheists too much credit, I think. Maybe they are prevelant because the market place of ideas has become more tolerant of late.

quote:

He has good reason to be. Imagine someone dealing with all the social ills of poverty in America, and pinning it all on the blacks. This is precisely the same thing in principle.

Do you really mean to draw an equivalency between a persecuted minority and the historical ruling class? Seriously?[8|]



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/28/2012 3:14:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How do you answer GotSteel's claim that Faith is a faulty premise that pollutes logic in solving other issues?

You two need to get a fucking grip. That issue was confronted about 300+ posts ago.

K.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/28/2012 5:25:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How do you answer GotSteel's claim that Faith is a faulty premise that pollutes logic in solving other issues?


It's been answered several times in this thread already: axioms are indispensable in making logic actually do anything.

The ability to actually work correctly with the axioms one has, it seems, is far rarer than the ability to select decent axioms.

ETA: I see K beat me to it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/28/2012 5:40:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Foisted on people? I can't imagine how.


Oh, I dunno... rearing, maybe?

The constant whining of some atheists, like Çenk of Young Turks?

quote:

You give Atheists too much credit, I think.


Go back and (re)read what I wrote.

I said "it is only X if Y", and you seem to be reading it as "it's Y, and thus X".

quote:

Maybe they are prevelant because the market place of ideas has become more tolerant of late.


Perhaps, but I'm not seeing how that is a credible reason.

quote:

Do you really mean to draw an equivalency between a persecuted minority and the historical ruling class? Seriously?


Are you really unable to parse what I said? Seriously?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/29/2012 8:42:10 AM)

quote:

Oh, I dunno... rearing, maybe?

The constant whining of some atheists, like Çenk of Young Turks?

One zealous commentator does not give evidence of wide spread indoctrination. A long reach by you.

quote:

Perhaps, but I'm not seeing how that is a credible reason.

You do not see the expansion of the marketplace of ideas, the expansion of freedom of expression, as a credible reason for the spread of previously surpressed ideas? Quite remarkable. Would you care to suggest an alternative?

quote:

Are you really unable to parse what I said? Seriously?

You are the one who drew the equivalency saying it was precisely the same thing. Now you say what? I did not understand your comment? A bit of sophistry I think. Let us not waste time on debating clarity of expression and cleverness.

quote:

The ability to actually work correctly with the axioms one has, it seems, is far rarer than the ability to select decent axioms.

Axioms assume truth and that is precisely what GS was questioning.

This may have been dealt with before in the thread. Why then did K get into such a lather over the common use of GIGO . . . garbage in, garbage out?





meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (11/29/2012 8:54:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

One zealous commentator does not give evidence of wide spread indoctrination. A long reach by you.



If people weren't indoctrinated, you wouldn't be able to look at a map and say that is the christian world, that is the muslim world and that is the buddhist world etc etc Religions group in geographical areas precisely because people are indoctrinated. As the Jesuits said, give me the boy and I'll give you the man. How true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
You do not see the expansion of the marketplace of ideas, the expansion of freedom of expression, as a credible reason for the spread of previously surpressed ideas? Quite remarkable. Would you care to suggest an alternative?


What freedom of expression? Freedom to say anything as long as you do nothing about it? That's just letting off steam. If peope actually voted for an alternative to capitalism i the western world, the troops would be on the streets within 24 hours with a gun in you face. Freedom of expression is a fine thing but only if you have the freedom to act.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/29/2012 10:13:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Why then did K get into such a lather over the common use of GIGO . . . garbage in, garbage out?

I wish you would stop trying to project your petulance onto me. I like a good clown act as much as the next person.

K.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/29/2012 3:15:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

One zealous commentator does not give evidence of wide spread indoctrination. A long reach by you.


I never tried to provide evidence of widespread indoctrination.

Go back and (re)read what I wrote.

quote:

You do not see the expansion of the marketplace of ideas, the expansion of freedom of expression, as a credible reason for the spread of previously surpressed ideas? Quite remarkable. Would you care to suggest an alternative?


Intolerant, ignorant crap is nothing new, and it's been a while since these ideas were particularly suppressed.

quote:

You are the one who drew the equivalency saying it was precisely the same thing. Now you say what? I did not understand your comment? A bit of sophistry I think. Let us not waste time on debating clarity of expression and cleverness.


The equivalency you claimed I drew is not the equivalency I actually drew.

Is that clear enough?

quote:

Axioms assume truth and that is precisely what GS was questioning.


Mathematicians have long since accepted that axioms are important and unavoidable.

Here's an example of an axiom: there exists an external reality, independently of the existence of its observers.

Would you care to suggest that it's beneficial to reject that axiom?

If not, would you care to prove that it's not an assumption?

"Self evident" won't suffice, by the way; that's faith.

quote:

This may have been dealt with before in the thread. Why then did K get into such a lather over the common use of GIGO . . . garbage in, garbage out?


It has indeed been dealt with several times before in this thread, and in others. As for K, you would have to ask him. My guess is he's simply not quite as patient with some things as I am, for which I'm not about to fault him, seeing as my own patience is sorely tested by the same ignorant, nonsensical crap that would test his, regardless of the creed- or anticreed, or noncreed- of the person spewing it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (11/29/2012 4:18:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad


quote:

Axioms assume truth and that is precisely what GS was questioning.


Mathematicians have long since accepted that axioms are important and unavoidable.

Here's an example of an axiom: there exists an external reality, independently of the existence of its observers.



Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought we'd concluded that this came down to pragmatic ontology? That, in fact, most of us non-religionists aren't inadvertent worshippers at the altar of Descartes - that this is actually just a straw man argument?

That is: we reckon that we know that something exists if it *works* for us to assume that it exists. For instance, if I'm standing on a railway track and a train is coming towards me, it works for me to assume that the train does indeed exist . . . so I step out of its way. In this way I don't get splattered (assuming that my getting splattered is an objective reality, etc).

How does the question of the existence or non-existence of God stand, given such a test? This is what I ponder, sometimes.










Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875