Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

How does my fascist great-grandfather keep being right about these things?

[Leafsnail]

Read Cracked lately? There's a summer camp for atheists just like for other beliefs apparently. Supposedly it's a camp to encourage free thought, but personally, I think it'll just turn out batches of "hard" atheists.

It's not.  It's a standard summer camp that also happens to teach critical thinking.  You may say "It's the same thing" but I do a Critical Thinking course (it's free and is only one hour a week.  Why not?) and they certainly aren't steering us that way.  They do canoeing, music and arts and crafts at Campquest too, but I suppose that doesn't fit into the image of a radical atheist camp.

[Sergius]

Funny how that works. Even when somebody has something like an Atheist Radio, or whatever, everyone automatically assumes it's some sort of mirror-universe version of a Fundie Radio. Same goes for atheist/bible camp.

[Andir]

Funny how that works. Even when somebody has something like an Atheist Radio, or whatever, everyone automatically assumes it's some sort of mirror-universe version of a Fundie Radio. Same goes for atheist/bible camp.

I also found it funny that it's somehow portrayed that Atheists like the Obama administration...    Give me a true Libertarian any day over that mess.

[G-Flex]

Funny how that works. Even when somebody has something like an Atheist Radio, or whatever, everyone automatically assumes it's some sort of mirror-universe version of a Fundie Radio. Same goes for atheist/bible camp.

There are indoctrination-based atheist camps? Weird. Never heard of that one.

I understand a bible camp, because you're trying to indoctrinate someone into some particular culture with a ton of qualities ascribed to it. "Atheism" is pretty far from a culture in itself. Hell, it's hardly really anything on its own.

[Muz]

"Teaching them to think critically" sounds like a different way to say "indoctrination". Really, just think about it.

[Leafsnail]

"Teaching them to think critically" sounds like a different way to say "indoctrination". Really, just think about it.

And you're having a kneejerk reaction.  "Think critically" is basically "Don't believe everything you hear".  Which is a strange gambit for an "Indoctrination" to make.  If it causes a child to question past indoctrination then yes, I guess it might have changed their views, but they are never told that there isn't a God, or even that there probably isn't one.

[Muz]

You saw what I did there? No edits

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I never said anything about it being used for atheism. Not even that 'critical thinking' means 'indoctrination'. I was hoping that someone would attack the "Think about it part"

But you assumed something from the context of the sentence and the thread. That's pretty much the point. You're not saying "there is no god". But the purpose is still to point that out. And in context, that's what kids are going to take from it. It's just as indoctrinating as giving kids a book, saying it's about some guy in the past, and telling them to read it.

[G-Flex]

Not really. The only way I'd really consider it indoctrination is if they specifically lead kids to believe there are no gods. If they teach the kids to think critically, and one of them uses that approach to determine that there's some sort of god, then they shouldn't discourage that.

[Leafsnail]

It's just as indoctrinating as giving kids a book, saying it's about some guy in the past, and telling them to read it.

Have you ever tried this?  Giving a child a bible and telling them to read it is a surefire way of turning them off religion (worked for me, anyway).  They need to tell children it's true, that Jesus loves them, that it will save them, that it's true some more, that the Bible is the ultimate word of God, and so on.

Wheras simply teaching someone the skills for being critical of any old book that's shoved in front of you is not indoctrination.  It's the giving of an important life skill (how well, for instance, would you do as a judge without critical thinking?  What about as a historian?  A scientist?  A journalist?).

[Jualin]

Don't mind me, just a speed-bump in the road.

This has probably been stated before. There's probably already an counter-arguement, counter-counter-arguement, critique, critical analysis, dissertation, and doctoral paper on the exact same statement as the one I present here, but I'm not going through 90-odd pages of religious debate. Not a chance. I'm just bringing this here and leaving.

Spoiler: !WARNING: RANT AHEAD! (click to show/hide)

Also, I am personally convinced that indoctrination is usually not all that far from teaching. There is a large amount of students (at least where I live) that don't care what they are taught. If they're taught nonsense, literally nothing will change. They'll still even do (or not do) the coursework. They could probably switch from nonsense to the regular material several times in the middle of class, and as long as it doesn't contradict itself nobody will dare call the teacher on it. Not because they fear the teacher, but because they just don't care.

But who am I to tell them what to do? Who am I to tell them what makes them happy, or what doesn't make them happy? And if I was, how would I find it my heart to be that cruel and callous? I don't know. For some people the color blue is enough to make them happy. There might even be people out there that prefer to be stuck in a 4x4 cage. But obviously not many do, or we'd hear about it.

I've heard a statement: "Life, liberty, and the reckless pursuit of happiness at any cost---even life and liberty." In one way, that statement is completely wrong, but in another way it gets something right that was wrong. A person's purpose in life is entirely defined by what they want to do with that life. People set goals, but the life goals of an individual are ironclad. At some point, they decided that something was worth sacrificing absolutely everything to complete, including life and liberty. You know what? It makes them happy. However, it is not enough to be eternally pursuing happiness: it must be achieved as well. If one cannot, if none can, then there is something wrong with the way we've set up the world.

I do not advocate unrestricted expression. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be "shelved" in some way or another when it prevents another from possessing any of those three. Sometimes, when the interference extends to all three, the responsible individual must face all three of theirs being "shelved" as well.

Don't mistake my words. Not all teachings are equal in all things. But as far as a god, or nonexistence thereof goes? That, in itself, does nothing harmful of any kind. Now if there are blood rituals involved, gods or otherwise, you'd have a problem. Thankfully, that's usually not the case.

[Andir]

I do not advocate unrestricted expression. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be "shelved" in some way or another when it prevents another from possessing any of those three. Sometimes, when the interference extends to all three, the responsible individual must face all three of theirs being "shelved" as well.

Whoa now! This is a very strange statement...  Who determines who gives up that which makes them happy, free, or living for someone else?

Because this could be construed as pure communism.

If Bill over here bought the last TV, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last of this food product, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last gallon of gas, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here got the last job, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?

Here in the US, we are given the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, not the privilege to have it given to us.  This competition is what keeps the economy alive and progressive.  If I could just sit on my ass all day and watch TV while someone else slaves away in a factory you better believe I'm warming up that couch.

This is all a matter of resources.  There are only so many resources in this world.  You cannot possibly divide up the country into perfect sections for people to live on.  Who gets the privilege of lake shore property?  I mean, everyone has a right to it.  Should we dig lakes at the border of everyone's land?  I could go on on this topic, but hopefully you can see my point.

This is how I read your statement.  You think it's a responsibility of everyone to make everyone else happy... everyone gets a slice of pie, even the person that didn't help cook it.

[Ampersand]

If I tell a bunch of children who have never been out doors that the sky is blue without evidence, I have indoctrinated them. Is it bad in this case, because I have provided them with true information?

I don't care whether or not Christians are indoctrinating their children. If they are right, then they are absolutely doing the right thing.

That is why I'm not going into a debate about whether or not the practices of Christianity are good or bad, it depends ENTIRELY on whether or not it's true. I'm willing to have that debate.

[LegoLord]

Andir, the rights of life and liberty are guaranteed (as Jualin stated).  We don't have to pursue them.  That's why slavery and murder are illegal.  The thing we have only a right to pursue is happiness. (as Jualin did in fact say). He made no mention of guaranteed happiness that I saw.  He was talking about how your rights only go as far as they can without restricting the rights of others.  For example, your right to punch things ends where damage begins; you can punch a punching bag all you want, but if you punch a person, you better have a good reason.  This is a fairly standard practice amongst modern governments, not communism.

That is why I'm not going into a debate about whether or not the practices of Christianity are good or bad, it depends ENTIRELY on whether or not it's true. I'm willing to have that debate.

Which is impossible, because while we can't say it's true you can't just say it's all false either.  So there really shouldn't be any debates on religion to begin with.

[Ampersand]

I fundamentally disagree. We can demonstrate that there the foundations of religions rely on faulty arguments, and unsupported claims, without any evidence provided. I can claim that invisible intangible fairies exist, which cannot be shown to not exist, but that doesn't make me right, that doesn't make my belief in those fairies valid.

We may not be able to disprove the existence of these entities, but I can prove that a persons belief in such things is not justified.