Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Indoctrination


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 5:36:34 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That is: we reckon that we know that something exists if it *works* for us to assume that it exists.


Precisely, Peon... it comes down to these axioms having utility for us, by a definition of utility that also comes down to the axiomatic (e.g. if surviving is defined as good in your view, then getting out of the way of that train would seem to be a reasonable action), and this would be what I've been saying: that it isn't having axioms that's a problem, but rather conflicts that may arise when some axioms aren't compatible, or when one subscribes to inconsistent (e.g. self defeating) axioms. GotSteel and vincentML seem to be furthering the position that axioms are inherently undesireable, without attention to the fact that they have their own axioms, which strikes me as an error that is comparable in nature and scope to what they're accusing religion and religious people of (without much constraining of the definition of the two, to boot).

It doesn't seem to me that you and I are so incompatible as to be unable to share this world with a measure of mutual respect, despite a significant difference in axioms, but the very fact that I have them seems to preclude that with some others. Given that I'm usually quite happy to accomodate differences when others don't foist theirs on me, and to reach compromises when priorities differ, it seems likely to me that I'm not the source of an incompatibility there, as I'm happy to respect their opinion and they're consistently unwilling to respect mine on dogmatic grounds.

I think there's been a few groups that have been characterized by this problem with coexistence.

Care to remind me what those groups are, again?

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 361
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 6:42:47 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		Speaking of faith's negative effects on ones ability to calculate an accurate model of reality. I can't help but notice how popular solipsism is among the faithful, did you consider solipsism credible before you were a theist?

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 362
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 7:34:50 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad


I think there's been a few groups that have been characterized by this problem with coexistence.

Care to remind me what those groups are, again?



No. You and I might disagree as to what to put in that list and what to leave out, in which case we might end up not being able to coexist on this thread.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 363
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 7:42:26 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		I reject your use of the word axiom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.


quote:

ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom
ax·i·om
[ak-see-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.
a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.
Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.


Positions which require years of indoctrination before they're self-evident aren't axioms in the same sense that being able to find the existence of ones own ass is an axiom.



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 364
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 8:30:34 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I can't help but notice how popular solipsism is among the faithful, did you consider solipsism credible before you were a theist?


Of course. I pondered solipsism at about age 7 or so. Probably earlier, but that's the first I can recall as structured thought about it. It is a given that there will exist creatures for which solipsism is more than just credible, is indeed factual, as we develop the ability to make good AI and consistent, artificial environments in which AI based simulations can be run. The real question is whether or not solipsism is a factual thing for us, which it's probably not possible to decide on a general basis (though there have been some suggestions for experiments having the ability to test some specific solipsist scenarios).

I've no particular opinion on whether or not solipsism is a correct position, but credible? Sure.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 365
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 8:33:44 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I reject your use of the word axiom.


Fine. What's the word I should have used, then, assuming there is one?

It's your language, not mine; axiom seemed close enough.

ETA: My parents were atheist and agnostic, respectively, by the way, so not a whole lot of Christian indoctrination there.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


< Message edited by Aswad -- 11/29/2012 8:35:50 PM >

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 366
RE: Indoctrination - 11/29/2012 10:05:24 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I can't help but notice how popular solipsism is among the faithful

It may be relevant to note for the sake of certain illiterates among us that none of our Western monotheisms hold to or advocate solipsism.

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/29/2012 10:08:52 PM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 367
RE: Indoctrination - 11/30/2012 7:30:08 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I reject your use of the word axiom.

Fine. What's the word I should have used, then, assuming there is one?

I'm unaware of a word that can be validly used to conflate the capacity to find one's own ass with assertions about supernatural beings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
ETA: My parents were atheist and agnostic, respectively, by the way, so not a whole lot of Christian indoctrination there.

How about everywhere else?

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 368
RE: Indoctrination - 11/30/2012 7:55:18 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I'm unaware of a word that can be validly used to conflate the capacity to find one's own ass with assertions about supernatural beings.

Obviously, because "axiom" was fine in the first place.

On the basis of our personal experience, we believe the world to be real. And on the basis of our personal experience, we may also come to believe in the existence of a higher intelligence. Now of course, I'll grant you that personal experiences can be misinterpreted. For example, I seriously doubt you could find your own ass. But right or wrong, our basic beliefs come down to what we find to be self-evident (i.e., axiomatic) in terms of our personal experience.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/30/2012 8:46:02 PM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 369
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 4:41:13 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

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.

Meat . . . the issue I was responding to was indoctrination of Aethism.

quote:

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.

There is clearly a distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of action. Authorities are no longer burning apostates at the stake or tying 'witches' to the dunking stool. There have been historic episodes of unhindered expression by Doubters and Freethinkers, but always risky. Even now one's freedom to express religious doubt depends on his locale. There are regions where to speak thus is commonly to be set upon by stones.

Regarding political action by the vote, Americans did vote in 1932 for an alternative to Capitalism, and there were no troops in the street nor guns in their faces. Just FDR on the radio.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 370
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 4:54:53 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


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.

Your responses to GS's gigo were indeed quite amusing, and achieved without the face make-up and polka dot, baggy suit. So, kudos to you.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 371
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 5:52:52 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Meat . . . the issue I was responding to was indoctrination of Aethism.



What atheist indoctrination?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Regarding political action by the vote, Americans did vote in 1932 for an alternative to Capitalism, and there were no troops in the street nor guns in their faces. Just FDR on the radio.


FDR was a capitalist. Only Americans can call socially responsible capitalists as not being capitalist.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 372
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 6:22:13 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

What atheist indoctrination?

Exactly! Have a look at #345 and what follows.

quote:

FDR was a capitalist. Only Americans can call socially responsible capitalists as not being capitalist.

Matter of kinds and degrees. Even Hyack championed medical care and a living wage for the poor. Something intolerable during the market mania of 1920s and the current AynRandianism. Ya got your socially responsible Captitalism and then ya got your libertarian Capitalism.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/1/2012 6:32:35 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 373
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 6:31:46 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

that it isn't having axioms that's a problem, but rather conflicts that may arise when some axioms aren't compatible, or when one subscribes to inconsistent (e.g. self defeating) axioms.

We are in agreement then. Faith based axioms are unacceptable when they are used as the basis for 'logical' social actions, such as attacking the American Embassy in Cairo over a video, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, or the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 12/1/2012 6:40:24 AM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 374
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 7:04:27 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
What atheist indoctrination?


Exactly.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 375
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 7:28:51 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
Such energetic evangelistic efforts in that regard notwithstanding.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 376
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 7:32:46 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Regarding political action by the vote, Americans did vote in 1932 for an alternative to Capitalism, ...



Oh please.



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 377
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 8:23:10 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

that it isn't having axioms that's a problem, but rather conflicts that may arise when some axioms aren't compatible, or when one subscribes to inconsistent (e.g. self defeating) axioms.

Axioms by definition are self evident universally accepted truths, if there's conflict you've got something in there that's not actually an axiom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
We are in agreement then. Faith based axioms are unacceptable when they are used as the basis for 'logical' social actions, such as attacking the American Embassy in Cairo over a video, the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, or the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.


There are a number of different definitions for faith, this is one which I think is truly awful:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Hebrews-11-1/
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


The position that hope or faith that something is true can be taken as evidence that it is true really has the potential to throw ones worldview out of kilter.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 378
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 8:32:56 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
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.


I certainly hope you don't think that you're talking about my position. Personally I'm unaware of any atheist for which that would be a valid description.

I have noticed a baffling determination among some theists to add the word all to my position in ridiculously inappropriate places. Is this by any chance such a case?

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 379
RE: Indoctrination - 12/1/2012 8:39:30 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
The position that hope or faith that something is true can be taken as evidence that it is true really has the potential to throw ones worldview out of kilter.



Worse than that.

Being that you've described political ideology so perfectly, though I'm sure you're not a party to any of that at all, I think that we have a monumental amount of evidence before us now that either religious or secular fanaticism of any sort can, and in fact has, thrown the world out of kilter. The actual world, that is, not just the "world view."

Some pay more attention than others.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 380
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Indoctrination Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094