RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

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

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 2:20:30 PM)
It's a bit strange to suggest that there can be any observation without an observer, which seems to be what he's driving at there.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 2:37:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I'm sure there must be something on the net somewhere - if they released anything in writing. If they did, then you can find it and post it. If they didn't, then we want to know what imaginary friend told you. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 2:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead It's a bit strange to suggest that there can be any observation without an observer, which seems to be what he's driving at there. Whatever he's "driving at" is irrelevant. The point to be grasped has nothing to do with whether there exists an objective reality independent of consciousness. The point is that we can't prove there is. That's why Hawking says the question is pointless. K.

Moonhead -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 2:56:24 PM)
We can't even prove that we are conscious, come to that. It's more an interesting question than a pointless one, but one that it's impossible to answer.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 2:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead We can't even prove that we are conscious, come to that. It's more an interesting question than a pointless one, but one that it's impossible to answer. Well, for most people that's true. But not, apparently, for Brother Vincent. [8\|] K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 3:34:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well, for most people that's true. Prove it.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 3:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Interestingly, SoL is quoted as within a vacuum most of the time but is extremely variable depending on the density of the medium it is passing through. Which is because the value in a vacuum is the full value for the kind of vacuum we appear to be in. When passing through a medium, light will of course be subject to interactions, which causes a change in the observed speed of light to a (usually substantial) fraction of the full value. This fraction is described by the refractive index, and it has currently not been observed to be negative in any material, though one can nanopattern some materials to exhibit behavior similar to having a negative value (but not as far as speed of light is concerned). Light moves at whatever speed conditions allow. When it's unimpeded, it can reach the speed of causality: one unit of distance per unit of time. This allows us to determine what one unit of distance per unit of time is by measuring the unimpeded speed of light. But the light is just what we use to observe this quantity, not something which defines or prescribes it. Yes, light is used to calibrate- and thus define- the scales we use for measurement on Earth, but in this regard it's just a tool to probe the presumed Ultimate Speed. If you have any other particle handy that happens to not participate in any interaction we can't shield it from, that particle will move at the same speed if it is in our causal frame of reference, the same way light does when we shield light from all the interactions we know about. Also, if you have some neat way to change the relationship between distance and time, we could get a lot further in the same time, for a given speed. But the property about light that makes us use the term "speed of light" is simply that it happens to be possible to get it to behave as if it's not interacting with anything else. Under those conditions, light hits the speed limit, which is how we can tell what that limit is. I would be positively ecstatic to see any evidence of superluminal travel. But, so far, I haven't seen any. IWYW, — Aswad.

tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 8:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Man have been searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone just over two millenia ago. Sorry but I believe you are mistaken in your dates. Humans (not 'Man') have been "searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone' some time after humans developed language. Language was developed far more recently than two millenia ago. The concept of a deity is inconceivable outside of language. Interestingly, as just about everyone agrees that language is a human invention, it follows that a deity must be a human invention too.

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 8:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The concept of a deity is inconceivable outside of language. Interestingly, as just about everyone agrees that language is a human invention, it follows that a deity must be a human invention too. Great observation! But this restricts the deity we talk about here to be of a nature conceivable by humans... This means, for those who want to have room for a god, that they must find that deity beyond what we can observe and what requires language to be understood.... And it also means that this "true" deity CANNOT in any way shape or form be related to humans! Interesting perspective. It just confirms all the other logic leading to the same conclusion.

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 9:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Man have been searching for this ethereal 'god' since he/it was invented by someone just over two millenia ago. Aside from the timing (which already has been addressed), there is also an issue with the perspective. I don't believe humans have been looking for some ethereal god ever. That's not the context that created 'god'. It started with humans, out of fear, trying to understand events they could not explain, but were dependent on. The simplest way of comprehending such phenomena was to assume some kind of humane force controlling it. Those controlling spirits then took on human attributes, because that was a simpler way of understanding them. The INVENTION comes in when some smart people realized that, if they could be perceived by other people to be "closer" to those spirits or gods than everybody else, then they could use this in a systematic way to gain power.... If they could trick their fellow man into believing that they "spoke for the god", then they could rule the tribe and secure their own lives in great comfort! Knowledge is power, and so is fake knowledge - when other people believe in it! The early priests knew well that their power was subject to people believing what they were preaching, so they developed a complex system of rules and beliefs and stories that only THEY could keep track of. This definitely did not start for real until not only language was well developed, but also organized societies in cultures where not everybody knew everybody, but some social hierarchy was established, creating a need for organized power and control of the masses. We can safely date this to AFTER the last ice age some 12,000 years ago... The later development from the many gods into a single god (that isn't really so single at all, not even for Christians...) is a natural consequence of the power of priesthoods and churches trying to gain more power. Christianity and Islam were both excellent tools for the powers-that-were to subdue and control the population - and they still are. Just too bad now that so much of their stories and explanations have been proven false, so the entire system of religious knowledge is now clearly visible as seriously flawed, if not outright fraudulent, to people who can think and use logic. The priests are seeing their power dwindle - that's why they are so adamantly fighting for their own survival, by trying to dumb down everybody else, just as churches have done all the way through human history. "The Emperor is naked" now means that "God is a human invention, created by smart priests to control the population through fear." "God" and "Santa Claus" are created the same way. For little children, there is no difference, except that Santa Claus is easier for them to relate to - which proves my point that there is power in controlling belief, and controlling belief is easier when the believers can relate to what they are supposed to believe in. They can't relate to "something beyond quantum physics", but they can relate to a "god who created man in his own image" because that axiom can easily be used to derive a whole bunch of consequences that all can be useful for controlling people. "One god" also means "less to prove", so the whole belief system is much easier to keep hidden from the exposure of prying skeptics. Sure, I know, I have no proof of any of this, but this is, to me, by far the most likely way it all developed, and it was NOT by man searching for a deity - that deity was pulled down over his head for the purpose of controlling him, and he was threatened to at least pretend he believed in this god! Children that are raised without any religious indoctrination do not become religious. So, man has no "need' for a god. The churches have.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 10:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The concept of a deity is inconceivable outside of language. How can anyone as intelligent as yourself possibly take that claim seriously, let alone say it out loud in a public forum? Concepts precede the development of language. With the development of a shared language to express and communicate them, an interaction begins in which the language affects further conceptual development, partly by restricting it, but also by making more complex conceptualizations possible. However, some concepts cannot be adequately encompassed even within a language. Nevermind diety; take love, for example. The primary error of wacko fundamentalists and many of their atheist critics is to read a sacred text literally, then insist that it's true because "God says so," or insist that it's false because it so obviously is, while sharing in common a concretistic turn of mind that invariably misses the point entirely. Imagine what would happen if people read Gibran on love literally. Fundamentalist Gibranites would be preaching crucifixion and cannibalism as the essence of love, while the Agibranists would be insisting just as forcefully that there is no such thing. Sounds kinda familiar come to think of it, eh? K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 10:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia It started with humans, out of fear, trying to understand events they could not explain... Humans have always tried to explain things they didn't understand (if you don't mind me changing your word order). In other news, the sun still rises in the East. But your additional claim, that we do it out of fear, is just a cheap swipe. K.

graceadieu -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 11:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladinagain Actually science and astronomy point to intelligent design with overwhelming evidence. There are smaller medical research centers that are making MAJOR breakthroughs by approaching the human body with an “engineering” mindset. Evolution is a long since proven erroneous theory. It’s an impossibility, but yet it is thrust down our children’s throats with our taxpayer dollars. The media insists that it be presented as” fact" on TV on a regular basis. The few true scientists that concur with the facts are ostracized because the scientific community is so political. Um, no. Do you seriously think that 99% of the scientific community is engaged in a giant worldwide conspiracy because of politics? That's some serious conspiracy theory, dude. Please open your mind and take some science classes. As a former evangelical Christian, I ended up studying both ID and mainstream science to see what was true... and ID really just doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. The evidence just isn't there. For creationism to be true, modern biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology would all have to be deeply flawed and need to be re-written. But no ID group has come forward with a plausible alternative model to explain those sciences, other than "God did it", which just can't be tested scientifically. Scientists base their laws and models on what (so far) best fits the evidence and best predicts the outcome of future studies and future discoveries. Evolution does fit the data, and can predict future outcomes. But you just can't do that with miracles and divine intervention, because they're exceptions and unpredictable by their very nature. Also, frankly, the papers published by the ID community, at least as of ~10 years ago, are written with about the same academic rigor as a lab report from a community college science course.

graceadieu -> RE: Indoctrination (11/13/2012 11:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Are you saying that (on at least 3 or 4 separate news-worthy occasions) the LHC team lied to everyone and that the film of the particles shown on the screen weren't real?? Of course not. They weren't lying, they thought it was true. It was just that a loose cable was causing their computer to give them inaccurate results. I'm sure that was pretty embarassing and disappointing for them!

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 12:03:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia It started with humans, out of fear, trying to understand events they could not explain... Humans have always tried to explain things they didn't understand (if you don't mind me changing your word order). In other news, the sun still rises in the East. But your additional claim, that we do it out of fear, is just a cheap swipe. K. I did not say that you do it out of fear - or that anyone else does it out of fear. I stated that I BELIEVE it STARTED because of fear, and that priests EXPLOITED that fear for the sake of power. What do you want me to call you when you call my explained thesis "a cheap swipe"? If you were a decent debater, you would come up with some antithesis that proved me wrong - or another thesis that appears more plausible and likely. This kind of personal arrogant derogatory attack does not earn you any stripes.

ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 12:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The concept of a deity is inconceivable outside of language. How can anyone as intelligent as yourself possibly take that claim seriously, let alone say it out loud in a public forum? Concepts precede the development of language. With the development of a shared language to express and communicate them, an interaction begins in which the language affects further conceptual development, partly by restricting it, but also by making more complex conceptualizations possible. However, some concepts cannot be adequately encompassed even within a language. Nevermind diety; take love, for example. The primary error of wacko fundamentalists and many of their atheist critics is to read a sacred text literally, then insist that it's true because "God says so," or insist that it's false because it so obviously is, while sharing in common a concretistic turn of mind that invariably misses the point entirely. Imagine what would happen if people read Gibran on love literally. Fundamentalist Gibranites would be preaching crucifixion and cannibalism as the essence of love, while the Agibranists would be insisting just as forcefully that there is no such thing. Sounds kinda familiar come to think of it, eh? K. You just have a problem with being nice, right? Does it make your halo shine when you can make your point by pissing on other people, insinuating that they are unintelligent when they disagree with you or didn't ask your opinion before their posted theirs? It would make a discussion like this far more enjoyable for everybody else if you and folks like you could keep their perfidious personal attacks to themselves and focus on the ISSUE without being nasty to people who have a different view. Countering someone else's thesis by just calling the presenter of it something negative is not acceptable proof of it being wrong. If you want to be the judge of other people's intelligence, you have to fare much better than that... Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:10:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language. Do deaf mutes have no thoughts/concepts? A concept is an idea. Frequently human beings have ideas that they don't vocalize (Ted Bundy might be one example). But to say that language is required in order to have an idea doesn't even come close to ring true. In order to share that idea with others, some form of communication is necessary but, I can draw a football play in the dirt with a stick and never have to make a sound. My point still gets across and the concept of the idea has been shared. Peace and comfort, Michael

tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:52:20 AM)
quote: How can anyone as intelligent .as yourself possibly take that claim seriously, let alone say it out loud in a public forum? Concepts precede the development of language With the development of a shared language to express and communicate them, an interaction begins in which the language affects further conceptual development, partly by restricting it, but also by making more complex conceptualizations possible. Sorry Mr K but I have no option but to advise you that you are flat wrong here. I'm sad to see you make such a ridiculous claim as: "Concepts precede the development of language." If this was valid, then an infant would be capable of developing original abstract concepts prior to the acquisition of language. Do you really want to make such a nonsensical claim? Look at the way a child acquires linguistic ability. First come words ... which are later formed into sentences ... then increasingly complex structures. Generally a child has been learning and mastering language for years before we say they can handle abstract concepts efficiently. In most cases, it takes at least decade and often more before they are capable of developing original abstract concepts. Even after all those years of training, only a small percentage of people will be capable of developing original abstract concepts. Experiments on aphasiacs (people who have no language capacity, or have had the language centres of their brains destroyed) teach us that they are incapable of simple classification tasks - without language, they have no medium with which to perform classification, they lack the essential tool for the task. Without the ability to classify, abstract conceptualisation such as the development of a concept of a deity is impossible.* If this isn't sufficient, can I suggest Post-Structural Linguistics 101? If that isn't sufficient, can I ask that you outline the process whereby an abstract concept such as a diety is conceivable without using language? If you can't outline the process, can you offer just one example of an original abstract concept that has been developed by a person without any linguistic ability? quote: However, some concepts cannot be adequately encompassed even within a language. Never mind deity; take love, for example. The primary error of wacko fundamentalists and many of their atheist critics is to read a sacred text literally, then insist that it's true because "God says so," or insist that it's false because it so obviously is, while sharing in common a concretistic turn of mind that invariably misses the point entirely Things may well exist that cannot be rendered accurately into discourse. In respect to this issue, that is irrelevant. What is at issue here is whether humans are capable of conceptualising original abstract concepts without the ordering, organising classifying mechanism of language. My claim is that language is essential for humans to classify discrete objects into unified ideas as the experience of aphasiacs teaches us. Without that mechanism, a concept such as a diety is inconceivable. Nothing you have presented thus far counters that claim. * This evidence is presented and the argument is more fully developed by Michel Foucault in his introduction to "The Order of Things"

YN -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:53:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I waited until after the elections for this. It seems that most of my RW friends and acquaintances are always ranting about the schools "Indoctrinating" our children away from the one twue way. let's look at some numbers from this area. Church is Sun morning for 2 hours, Sun evening 2 hours and Wed evening for one hour. That is 5 hours/week of Church instruction/week x 50 weeks/year from age 2-18. (2 weeks off) This equals 4000 hours of instruction in Religious doctrine. A child starts school at age 6. for the next 6 years, he gets 45 min of science education x 180 days/year = 810 hours (perfect attendance) For the next 6 years, he gets 50 mins/day (let's be really generous and call it an hour) This = 1080 hours of education on science. By the time a child is 18, he has recieved 4000 hours of religious instruction vs 1890 hours (I'm exaggerating it upward OK) of Science instruction. Just who the fuck is guilty of "Indoctrination"? As some of the other posters, notably teakebelle and thompsonxx have described the Catholic regimen, which is in effect in much of Latin America by law (here one can gain exemption, but only through a replacement religious or philosophical study agreed by the parents, student and school) is about the normal mean in much of thee "Western" world. And even in Europe, countries like the United Kingdom even still have compulsory religious education, and even religious observances at the school if I read the report correctly. Several other European countries are similar. Thus your evangelicals must either operate a very powerful ministry or are models of great efficiency to excel (without government expense also,) against the time tested (or time worn) abilities of the Catholic and Anglican church's lavishly funded and governmentally supported Christian indoctrination systems. As to the language/religion/deity(s) question - It takes a meme to create a religion, and memes require a form of communication to spread.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 1:57:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia I did not say that you do it out of fear - or that anyone else does it out of fear. I stated that I BELIEVE it STARTED because of fear, and that priests EXPLOITED that fear for the sake of power. Actually, what you stated was what you do not believe, namely, that "humans have been looking for some ethereal god ever." Instead, by your accounting, "it started with humans, out of fear, trying to understand events they could not explain." That's a pretty clear statement of alleged fact. But while the fear meme has been worked to death in religion threads before, I'll give you credit as the first to extend it to being the motivation for humans "trying to understand events they could not explain" in general. K.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875