God Made Me - A Teachers Guide To Indoctrination

[Dywyddyr]

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

No need. You clearly changed the meaning of your sentence.

Okay lets requote what I said:
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.

But you did:

That 'basis' is as groundless as any other basis as long as the underlying philosophy is that of Atheism.

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

You keep writing that. It's as meaningless now as it was the first time.

What is the plural of basis?

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.

Wrong. You simply stating something doesn't make it true.

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?

No, it was a fail because, as I said: You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality.

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

I had thought you were actually smarter than this. Evidently I'm still prone to error. My apologies.

 

[786]

No need. You clearly changed the meaning of your sentence.


But you did:
You keep writing that. It's as meaningless now as it was the first time.

Apparently you can't understand that if x + y = morality that x does not equal y.

The reason I keep calling 'atheism' as 'underlying' is that is what actually makes the whole thing pointless. There are 'theist Humanists' (GeoffP) too.

I've kept on saying the basis is groundless as long as y exists.

I've talking about this in my 're-evol-ve' thread as well. And I used the same equation there as well. And I said there as well that " I KNOW Atheism does not talk about morality"...

So this 'new meaning' you are talking about pre-dates this thread, which is proof that it is not a 'new meaning' but your misunderstanding what I have been saying.

I was pointing out that Basis does not equal Atheism.

No, it was a fail because, as I said: You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality.

'still making assumption...' but that was about the rest of it. The 'fail' has to be about the 'god factor' which is what was being discussed in that sentence.

Its kind of like saying this argument is false because the argument you made before it is false even though the two arguments are actually unrelated.

God being a factor that was replaced, is unrelated to saying what the basis of morality is.

I had thought you were actually smarter than this. Evidently I'm still prone to error. My apologies.

This only happens when you're talking about theism and atheism together- you just can't fathom it.

Anyways this is tiresome repitition so :wave:

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

'still making assumption...' but that was about the rest of it. The 'fail' has to be about the 'god factor' which is what was being discussed in that sentence.

How many more times?
The fail is your incorrect assumption about the basis of morality.
Not god.

 

[786]

How many more times?
The fail is your incorrect assumption about the basis of morality.
Not god.

The fail was 'misplaced'. Those were two separate arguments we were talking about. The 'replacement of God' is one issue and the basis of morality was another issue.

Anyways, how do you feel when someone doesn't listen to your clarification

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

The fail was 'misplaced'. Those were two separate arguments we were talking about. The 'replacement of God' is one issue and the basis of morality was another issue.
Anyways, how do you feel when someone doesn't listen to your clarification

Hardly. You fail to read.
The sentence is the same as when I first wrote it back in post #79. And again in #81. And again in #83.
And #81 clearly pointed out that your further assumption that I was still referring to god was in error. I'd left the "question" of god behind because I'd previously pointed out your error on that assumption too.

 

[786]

Hardly. You fail to read.
The sentence is the same as when I first wrote it back in post #79. And again in #81. And again in #83.
And #81 clearly pointed out that your further assumption that I was still referring to god was in error. I'd left the "question" of god behind because I'd previously pointed out your error on that assumption too.

What you may have 'clearly pointed out' in #81 has nothing to do with what I had said. Your post #79, that specific sentence was in response to my response to you about god being the factor.

It was about 'atheism' and 'theism', specifically, the subject of that sentence. Fail for morality is totally misplaced.

This started earlier with my comments that 'God' was 'replaced'- you were questioning the word 'replace'.

Then you said:

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

Even though I was saying that the authority of God was 'replaced' by xx xxx xx . Or were you again interpreting the word replace as you wanted, instead of in the context that I was writing it in.?

Well anyways, whatever this is getting petty.

Peace be unto you

 

[Nesm]

You don't have to talk about 'children' to make the issue more sensitive.

I'm not - read the thread title. An indoctrinating teacher implies indoctrinated children. 'Children' is about as on-topic as it gets; 'Atheistic morality' however...

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.

Firstly: Please stop assuming I'm an atheist & then piling your preconceptions (and misconceptions) up on my shoulders. It's irritating & starting to itch.

Secondly: Its not about me telling you whats right or wrong. Its about us sitting down for a drink and watching some video footage of the last 50 years of human history. Its about us seeing something like racism, and both coming to the conclusion that, you know what, racism sucks; lets ensure our children aren't exposed to teachings which encourage it. Obscurity like 'relative morality' doesn't need to factor into our understanding of whats 'wrong'. All it requires is a willingness to sit at the same table, and engage in discussion.

 

[786]

I'm not - read the thread title. An indoctrinating teacher implies indoctrinated children. 'Children' is about as on-topic as it gets; 'Atheistic morality' however...

Sure 'childrens' are on topic and as a specific topic. But the general conclusion that was trying to be made was 'indoctrintion is wrong'. Wrong on what moral basis? And wrong for who.

Firstly: Please stop assuming I'm an atheist & then piling your preconceptions (and misconceptions) up on my shoulders. It's irritating & starting to itch.

(Q) is an Atheist, you jumped in, so I was assuming you are arguing against what I was saying to (Q)- which was for atheists.

Secondly: Its not about me telling you whats right or wrong. Its about us sitting down for a drink and watching some video footage of the last 50 years of human history. Its about us seeing something like racism, and both coming to the conclusion that, you know what, racism sucks; lets ensure our children aren't exposed to teachings which encourage it. Obscurity like 'relative morality' doesn't need to factor into our understanding of whats 'wrong'. All it requires is a willingness to sit at the same table, and engage in discussion.

'racism sucks'- you think white supremcists think that? You think they think its morally wrong?

Why sit on the table in the first place- is it wrong to hold your own personal views? If so, on what basis?

Peace be unto you

 

[Nesm]

'racism sucks'- you think white supremcists think that? You think they think its morally wrong?

Agreed - they probably don't think that; and I'm sure there might well be some sound arguments for their cause. But I would say that their world-view is a relic from a time when cultures were isolated from others; when cultural morality was the order of the day, and was the instigator of conflict. Tribal mentality doesn't work on a global scale. Drawing conclusions by observing the world and its history, and agreeing upon them, strips morality of its subjective, cultural and religious connotations. It creates rather, a morality consciously defined by the people to whom it applies.

Why sit on the table in the first place- is it wrong to hold your own personal views? If so, on what basis?

We sit together so that ideas may evolve from their subjective, single minded nature into a collaborative ideal.

 

[krazedkat]

A child should not be TAUGHT what to believe, that is pure evil and should be frowned upon. Also: The message of Hell is simply fear-mongering...

 

[John99]

A child should not be TAUGHT what to believe, that is pure evil and should be frowned upon. Also: The message of Hell is simply fear-mongering...

Every person is taught WHAT to believe. Even when i was in school and being the smartest in the class the teacher still busted my balls.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Every person is taught WHAT to believe.

Really?
Evidence please.

Even when i was in school and being the smartest in the class the teacher still busted my balls.

You were the smartest in your class? What's happened since?

 

[(Q)]

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

Gosh Lori, when you blurt out nonsense, try to make it look less like nonsense. LOL.

 

[John99]

After awhile though, everyone left me alone. One day the teacher said "John, whats wrong with you? You stare out the window all day. You dont talk, you dont play" I was like, how should i know? Luckily i got better. I think my sensors were overloaded. The shame of it all was they put my chair by the window and the grass was green and the trees were blowing in the wind. The squirrels were jumping all over and chasing eachother and every once in awhile they would stop to look at me looking at them.

 

[(Q)]

Sure 'childrens' are on topic and as a specific topic. But the general conclusion that was trying to be made was 'indoctrintion is wrong'. Wrong on what moral basis? And wrong for who.

While I understand believers have no morals, it would be very difficult trying to explain the moral implications to you because you have no frame of reference. It is wrong because it does not allow the child to learn how to think, which is made evidently clear in many of the believers posts here.

 

[John99]

Really?
Evidence please.

you need evidence of that? Really the only time we are not taught WHAT to believe is in a language class.

 

[Dywyddyr]

you need evidence of that?

Yes.

Really the only time we are not taught WHAT to believe is in a language class.

Evidence please.

 

[Dywyddyr]

After awhile though blah blah blah

You miss the point.
If you were the smartest in your class how come you're not so smart now?
Or was it a (very) remedial class and you just scraped to the top?

 

[John99]

If you were the smartest in your class how come you're not so smart now?

How would YOU know?

Or was it a (very) remedial class and you just scraped to the top?

No, i was in the second smartest class out of five.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How would YOU know?

It's quite simple: I read your posts. The ones where you fail, consistently to make your (or any) point and resort time and time again to merely reiterating your original statement as if that somewhow validated it.

No, i was in the second smartest class out of five.

Ah, so it was a remedial class.