God Made Me - A Teachers Guide To Indoctrination

[786]

You keep claiming this, yet you have, so far failed to show there is any logic to your contention.

Its quite simple really. The atheistic belief would result in relative morality, and relative morality actually doesn't mean jack squat because it is relative. Anyone can have a different morality which can not be said to be wrong or right even if it is different than someone elses or a groups.

One more time: the "underlying philosophy" [of morality] is NOT atheism, even for atheists.
Please learn to read.

You should definetly. As I explained, I never said the underlying philosophy of morality is atheism. I said the basis for that morality- in which case the 'basis' would be that what underlies the morality, is groundless thanks to Atheism.

And you are still:
A) wrong and
B) making assertions that you have yet to show to be true.

A) Your opinion
B) Its quite simple result of relative morality.

Atheists don't "replace" god. They simply ignore that particular fantasy.

I did specify 'authority' not simply the concept of God.

Peace be unto you

 

[Big Chiller]

Yes morality is only relative that's why there's the belief in God Who rewards and allows for morality.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Its quite simple really. The atheistic belief would result in relative morality, and relative morality actually doesn't mean jack squat because it is relative.

False assumption.
Edit: I do find it "interesting" that someone who remonstrates with others about swearing is so free and easy with euphemisms. "Swearing" doesn't count as swearing if you skirt round it?

You should definetly. As I explained, I never said the underlying philosophy of morality is atheism. I said the basis for that morality- in which case the 'basis' would be that what underlies the morality, is groundless thanks to Atheism.

Wrong.
I'll quote you again.

Originally Posted by 786
That 'basis' [of morality] is as groundless as any other basis as long as the underlying philosophy is that of Atheism.

And again: the "underlying philosophy" is NOT that of atheism.

I did specify 'authority' not simply the concept of God.

Really?

Atheism doesn't replace God with some other authority

I.e. you specifically stated "god".

 

[786]

False assumption.
Edit: I do find it "interesting" that someone who remonstrates with others about swearing is so free and easy with euphemisms. "Swearing" doesn't count as swearing if you skirt round it?

No, because it isn't considered swearing by the society. 'Kutta' is a swear word in Pakistan, it literally means 'dog'... 'Dog' in america is actually used for some 'cool dude' or even a replacement for 'bro'. So is the word a swear word, depends on society.

Wrong.
I'll quote you again.

And again: the "underlying philosophy" is NOT that of atheism.

I've already clarified my statement. So you would rather continue your misunderstanding instead of accepting a clarification?

Really?
I.e. you specifically stated "god".

In the sentence you quoted both the words 'god' and 'authority' are present. Secondly I said 'Atheism does NOT'... other philosophies which are atheistic do. And again 'god = authority' in theistic religions. So if you have the ability to understand substitution then you should know the statement really was about 'authority'- God is an authority as well.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, because it isn't considered swearing by the society.

You can lie to yourself if you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that it's a euphemism, and therefore the intent is swearing even if you don't have the balls to actually do it.

I've already clarified my statement. So you would rather continue your misunderstanding instead of accepting a clarification?

You have clarified nothing. Your basic misunderstanding is in the assumption that there is anything atheistic about morals.
You are deliberately obscuring the point.
I'll explain again:

You should definetly. As I explained, I never said the underlying philosophy of morality is atheism. I said the basis for that morality- in which case the 'basis' would be that what underlies the morality, is groundless thanks to Atheism.

You implied that the underlying philosophy IS that of atheism. This is false. As is the assumption that atheism invalidates the actual basis for morality.

In the sentence you quoted both the words 'god' and 'authority' are present.

One more time:

Originally Posted by You
Atheism doesn't replace God with some other authority

I will repeat: atheism doesn't "replace" god with anything. God is NOT "replaced" at all.
One more obfuscation to avoid the point.

 

[786]

You can lie to yourself if you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that it's a euphemism, and therefore the intent is swearing even if you don't have the balls to actually do it.

No the intent was to say it means 'nothing' which is 'jack squat'.. And again if something is not considered swearing by society then it isn't swearing. I don't have to lie myself about it.

You have clarified nothing. Your basic misunderstanding is in the assumption that there is anything atheistic about morals.
You are deliberately obscuring the point.
I'll explain again:

You implied that the underlying philosophy IS that of atheism. This is false. As is the assumption that atheism invalidates the actual basis for morality.

I clarified that what I said was NOT that underlying philosophy of morality is atheism- that is the statement I clarified which you have now quoted again and again. 'Clarification' means something- because you don't know what it means. You are saying that I implied by my statements something which I did not intend to imply which is what I CLARIFIED- yet you have not taken those words into account.

One more time:

I will repeat: atheism doesn't "replace" god with anything. God is NOT "replaced" at all.
One more obfuscation to avoid the point.

I did say atheism 'doesn't'- I said philosophies that are based on it do. And what I meant by 'replaced' is that God is rejected- but the 'authority' that lies with God is given to other things- i.e Humans, reason, logic, science or whatever.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

No the intent was to say it means 'nothing' which is 'jack squat'.. And again if something is not considered swearing by society then it isn't swearing. I don't have to lie myself about it.

A euphemism is a euphemism. It's a cop-out for saying what you mean.

I clarified that what I said was NOT that underlying philosophy of morality is atheism- that is the statement I clarified which you have now quoted again and again. 'Clarification' means something- because you don't know what it means. You are saying that I implied by my statements something which I did not intend to imply which is what I CLARIFIED- yet you have not taken those words into account.

So by "clarified" you mean "altered completely the intent of your sentence". Yet you repeated the claim in post #59.

I said the 'basis' is groundless, as long as the underlying philosophy is Atheism.

One more time: the "underlying philosophy" for morality is not atheism, nor is it anything whatsoever to do with atheism.
It doesn't alter the fact your contention was, and still is, erroneous.
Please:

I said the basis for that morality- in which case the 'basis' would be that what underlies the morality, is groundless thanks to Atheism.

Tell us what you think the basis actually is. You know, the one that is "groundless" thanks to atheism.

I did say atheist 'doesn't'- I said philosophies that are based on it do. And what I meant by 'replaced' is that God is rejected

Ah, so when you wrote "replaced" you didn't mean "replaced" you meant something different altogether.

 

[786]

A euphemism is a euphemism. It's a cop-out for saying what you mean.

Okay.

So by "clarified" you mean "altered completely the intent of your sentence". Yet you repeated the claim in post #59.

No, you just didn't understand it the first time, or the second.

One more time: the "underlying philosophy" for morality is not atheism, nor is it anything whatsoever to do with atheism.
It doesn't alter the fact your contention was, and still is, erroneous.

I agreed with you and clarified it. You can continuing saying it over and over again.

Please:

Tell us what you think the basis actually is. You know, the one that is "groundless" thanks to atheism.

Lets see, 'basis' can by anything. There is no 'one' basis. Your morals are baseless because you're an atheist. It doesn't have to be particularly named. Humanist atheists, you can continue adding any philosophy as long as they are atheists.

Ah, so when you wrote "replaced" you didn't mean "replaced" you meant something different altogether.

I did mean replace. And giving the authority to something else is still replacing. You don't think it is, I do. I guess its because for you 'god never existed' so you can't replace something non-existent? Right?

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, you just didn't understand it the first time, or the second.

Incorrect. You made a statement and then tried to change the meaning.

I agreed with you and clarified it. You can continuing saying it over and over again.

You changed the sentence and the intent.

There is no 'one' basis.

Really? You do know what the word "basis" means, don't you?
Let me clear it up for you:

ba·sis (bss)
n. pl. ba·ses (-sz)
1. A foundation upon which something rests.
2. The chief constituent; the fundamental ingredient:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/basis

Your morals are baseless because you're an atheist.

That's an assumption. And it's also false. In fact it's a bigoted assumption.

I did mean replace. And giving the authority to something else is still replacing. You don't think it is, I do. I guess its because for you 'god never existed' so you can't replace something non-existent? Right?

Nope.
God was never a factor so he can't have been "replaced".

 

[Nesm]

I wrote:

So a school which promoted racism or sexism - you'd have no objection to it? Does history not paint a sufficiently complete portrait of the degradation that the above-mentioned issues can cause in society?

You replied:

From an atheistic point of view, all of 'history' and 'society' doesn't have to mean anything.

You don't seem to answer, or even attempt to answer, questions pertaining to the topic at hand. I'm trying to discuss the thread topic with you but you continuously prattle on about atheism. Your statement above is so inane that I'm not sure how to further this discussion with you.

 

[Nesm]

The problem is, what do you consider "indoctrination"?

The teaching of principles / belief systems which history has shown to be corrosive / oppressive toward particular groups of peoples. These issues where the effects are observable in history, should be more easily communicable and agreed upon than those those topics governed by culturally subjective morality.

Slavery, sexism & racism are examples of indoctrination supported by history. If an persons ideals are for progress, freedom and knowledge, then it would appear that these issues can be agreed upon as being indoctrinating should they be taught at school(s). And indeed, few schools teach such principles nowadays (unless, of course, these principles are attached to a particular religious belief system). They've had sufficient time to evolve from being culturally subjective moral issues, to issues which, thanks to an observable history, humans generally agree upon as being 'wrong'.

 

[(Q)]

You tell me.

Yes, it is. We see the indoctrinated here and they have lost the ability to think for themselves.

 

[(Q)]

The problem is, what do you consider "indoctrination"?

I usually go by predefined definitions and don't make them up myself.

 

[(Q)]

Why should anyone do jack squat for humanity?

Because, with humanity, you wouldn't have jack squat to be indoctrinated into you're religion, a religion that despises humanity.

It's a circular thingy.

 

[Lori_7]

Because, with humanity, you wouldn't have jack squat to be indoctrinated into you're religion, a religion that despises humanity.

It's a circular thingy.

also a circular thingy with you. if not for indoctrination, you wouldn't have a scapegoat for your blindness or your hatred.

 

[786]

Incorrect. You made a statement and then tried to change the meaning.

Incorrect. Its called interpretation. You have the wrong interpretation of my words, which is what I was clarifying yet you refuse to listen.

You changed the sentence and the intent.

Sentence is the same, and how can you know the intent when I was the one intending?

Really? You do know what the word "basis" means, don't you?
Let me clear it up for you:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/basis

Wow. And can there be more than one fundamentals for a foundation. Sure there can.

That's an assumption. And it's also false. In fact it's a bigoted assumption.

Thats what you think. If I were an atheist I would think the same, although I would still argue with theists because I don't want to seem that my morals mean anything.

Nope.
God was never a factor so he can't have been "replaced".

Sure, a-theism by definition has theism in it- thus it was always a factor.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

I wrote:
You replied:
You don't seem to answer, or even attempt to answer, questions pertaining to the topic at hand. I'm trying to discuss the thread topic with you but you continuously prattle on about atheism. Your statement above is so inane that I'm not sure how to further this discussion with you.

Your question was answered. You're asking if something is right or wrong. You don't have to talk about 'children' to make the issue more sensitive. As an atheist you can tell me something is right or wrong- only something is relatively right or wrong. A pedophile may think its all right.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Because, with humanity, you wouldn't have jack squat to be indoctrinated into you're religion, a religion that despises humanity.

It's a circular thingy.

Lol.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

Incorrect. Its called interpretation. You have the wrong interpretation of my words, which is what I was clarifying yet you refuse to listen.

Wrong. You made a specific statement (and then repeated it) and claimed that it wasn't what you meant.

Sentence is the same, and how can you know the intent when I was the one intending?

The same?

the 'basis' is groundless, as long as the underlying philosophy is Atheism.

I clarified that what I said was NOT that underlying philosophy of morality is atheism

Maybe you need English lessons.

Wow. And can there be more than one fundamentals for a foundation. Sure there can.

You used the word "basis".

Thats what you think. If I were an atheist I would think the same, although I would still argue with theists because I don't want to seem that my morals mean anything.

So you still can't back up your argument...

Sure, a-theism by definition has theism in it- thus it was always a factor.

Fail. You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality.

 

[786]

Wrong. You made a specific statement (and then repeated it) and claimed that it wasn't what you meant.

You have yet to quote me saying that I said the underlying philosophy OF MORALITY is Atheism.

The same?
Maybe you need English lessons.

Okay lets requote what I said:

the 'basis' is groundless, as long as the underlying philosophy is Atheism.

I clarified that what I said was NOT that underlying philosophy of morality is atheism

I said the 'basis is groundless'... Morality is not a basis- its is the result. I didn't say that the underlying philosophy of morality directly is Atheism.

If you basis is say Humanism- but the underlying philosophy is Atheism. Then the basis is groundless leaving the resultant morality as groundless.

As I said the equation was Atheism + X = doesn't matter.

The 'basis' is X which is not morality itself. Morality is derived from it.

I don't care if you don't want to understand what I was saying and keep interpreting my words for me.

You used the word "basis".

What is the plural of basis?

So you still can't back up your argument...

I have, you just can see it because you don't see how atheism makes the authority of any other philosophy that is used in conjunction as relative, and relative thus means no need to be followed.

Fail. You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality.

Interesting. So that sentence was about Atheism and God being a factor- but it was a 'fail' because of 'morality'... You just can't give up on argumentation, always want the win eh?

Keep interpreting my words for me, but I'm no longer interested in reading your interpretation.

Peace be unto you