|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:23 PM |
|
|
Okay, then I think your analogy holds. 
Also, I think when TD talked about society, he talked about how he wanted it to be (from some considerations, that I think most of us in this thread actually would agree on would make an improvement), and not on how society first started or how it's evolved through history.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:26 PM |
|
|
while this isn't really related to religion, what you wrote made me recall a few things, JJ.
Our history lessons from primary school all the way to high school were like "reasons for XXX; effects of YYY"
And they WERE biased - for instance, they hammered the "fact" that US nuclear bomb would save Japanese lives - I mean, it is possible, but there are also other theories. But my teacher was pretty silent about those - he kept saying that the bomb saved lives. Oh well.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:40 PM |
|
|
I expect that Polish history lessons have changed thoroughly, first after 1945, then again after 1990 - that kind of thing is to be expected "when systems compete with each other".
No one, least of all me, would say that INTERPRETATIONS of facts are taught unbiassed, and there are enough examples for even FACTS being tampered with. On the contrary. Of course we ARE undergoing a lot of propaganda, influencing, half-truths, and so on, but the main thing to keep in mind is that we are not brainwashed to OBEY and NEVER QUESTION what is taught to us in school. We are not educated to believe unconditionally in the good and the truth of the system either - on the contrary. We CAN express doubt; education doesn't have the purpose to produce yessayers - or believers or even worshippers.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker:Quote:
One error is, that your understanding about society is already determined by a purpose. For some reason only you know it's clear that society seems to have a mystical destiny, an obligation to do certain things and don't do certain other things. Where would that come from? From heaven? Nature's example? Natural insight?
Development of society (societies) is a process after all, not something that falls from the sky
North Korea is a society as well, I'm not denying it.
In fact my definition of society is much more broad -- you previously implied that only democracies are societies.
However that's not the point. There are all sorts of society in history, some vastly different. I'm not trying to define society in my posts, and which is why you completely missed my point. I'm trying to reason WHY certain societies are better than others.
My analogies are supposed to represent how a given system is no better than another (COMPARISON is the best tool available for this), or how it can DEGRADE to a similar level.
Example of an analogy:
Someone says: "I agree that the Holocaust was bad, but the POSSIBILITY of the state (let's say, in the constitution) to slaughter of black people without reason is justified."
I say: "How is that any different? It can just turn out just as worse as the jewish Holocaust."
Both are societies, no doubt, nazis and the imaginary one. So what's your point? There's nothing to debate about them BEING societies, it's whether they are fair societies, free societies or, you know, I prefer to call them reasonably evolved societies. Few meet this definition, and indoctrination of any sorts does absolutely not meet it.
Just because something is a society doesn't say **** about it. I couldn't care less. I need details of what type of society it is. Nazism certainly isn't appealing to me. If you can't see a difference between the different types of societies, then why are you even arguing?
Then you say that the parents should have the right to give kids vegetables -- which is totally unrelated to teaching/indoctrination. Of course the kids do not have a right to be spoiled (but they should have the right to refuse a decision or to choose something else -- the parents are not obliged to give them that something else though).
Freedom doesn't mean you are entitled to others' help. Freedom means that you can refuse and choose, it doesn't mean the others are obliged to give something, it only means that the others can't STOP you from something.
It's like the difference between someone forcing someone else to do something, and someone simply not allowing others to force others. The latter is not forcing anyone to do anything, it's simply restricting them to restrict on others.
So in other words, the state in my view should prevent parents from forcing their children and stripping them of freedoms when it comes to education. It should not enforce it's own education on children, but simply prevent OTHERS (and even itself!) from doing that.
Like a police, if you will. The police isn't supposed to force stuff on people but to prevent others from doing that.
If a kid constantly refuses to eat vegetables from the parents and finds food somewhere else, it should be partially his choice (depends on the stage in the child's development, has to be somewhat high, as food is different than education -- education can't be poison at the same stage, food can -- I mean, food can be poison even for grown-ups...)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JollyJoker:Quote:
One error is, that your understanding about society is already determined by a purpose. For some reason only you know it's clear that society seems to have a mystical destiny, an obligation to do certain things and don't do certain other things. Where would that come from? From heaven? Nature's example? Natural insight?
Development of society (societies) is a process after all, not something that falls from the sky
North Korea is a society as well, I'm not denying it.
In fact my definition of society is much more broad -- you previously implied that only democracies are societies.
However that's not the point. There are all sorts of society in history, some vastly different. I'm not trying to define society in my posts, and which is why you completely missed my point. I'm trying to reason WHY certain societies are better than others.
My analogies are supposed to represent how a given system is no better than another (COMPARISON is the best tool available for this), or how it can DEGRADE to a similar level.
Example of an analogy:
Someone says: "I agree that the Holocaust was bad, but the POSSIBILITY of the state (let's say, in the constitution) to slaughter of black people without reason is justified."
I say: "How is that any different? It can just turn out just as worse as the jewish Holocaust."
Both are societies, no doubt, nazis and the imaginary one. So what's your point? There's nothing to debate about them BEING societies, it's whether they are fair societies, free societies or, you know, I prefer to call them reasonably evolved societies. Few meet this definition, and indoctrination of any sorts does absolutely not meet it.
Just because something is a society doesn't say **** about it. I couldn't care less. I need details of what type of society it is. Nazism certainly isn't appealing to me. If you can't see a difference between the different types of societies, then why are you even arguing?
Death, that's half of your post, and I don't see any connection at all with the quote you start it with. Specifically, you do not answer where all those insights are coming from - where do you pull all that purposes out of a society should have and why is - in your opinion - this or that society better than others? Because they do appeal to you more or less? That can't be the foundation of objectove judgement.
For children, while I fee that there is something we share here I find myself disagreeing. Parents and society have all the right in the world to make things mandatory: school, for example; or no cussing at home and so on. However, children shouldn't be brainwashed into liking these things (if they don't).
Since I don't believe in absolute values as such, I think that priorities in societies NECESSARILY differ. In earler times education would have been a lot more physical - blade work, bow and arrow, riding, close combat; times were harder.
Of course, as with EVERY school it is important that the children have a chance to make picks that suit their talents and interests, no matter the time or society.
However, you can't judge something you don't know, so there can be no doubt that it is in the best interest of all children to be introduced into as many different things as is possible. Moreover, an education that will exclusively switch to the talents and interests of someone will make the weaknesses even more pronounced which isn't good either.
So I find a lot of your inputs and calls for freedom not onyl unjustified but even counter-productive.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 09:10 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:14, 17 Nov 2009.
|
When I quoted that part it was supposed to show you that I'm not trying to define how societies are formed, because I care what type of society it is. It could be a dictatorship where the state has every possible right imaginable and it uses them & exploits them. That doesn't make it right to me.
And you still don't get it, do you? I mean, why I argue that way I do.
Sure you can say all day what is optimal and what is not, but it's still deciding for someone else. You somehow think it makes yours more valid, but you don't act that way. It's like saying demanding respect without questioning.
And no I don't care about history because I'm talking about a reasonably evolved model. It used to be that humans were tools (slaves) and not individuals just like you.
Tell you what, why not the other way around -- the kids to decide for you?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
I don't find anything in your posts except the statement that you care only for the things you care. What are you SAYING actually? That infants should be free to do what they want? Well, they certaonly can cry all day, but what else?
Is it too much for you to see that freedom is a matter of options as well? And a 3-year-old doesn't have any. It's dependant. Why go to school at all? Children of reach people will survive on their parents' money - so why go to school?
So, what's your point? I don't see any.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't find anything in your posts except the statement that you care only for the things you care. What are you SAYING actually? That infants should be free to do what they want? Well, they certaonly can cry all day, but what else?
Is it too much for you to see that freedom is a matter of options as well?
Yes it's a matter of options, I'm in no way against informing them of the options, you see... it was what I was "rambling" about. 
And yes of course I give reasons why I care for a society under this model -- reasons that all other societies lack (as otherwise it wouldn't be anything specific only to it). And superiority ego doesn't really help much (i.e I know this is the truth and the best way IMO, so I have to teach it to every kid -- I think too many people forget the IMO part...  )
Quote:
And a 3-year-old doesn't have any.
I wasn't aware 3 year olds go to school. I think that after 4 years of basic social education (primary school) they are ready to understand different options and, you know, talk and understand what you're saying...
Quote:
Children of reach people will survive on their parents' money - so why go to school?
If you mean rich people, if the kid wants it, or if the parents told him they'll not support him forever -- I mean it's not like anyone around here is forcing them to spoil the child, certainly not me!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 06:12 AM |
|
|
Wait, I am a bit .. confused here. So teaching something as absolute without questioning is brainwashing, but what I am saying is not? Ok Jolly, when is the last time you picked up an apple and thought (seriously) this is a cow? When have you ever questioned say..gravity? When is the last time you were given two oranges and thought (again seriously) I have three oranges?
Never. If you did, you would be considered insane, delusional, or (pardon the word) 'retarded'. There IS no questioning. It is absolute. Simply society says "This is how things are, deal with it."
So, if brainwashing is defined as allowing no questioning, then yes we are ALL brainwashed. Because we never even consider questioning them. Now again, what we do with that information is indeed individual, but it is shaded by our teaching at all times.
Unfortunately for the most part, part of the brainwashing is of course that YOU are not brainwashed. Anybody who thinks differently may be, but never you.
It is not a bad thing, as I've said. Society needs 'common knowledge'. Unfortunately I realise that there is no way to continue this debate. We will never find a middle ground or agree. So..believe as you wish.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 07:59 AM |
|
|
@Death
Quote:
Yes it's a matter of options, I'm in no way against informing them of the options, you see... it was what I was "rambling" about.
But you forget, that in order to do that you have to make it MANDATORY for kids to let themselves get informed. If you want kids to HAVE options, you have to make them take look at them. You have to make them GO to school, for example. A certain amount of "guiding force" is strictly necessary. And one problem of today's modern society is that a lot of the 10-year-olds you seem to think should be fully responsible for themselves and decide everything concerning themselves, think they already know everything and have seen everything because it was somehow mentioned in some TV show or they read a sentence about it on the internet.
And I STILL don't see aby point except that YOU THINK things should be this or that way - but where are the reasons WHY you think that?
Moreover, it's fine when you don't care for history - you share that ignorance with most 10-year-olds -, but you cannot ignore what was, as if it never happened. You cannot just forget the past of a single human and decide that a human, age 40, should live now this and that way, ignoring the individual past and what made him what he is today, and you cannot ignore that past with any society.
If you do that, you are already far off reality and in imaginary Death realm.
And, you see, *I* don't care anymore to walk through this imaginary Death realm.
@Mytical
And since we are at it, I don't care anymore to walk through this imaginary Mytical realm either.
Let me see, whether I got this right, Mytical.
You WOULD BE against brainwashing - of course -, but since basically all learning is brainwashing there's no way around it, and if every kind of learning is brainwashing anyway, a little more or less doesn't matter.
Well, Mytical, if you think, that learning the convention that a certain something is called by a certain name in a certain language - like that thing with 4 legs that gives milk and makes moo is called a "cow" - is the same thing than learning that it's better to be dead than red, that you have to protect pure white women from the slavering looks of the lazy black wretches lusting after white flesh or, supported by a friendly reminder of belt omn buttocks, that God demands you to pray each morning and each evening and that he sees everything, even if you forget it, and that the parents are just doing His will and show you the right way which doesn't include saying certain words, because otherwise you'll end in hell; if you think that, if that's your point, then *I* think, this discussion is useless because we've been brainwashed too differently to speak the same language.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 08:28 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:45, 18 Nov 2009.
|
We are deffinately speaking a different language then. First you are confusing religion for something else entirely. Racial, national, etc hatred has nothing to do with religion. Sure there are those with religious intolerences, even hatred for those who don't share the same beliefs, I will fully admit those exist. However, in teaching a child your beliefs you DO NOT HAVE TO TEACH HATE. Which is where you seem to be confused. You seem to think all religious people teach hatred of other religions to their children. It is simply NOT the case.
See I've talked to some very religious people, I've studied their beliefs and their ways. The greatest majority of them, believe in PEACE. That is Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, and many many others. Yes, they believe a certain way, and yes they think others should believe the way they do. They do not HATE somebody because they don't however. INDIVIDUALS do, the RELIGIONS don't. I don't know how to more clearly explain the difference.
Some 'redneck' (which by the way is a term of HATE and Intollerence itself) shouting about killing non-whites have NOTHING to do with religion. Neither does 'protecting the white woman from the blah blah blah' either. Somehow you are not disconnecting hate and intollerence from religion. Hate and intollerence not only would exist if religion never was, it might even be WORSE.
Yes, the bible has things about stoning people, and such and such. It also has "Turn the other cheek", "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you", and "Love thy neighbor."
Also, if you ask around..you will find that just because you are made to go to church, or taught about this or that religon, that it is not guaranteed you will belong to that religion. From 10-15 I ate, slept, breathed Christianity. I know Jewish people who have married Catholics for petes sake. Just because you are TAUGHT something, does not mean you do not have a CHOICE.
If I had a nickle for every story I've heard of people being raised in die hard religious homes who have nothing to do with that religion, I would be richer then Bill Gates ever thought of being.
Yes, I think teaching a child about religion is no more brainwashing then telling them about gravity. Because I realise that just because they are taught it, doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean they will belong to that faith. Do I think that there is more severe brainwashing, that does teach hate? Absolutely. But it is not all religion. Some people hate period. They will use any 'excuse' to hate. Race, height, weight, the color of a person's eyes. ANY excuse. So yeah, I don't think teaching a child your religious views is the type of brainwashing you think it is.
If you are saying "We need to teach people to be more tolerant" I am right behind you. I agree 1000%, and that INCLUDES being tolerant of other peoples FAITH. If you are saying "All religion is brainwashing, and they should only be able to think what I think they should think." all I can say is sorry, not for me thanks. Because that is exactly how you are coming accross. That people should only be able to do things the way YOU think they should. I will never support, agree, or even consider that as an option.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 08:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
To make my point more clear.
Elodin, I suppose you want to teach your children the religion you believe in.
Now to make it clear where the choice really is in this, I think it'd be a good idea, if you'd tell how exactly you're going to do this?
Will you present what made you believe? What if your child disagrees?
Yes, I would not love my children if I did not teach them Christianity. Of course small children have to be taught basic principles like:
-"God loves you"
- "we all make mistakes and do things that are wrong (sin) sometimes."
-"God is forgiving. When you sin ask for his forgiveness."
-Bible stories that small children can understand
Young children will have lots of questions, as anyone who has children knows. So I've always encouraged my children to ask questions and never made them feel silly for asking any question. As the child attends church/Sunday school they will have questions when they come home. Sitting around the table eating meals (yes, not everyone sits in front of TV for meal time) there is plenty of time for question and answer.
If my child disagreed with me I would show them from the Bible why what I have said is correct.
Quote:
You WOULD HAVE a point if the parents were the one whod had to take all the blame and clean up all the mess in case something goes wrong with their children.
Which isn't the case, though. Not at all. In fact, if something goes wrong it's society that will have to clean up the mess if the parents can't for whatever reason and it's society as a whole that will suffer - and that's why the government has a say, and correectly so. Not only that, it's easy to see as well.
Actually if a child in the US makes the choice to skip school the parents can be fined or jailed. If a child vandalizes a building the parents will have to pay.
No, I don't agree that the State should have any say in what a child is taught. Obviously I believe academics should be taught at school but the State should have no say in what a child id taught at home.
Quote:
You might say it this way: no matter what the state says, the parents have any right to INFORM their children about the existance of a belief and that they follow it for this and that reason ("because we believe it's true"), but it shouldn't be mandatory for children to adopt the same belief.
The parents have the right to say Islam is the only true religion. Or Christianity is the only true religion. Or atheism is the truth. And the State has no right to undermine that teaching.
Now, no one can be forced to become a Christian since a person can only be a Christian if he obeys the gospel of Christ from the heart.
A parent CAN require the child to go to church or Sunday School or whatever and the State has no right to say otherwise.
It is the parents' job to make sure the child learns what he needs to know.
Quote:
Parents are not always the best example how a kid should grow up. Being open minded is how a kid should grow up. Being able to judge by themselves instead of just repeating what dad told them for 15 years. Judge the current world situation and make their decisions on their own experiences and beliefs, and not on a 2000 year old book, which stands still since then. Being a good person has nothing to do with reading a book or listening to fanatics.
I agree that being good has nothing to do with listening to an atheist/agnostic fanatic. But there is certainly much wisdom to be found in the Bible and in the teachings of Spirit led parents and ministers who love the children, unlike the State-god government beaurocrats.
Quote:
Before children are enough old they can't chose what are good and what are bad. So somebody have to do that for them. And those should be parents, not state. And parents ARE responsible for their children.
Exactly.
Quote:
Brain wash: Presenting absolute information, if the person does not doubt it, but accepts it as an absolute truth, it's brainwashing.
Teaching: Presenting likely information, if the person doubts it, the person can choose whether it's likely enough to be considered true or not.
Lol! So children have to be taught "Maybe 1+1=2 and maybe it is not, you decide" or it is brainwashing? 
Brainwashing involves techniques designed to subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.
It is not brainwashing to teach a child that 2+3=5 or that "Jesus is Lord" or "Allah is the true God" or "it is wrong to hit your sister" or "it is healthy to exercise."
Quote:
Of course we ARE undergoing a lot of propaganda, influencing, half-truths, and so on, but the main thing to keep in mind is that we are not brainwashed to OBEY and NEVER QUESTION what is taught to us in school. We are not educated to believe unconditionally in the good and the truth of the system either - on the contrary. We CAN express doubt; education doesn't have the purpose to produce yessayers - or believers or even worshippers
Oh? I don't think most public school teadhers allow their students to stand up and say they are wrong. If you try that in a university class the professor will most likely fail you.
Oh, me teaching my children about God was not for the purpose of producing "yessayers." I can only sow and water the Word. It is God who produces the results. A person has to have his own conversion experience to be a Christian. No one can be "made to be a Christian against his own will."
Quote:
Well, Mytical, if you think, that learning the convention that a certain something is called by a certain name in a certain language - like that thing with 4 legs that gives milk and makes moo is called a "cow" - is the same thing than learning that it's better to be dead than red, that you have to protect pure white women from the slavering looks of the lazy black wretches lusting after white flesh or, supported by a friendly reminder of belt omn buttocks, that God demands you to pray each morning and each evening and that he sees everything, even if you forget it, and that the parents are just doing His will and show you the right way which doesn't include saying certain words, because otherwise you'll end in hell; if you think that, if that's your point, then *I* think, this discussion is useless because we've been brainwashed too differently to speak the same language.
It is wrong to equate teaching a child that God has standards we must meet with racism. But you have made that comparison before. Consider that you may indeed be brainwashed against religion.
Christianity teaches that both genders and all races are equal in God's sight and that we are to love one another.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 09:53 AM |
|
|
Maybe you should try to read what people are actually saying. Quoting myself from last page:
Quote:
In terms of making things mandatory I have no problem if parents make reading the bible mandatory for their children.
Does that sound like I'd consider all religion and teaching of it brainwashing? Keep in mind that brainwashing is a METHOD to root something, no matter what, as a truth deeply into the subconscious.
Now, gravity is something you live with on a permanent level, and those who have been in orbit even know its absence from personal, shared experience. Religion is fundamentally different, since it's based on faith and faith ALONE. There is nothing solid, palpable to support it with. Telling children about is essentially the same than telling them about the Easter Bunny or the dictatorship of the proletariate that will one day overcome the capitalist exploitation. Both are based on a book and faith, and urging a child to have that faith is starting the brain-washing alright.
Because it doesn't stop there. It never does. If it all was just about having faith in the existance of a merciful and loving being high above, who watches over uns and makes sure everything will be alright even if it doesn't always look that way, and for any questions, please refer to the Bible and look for an answer there, I don't think there would have been a problem.
However, it's not that easy, isn't it? Because god wants you to live in a certain way, and woe the poor souls that don't. And look at those godless people there, don't become like them or you'll end in eternal hell like them will. Look at all those sinners and infidels who want to tempt you into sin to pull you with them. KEEP OFF them, they are bad news.
Isn't that how "teaching religion" has been on a very wide scale and still is in certain circles?
"Teaching religion", for me is handing a child old enough to read and understand a text the Bible and a history book with the naked facts from the past, tell it to study the stuff and come back once or twice a week to ask questions or discuss some points, and if there are questions - of course there are - answering them in all broadness. What would you answer an 8-year-old child, reading the bible for the first time, that asks whether the story told in Genesis is really true? Yes? No? I don't know? Maybe? It's just a metaphorical report? There are different viewpoints here? Does it matter what you answer? Does it matter whether it's true? Might a good answer be, you will havw to find out for yourself? And if that IS a good answer, how many people will give such an answer, what do you think?
Most people "teaching religion" have a ready interpretation, if not for the Bible as a whole, but for some parts and what they mean for daily life and so on, and it's that what they are teaching. It's like the Physicss teacher would teach that gravity comes from the little dwarves deep in the earth who try to pull everything down to them with little invisible threads.
And before I stop trying the impossible and convince an ex-fanatical Christian believing he has lost everything the spongue of his subconscious has sucked up, a word on ill-willing implications and assumptions:
When I give examples for "brain-wash truths" - like I did in my last post - I make it a point to name not only obviously religiously motivated ones like the third one, even though a lot of them have at least some roots there. Instead I always try to pick not only a religious example but others as well to AVOID being called onesided and religiously biassed, and in my last post I took one example from the commie hysteria some 50 years ago and another one from the book of racial bias of respectable whites against blacks which is about double as old.
Implying now that I would say these are the results of teaching religion is ill-willing and dumb. Even though it wouldn't be wrong to say that they have their roots in brainwashing people's minds for centuries with certain INTERPRETATIONS of religion, which is something completely different than TEACHING RELIGION.
And now, please be so kind and give me a break comparing gravity and hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:28 AM |
|
|
I can't for the life of it imagine why people always have to abuse mathematics with their comparisons.
After all mathematics is a LANGUAGE, albeit a special one developed from a couple of axioms and basic symbols, following certain rules with precisely defined semantics. As it happens, you can describe a lot with this language which is the reason why it is taught. Instead of "2+3=5" you could just as well say "In this chain of words "chain" is called the 'subject'."
There is some very fundamental difference between teaching something like that and teaching "Jesus is Lord" or "Allah is the one true god".
A nice indicator for that fundamental difference is the fact that no matter the place you go, they will teach 2+3=5 or II+III=V, but strangely enough neithet Jesus is Lord nor Allah is the one true god.
But That seems to be too difficult to grasp.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 10:36 AM |
|
|
How to communicate with you successfully? I am at a complete loss, because we seem to not be. Its like one is speaking Martian, and the other is speaking Venetian.
First, I never compared Gravity to Hell. I just stated that when learning about it no other alternative is allowed, considered, or contemplated. Which is what you said Brainwashing was. No questioning, just blind 'faith' in something..ie gravity. If somebody does not 'believe' in gravity they are considered stupid, ignorant, delusional, etc. People are NOT allowed to question it.
In fact, I never even mentioned hell. At all, anywhere during our discussion. (Note that is if this statement was directed at me, if not please ignore the above).
People actually do, for the most part, only teach religion. In the "Here it is, figure it out for yourself" way. I know you will probably never believe that. Sorry Jolly, you don't get to decide what is best for everybody else. Now before you go off on how we should teach people not to hate, etc. Like I said, I am ALL for that. For some reason you can't see that religion is not about hate. No clue why. Since I am never going to convince you, don't know why I am even bothering.
See I am a neutral when it comes to religion. I think Elodin is WAY to indoctrinated to ever see any other point of view. That is not meant as an insult, because I think you are also Jolly. It also goes for me. I will always see it that religion can be a good thing, if not taken way to far (like some do), but that religion can be a bad thing if it is taken to far (like some do).
That people have a double standard, and most of the time can't even admit they do. They are also a bit Hypocritical (and I can be just as guilty, freely admit that). They say "Oh this person wants to force their view on me!" then turn around and try to force their view on somebody else.
I don't want to force my veiw on anybody, that is why many times I will just leave a discussion. Because it gets to the point that no progress at all is made. Yeah, when a post addresses me I will reply to it. So yeah in a way I am a hypocrit, because I sometimes just can't do what is right and leave it be.
So Jolly, you go ahead and think you way is better then everybody elses. That every religious person is a nutjob, because that is the way you are comming accross.
Elodin, you go ahead and think that Christians are near perfect. That they are not capable of doing anything bad. Despite being HUMAN. (Like murder).
I am going to try hard to just leave it be, but I know I am not perfect. I am a human, and very flawed.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 12:16 PM |
|
|
There's so many things I would partly like to quote, partly not because it'd take all day for me to write this post then.
So, sorry if this is repeating myself, but it seems like someone still uses these terms "wrong", in my opinion, without stating why:
Please consider that a part of knowledge is not the logical or sufficient likely step from one part to the next, there's also a "first part", from which a lot of knowledge is getting derived, these are either definitions or experiments.
How different operators work in mathmathics is a matter of definition, likewise that USA is called USA and not MBA is also a definition.
It's still up for doubts to that unlikely event that while you were sleeping, the rest of the world (or actually just the next person you talks to) have decided to redifine these.
That doubt however, like everything else we consider knowledge, is sufficient small, to not worry about it.
Here's an example:
Quote:
It is not brainwashing to teach a child that 2+3=5 or that "Jesus is Lord" or "Allah is the true God" or "it is wrong to hit your sister" or "it is healthy to exercise."
If it's unquestionable, that's what I define as brain washing.
First, let's take all your examples and see what they really are:
2+3=5 -> definition, is it questionable? Yes, but it's also very likely to be true, so there's no reason (which I think often have lacked in this debate) to question it.
"Jesus is Lord" -> postulate, why is it not a definition? Because the term Lord is directly linked to you, a Lord is someone that is "over" you somehow, if you can question it (disagree, not accepting "Jesus is Lord"), then it's a postulate, if you can't question it however, and that goes for everything, then it's brain washing.
Note the point of view also, it's from the point of view of the believer I'm talking here, not from the teacher.
The whole thing about this is that lacking reason, or let's say arguments, means that everything that's somehow related to already set definitions will be postulates (both Jesus, Allah, hitting, sister, excersize, healthy is predefined, the operator "+" is not however), until made likely enough to be true. It's easy to argument for why it's wrong to hit your sister, or why it's healthy to excersize, whereby making it likely enough to be true and considered knowledge. However it's impossible to argument for why "Jesus is Lord" or why "Allah is the true God", because you cannot put any likelyness of truth on any of these statements, unless you're willing to accept what other says unquestionably. Therefore, for all your examples, if you can't question it (from your point of view) it's brain washing of you.
If you can question it, then we can place it all in different brackets depending on from where it originates, definition, experiment, logical step or sufficient likely step, or finally postulate, but then again, that's not someone would consider knowledge, if they'd question it.
@Elodin - thanks for answering my question, I agree that children often have many questions, and it's very good to hear that you let this curiocity be in stead of shutting it down.
However, let me ask you this then, what if your child does not care whether:
God loves him/her -> Whereby won't really take the time to ask for forgiveness -> and finally, if disagreeing and you present the bibles words and the child still disagrees due to the exact same reasons as before?
Would you then do, like what I suspect you'd towards any other person, and accept this right of opinion, maybe trying to come with more convincing arguments if it's important to you of course, or would you make up some kind of artificial consequence to "show" that you're right?
I believe, if you choose to accept the decision of your child without limiting the right like you'd do against anyone else (I suspect), you'd from your perspective have showed that what you do, is for the sake of your child and not the sake of yourself.
If you however tries to force your way through via artificial consequences (i.e. consequence that only exists, because you say so), then I'd postulate that you're not doing it for your child, but for yourself.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First, I never compared Gravity to Hell.
Oh, but you did. Comparing teaching about gravity with teaching religion is doing just that.
Quote:
I just stated that when learning about it no other alternative is allowed, considered, or contemplated. Which is what you said Brainwashing was. No questioning, just blind 'faith' in something..ie gravity. If somebody does not 'believe' in gravity they are considered stupid, ignorant, delusional, etc. People are NOT allowed to question it.
They can question it alright. There has been a time when people questioning religious truths have been called heretics. And since god didn't slay them, humans had to do it. With gravity it's simpler. If you question gravity, it's not the humans who will slay you - but gravity. You know, each day it slays a lot of people trying to defy it, by jumping off buildings - ah, but wait, most of them do so in blind faith in that effect.
Quote:
People actually do, for the most part, only teach religion in the "Here it is, figure it out for yourself" way. I know you will probably never believe that. Sorry Jolly, you don't get to decide what is best for everybody else.
I suppose you have to go a long way to explain the connection between the first two and the last sentence here. Moreover I have no idea where your knowledge comes from what people do for the most part. And even if you are right, it's just not that relevant. People actually do, for the most part, not write books about how bad the Jews are and that you have to do something about them, found a party, try a coup, get jailed, come back, are elected to chancellorship and go on to happily destroy a big part of the world either. Still, coming to think about it...
Quote:
For some reason you can't see that religion is not about hate. No clue why. Since I am never going to convince you, don't know why I am even bothering.
That is to say that life isn't about murder. I wonder where I may have said that religion is about hate? Would you be so kind to quote me there?
Of course, speaking of hate, how about "we don't hate the sinners - we hate the sin". Looking at things, you might come to think that it must be really hard sometimes not to mistake one with the other.
Quote:
See I am a neutral when it comes to religion.
That's a good one. Duly laughed about.
Quote:
I think Elodin is WAY to indoctrinated to ever see any other point of view. That is not meant as an insult, because I think you are also Jolly. It also goes for me. I will always see it that religion can be a good thing, if not taken way to far (like some do), but that religion can be a bad thing if it is taken to far (like some do).
You should decide: are you neutral now or way too indoctrinated like Elodin and myself? In any case, the interesting and somewhat perplexing thing is, that we actually agree about what I marked in Italics.
Quote:
That people have a double standard, and most of the time can't even admit they do. They are also a bit Hypocritical (and I can be just as guilty, freely admit that). They say "Oh this person wants to force their view on me!" then turn around and try to force their view on somebody else.
I don't want to force my veiw on anybody, that is why many times I will just leave a discussion. Because it gets to the point that no progress at all is made. Yeah, when a post addresses me I will reply to it. So yeah in a way I am a hypocrit, because I sometimes just can't do what is right and leave it be.
Now this part is the telling part, and I marked the last sentence in bold. Because this is actually the centre of the problems there are with religion. You see, you start a lecture about double standards and hypocrisy and all that, and then you say, I see that, and I don't want to be that way - only to admit that EVEN THOUGH you know what's right, you sometimes just can't do the right thing.
Same is true for everyone in general, even and especially for the real fundamental Christians.
Let me try to find something we share, Mytical. If I'm wrong here, don't hit me, I'm just suggesting something. What we may have in common on a very fundamental level - what may be behind everything you say, without you realizing it -, anyway, what I think would be true about me is this (I'm generalizing to make it clear, keep that in mind): IN GENERAL we have no clue what is RIGHT, but we know when something is WRONG; knowing what is wrong doesn't automatically tell you what's right, and in fact finding out what's right is the difficult thing and sometimes impossible.
The strong religious believers, on the other hand, they are sure they know what is RIGHT (what god says), and also what is WRONG (what god says is wrong and what is against what god says because that is right; you can switch god with allah, jahwe and so on).
Quote:
So Jolly, you go ahead and think you way is better then everybody elses.
My "way"? I didn't even know I had one.
Quote:
That every religious person is a nutjob, because that is the way you are comming accross.
Depends on how you define "religious" and "nutjob". I certainly don't have a lot of sympathy for fanatics, religious or otherwise, but I don't have anything at all against people who call themselves religious or spiritual. It depends on background and education as well. Some people simply have no intertest in exploring the depths or foundations of a religious teaching, but simply are content with believing or simply accepting them. Not all are like Elodin, thankfully. Most are just ordinary, normal people, human beings, who generally try to do nothing wrong.
Before I close this, Mytical, allow me a last word. You can't make the omelet without breaking the eggs. I've seen you posting for a long time now, and what you always try is to blame HUMANS for everything and whitewash RELIGION as a concept. When you say RELIGION, it's more or less the ideal behind that you see. The fundamentally "good" thing about love and peace and how to be good and everything else. Oh, yes, you see fairly how that has been used and abused and twisted and turned over the course of history, and you go a very simply, very unthinking way of heaping all the blame onto the humans who are just, how did you call it ith yourself? "I sometimes just can't do what is right."
But I don't think it's that easy. If you find yourself agreeing with what I wrote earlier about not knowing what's right, but realizing what's wrong - can you even agree with something that tries to teach what is right. I mean, can it really be right to try and love everyone, no matter what? Wouldn't that make love to something very common, something akin to indifference? Isn't our reality composed of opposites? Joy and grief, life and death, good and evil, love and hate? If we are to love everyone, why bother to get to know people? Does it matter? We are to love them, no matter what, so why even take a good look at them?
In short, if you put too much onto your platter you are likely to choke on it, and if you have studied a bit of history you will have found that the most prominent characteristic of Christianity, the one thing that stands out like a sore thumb, is GUILT. And THIS, the guilt, is not the result of humans being the way they are. The guilt is the direct result of putting too much onto the plate. It's like seeing the best instrumentalist ever play some music, watching him open-mouthed and in awe play the most beautiful and virtous thing - and then someone tells you, well, you can do that too, just try it, put some effort into it, and you'll see. If he could make it, you can as well.
But the truth is, you can't. Because HE has fingers 6 inches long; HE started playing age 18 months; he had the best teachers in the world and time to practise 18 hours a day. You, on the other hand, have fingers only 3 inches long, are 20 and have never held an instrument in your hands and virtually no time to practise, not to mention any money for paying teachers. And after striving a year and seeing how spectaclularly you fail, you'll become desperate and hate yourseld for being such a cripple and unable to do the right thing.
So my advice is, you should maybe stop and rethink a couple of things, before you heap all the blames onto humans and none onto religion.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 03:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:40, 18 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Now, gravity is something you live with on a permanent level, and those who have been in orbit even know its absence from personal, shared experience. Religion is fundamentally different, since it's based on faith and faith ALONE. There is nothing solid, palpable to support it with.
Nah, not so. If science can't measure something it does not mean it is not real. I know Jesus is Lord. There is not a doubt in my body. "Jesus is Lord" is a fact whether you think so or not.
Furthur, there are certainly facts like the laws of thermodynamics indicating the need for a self existent eternal cause for the universe. There are historical facts that point to the truthfulness of the Bible. And experiential facts that I have experienced personally. Because you can't comprehend the facts or chose to ignore that facts don't make them any less real.
Quote:
Telling children about is essentially the same than telling them about the Easter Bunny or the dictatorship of the proletariate that will one day overcome the capitalist exploitation. Both are based on a book and faith, and urging a child to have that faith is starting the brain-washing alright.
Quote:
Oh so very very false. Many atheists like to condemn others for saying their believes are true all the while atheists are saying things they can't back up at all.
You can't know for a fact that Jesus is not Lord yet you say teaching religion is teaching a fairy tale. That is just being bigotted against religion. Just because you don't think something is a fact does not make it so.
Now, telling a child "God does not exist" would be telling a child something there is no proof for at all. The State-god governments of socialist/communist states does often try to brainwash children into atheism.
Quote:
However, it's not that easy, isn't it? Because god wants you to live in a certain way, and woe the poor souls that don't. And look at those godless people there, don't become like them or you'll end in eternal hell like them will. Look at all those sinners and infidels who want to tempt you into sin to pull you with them. KEEP OFF them, they are bad news.
Isn't that how "teaching religion" has been on a very wide scale and still is in certain circles?
Certainly Christians teach their children to love everyone. Christians don't look down on unbelievers because we all used to be unbelievers. Now, some anti-theist atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris do look down on Christians and say Christians have a mental virus, are deluded, ect, and spew forth hatred for religion when it is in fact them who seem to be full of hate of delusion.
Certainly I did teach my children not to be friends with people who behave a certain way. I would be a fool if I did not teach my children to watch out for the drug crowd and not to be pulled into doing drugs. And to steer clear of gangs and their hate and violence. That is not being "upitty." That is prudence.
Quote:
"Teaching religion", for me is handing a child old enough to read and understand a text the Bible and a history book with the naked facts from the past, tell it to study the stuff and come back once or twice a week to ask questions or discuss some points, and if there are questions - of course there are - answering them in all broadness.
Nah, the "world" is trying to impose their values on my children all the time. I started teaching my children about God at a young age. It is hardly teaching someone if you only pop in once a week. Do teacheres stay out of the classrooms all week and only come in on Fridays? Preposterous.
Quote:
What would you answer an 8-year-old child, reading the bible for the first time, that asks whether the story told in Genesis is really true? Yes? No? I don't know? Maybe? It's just a metaphorical report? There are different viewpoints here? Does it matter what you answer? Does it matter whether it's true? Might a good answer be, you will havw to find out for yourself?
Lol!!!! You really think a Christian should say "I don't know" if their child asks if the Bible is true? That is stupid. That is like saying if a child asks if 2+3=5 that parent should say "I don't know." Lol!!!!!!
Quote:
Implying now that I would say these are the results of teaching religion is ill-willing and dumb. Even though it wouldn't be wrong to say that they have their roots in brainwashing people's minds for centuries with certain INTERPRETATIONS of religion, which is something completely different than TEACHING RELIGION.
Yes, it sure would be wrong. Atheist states are the best examples of brainwashers.
Quote:
A nice indicator for that fundamental difference is the fact that no matter the place you go, they will teach 2+3=5 or II+III=V, but strangely enough neithet Jesus is Lord nor Allah is the one true god.
But That seems to be too difficult to grasp.
Yes, Jesus is the one true God. I'm sorry you reject that fact.
Quote:
"Jesus is Lord" -> postulate, why is it not a definition? Because the term Lord is directly linked to you, a Lord is someone that is "over" you somehow, if you can question it (disagree, not accepting "Jesus is Lord"), then it's a postulate, if you can't question it however, and that goes for everything, then it's brain washing.
Actually, saying Jesus is Lord is saying Jesus is Yahweh (God.) The term "Lord" was used by Jews to avoid saying Yahweh and the KJV carried that over when translating the Jewish texts and the same method was observed by the New Testament writers, who were also Jewish (except for Luke.)
You may think "Jesus is Lord" is not a fact. You are entitled to your opinion. You may think 2+3=5 is not a fact. You are entitled to your opinion. Teaching a child either thing is not brainwashing.
Quote:
Therefore, for all your examples, if you can't question it (from your point of view) it's brain washing of you.
Or perhaps you are brainwashed.
Quote:
If you however tries to force your way through via artificial consequences (i.e. consequence that only exists, because you say so), then I'd postulate that you're not doing it for your child, but for yourself.
I've already stated that no one can be forced to be a Christian. Christianity is a matter of making a decision to follow the gospel of Christ. It is a matter of the heart. No one can make you be a Christian. If a child did not understand that Bible even though I had explained what it meant, obviously the child does not deserve punishment. I would pray for the child and explain the passage to him again when appropriate. I would ask the child why she believes what she believes and show here where she made an error.
Quote:
Of course, speaking of hate, how about "we don't hate the sinners - we hate the sin". Looking at things, you might come to think that it must be really hard sometimes not to mistake one with the other.
Only if you've never loved anyone. Most people have people they love who things that they can't stand.
It is moronic to say that one of my daughters lied to me I would hate them even though I hate lies.
Quote:
Same is true for everyone in general, even and especially for the real fundamental Christians.
Nah, that seems to indicate bigotry against Christians.
Quote:
The strong religious believers, on the other hand, they are sure they know what is RIGHT (what god says), and also what is WRONG (what god says is wrong and what is against what god says because that is right; you can switch god with allah, jahwe and so on).
And you are so sure you are right that they are wrong.
Quote:
Depends on how you define "religious" and "nutjob". I certainly don't have a lot of sympathy for fanatics, religious or otherwise, but I don't have anything at all against people who call themselves religious or spiritual. It depends on background and education as well. Some people simply have no intertest in exploring the depths or foundations of a religious teaching, but simply are content with believing or simply accepting them. Not all are like Elodin, thankfully. Most are just ordinary, normal people, human beings, who generally try to do nothing wrong.
And how am I? I you are saying I am uneducated or have no interest in exploring the foundations of religious teaching you are lying. If you say that exploring the depths of a religion is wrong, that is strange. Oh, you seem to be rather fanatical in your opinions of religious people.
Quote:
I mean, can it really be right to try and love everyone, no matter what? Wouldn't that make love to something very common, something akin to indifference? Isn't our reality composed of opposites? Joy and grief, life and death, good and evil, love and hate? If we are to love everyone, why bother to get to know people? Does it matter? We are to love them, no matter what, so why even take a good look at them?
Yes, it is possible to love everyone. It is sad that you think such a thing is not possible.
Quote:
In short, if you put too much onto your platter you are likely to choke on it, and if you have studied a bit of history you will have found that the most prominent characteristic of Christianity, the one thing that stands out like a sore thumb, is GUILT.
Lol!!!! You are clueless about Christianity. Christianity teaches that when God forgives us, he no longer even remembers our sins. There is no reason to feel guilty unless you are living in sin. God wants us to draw near to him, not to run away. He wants to be our Father. He has lived a human life in Jesus and knows the weakness of humanity.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Remember the parable of the prodigal son? He came to his senses, went back to his father (who was standing on the road looking for him.) The father ran down the road to meet him when he saw him coming home and threw his arms around him and kissed him. The son began his "I'm sorry" speech and the father did not even let him finish before telling his servants to bring out new clothing and jewelry and to prepare a big party.
Sorry, like I said, you are clueless about even the basic tenets of Christianity.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 04:41 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:48, 18 Nov 2009.
|
@JollyJoker: I don't think you correctly word it. At that age of course, they may not have skills to properly research their own stuff, so presenting options should be mandatory -- however that doesn't mean it's TEACHING them, just informing them, which is a difference.
But later on, say, at college, I don't think you need to inform them mandatory of their options, when they are able to research themselves.
Quote:
Moreover, it's fine when you don't care for history - you share that ignorance with most 10-year-olds -, but you cannot ignore what was, as if it never happened. You cannot just forget the past of a single human and decide that a human, age 40, should live now this and that way, ignoring the individual past and what made him what he is today, and you cannot ignore that past with any society.
If you do that, you are already far off reality and in imaginary Death realm.
Whoa wait a sec who said I don't care about history? Can't you take an example.
Also that didn't have anything to do with caring about it or not, but the method of FINDING it. Most of history isn't experienced first-hand, except that which is given BY PARENTS.
So in your case you decide the methods used to gather insight into it, for the kids. If they aren't interested in THAT (not history itself), why force them to adopt your methods? That seems like forcing painters to use only a method of painting instead of developing their own. What is different than brainwashing?
Conclusions are drawn by people -- let them draw their own, or they can of course choose to hear YOUR (or society's) conclusions, but that's it, CHOOSE.
Simply put, forcing teaching of "mainstream stuff" is "mainstream brainwashing".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2009 05:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JollyJoker: I don't think you correctly word it. At that age of course, they may not have skills to properly research their own stuff, so presenting options should be mandatory -- however that doesn't mean it's TEACHING them, just informing them, which is a difference.
But later on, say, at college, I don't think you need to inform them mandatory of their options, when they are able to research themselves.
At college they are no KIDS anymore, not in the least, and at college they are responsible for most things they do anyway.
However, the preposterous thing is, that the way you phrase it, you make things mandatory FOR THE TEACHERS - but not for the pupils, which is somehow counter-productive for the purpose, but I suppose that's really just an unimportant detail...
Quote:
Whoa wait a sec who said I don't care about history? Can't you take an example.
Memory problems? Two posts back YOU said:
Quote:
And no I don't care about history because I'm talking about a reasonably evolved model.
I mean, this is getting ridiculous now, isn't it?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
