The most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
No talking liberalism.
in retrospect that Lv insulted my post 38 in his 39, with absolutly no grounds apart from the fact that he didn't understand it.
then has ignored my response to his tosh in 53
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
I am going to assume you are simply lazy rather than meanspirited. That perhaps you could actually make a reasoned argument rather than insulting someone and then assuming that the onus is on them to do your work for you, but you have found it easier and perhaps safer to avoid actually engaging in rational debate. I would like to point out that even in that case, you have another reason to question your own sense of superiority to religious people who simply have other excuses for avoiding such things.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
You and I are not seeing the same movies. I have seen many, many movies where the representatives of the government are the heroes. Sure there are other movies. There is plurality, but your generalizing does not fit for me at all. Given our very different experiences of movies I cant really see where we can debate.
With religion?
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Not limited to that. Who are the children who are not instructed in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc. or imbued with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
If you have a knee jerk reaction that this does not take place in liberal, rational, humanistic homes, I think this is naive. And I do not mean as an exception but as the rule. Perhaps you did not think your parents had a view of the world, of what was important, real, of value, good, in good taste, unreal, bad, of no value, in bad taste and so on, but most people find that these things are in fact imposed directly and indirectly. And the opinions and information passed off as facts in schools definitely had bias and point of view and assumptions, some of them laughable.
Remember too that the content of ideas is not the only area of indoctrination. Indoctrination can be implicit and indirect. It teaches us who we are, what is proper behavior, etc. It teaches us about epistemology, politics, what boys are that girls are not, as one example amongst thousands.
We were all bombarded by an ideology (or several), however flexible or rational or culturally relative it may have seemed to have been.
It's not just the fundamentalists who have to deal with adolescent rebellion or adult fundamentalists who find, even in middle age, that they must wean themselves from the ideas, biases, ideologies of parents and teachers they respected or were afraid to challenge in certain ways.
To believe otherwise is to be like the American in another country who thinks 'they' have a culture while 'we' are free and simply acting with common sense. Oh, sure, says the American, we have our traditions, but our culture is neutral, it has no bias.
Yeah, right.
I take it you aren't interested in understanding the definition and are sticking with your own definition. Oh well. :shrug:
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Feel free to actually make a point about your problems with my use of the word. You know, to actually make an argument and back it up. To exhibit some critical thinking skills. Or you can continue to state, essentially, that I am wrong. Perhaps there are people here who are curious about your opinion, rather than your reasoning, and find that fascinating in and of itself. Ah, the guru did not approve of that other post and has hinted about what is wrong. I assume you are posting to them.
Let me give you a little hint...
Perhaps a response on you part could start....
or...
or
But perhaps this is all stressful for you. I have given three opportunities to actually make some sort of case. I'll leave you the thread so you don't have to repeat yourself a fourth time.
And by the way: emoticons may not be a good short cut for you. One can, in fact, convey emotion through tone in writing.
Last edited:
The term indoctrinate has been used loosely to describe education. The distinction between the two is whether or not the teachings are applied critically. To indoctrinate means to apply knowledge 'uncritically.'
Religion follows the path of indoctrination as it relies entirely on unquestionable faith, while education can provide the means to demonstrate critically the results of what is being taught.
Why would you not think parents might help their children to think critically when trying to understand those 'doctrines, principles, ideologies, etc.?
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Thank you.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'teachings are applied critically'. But the students or the teachers?
In any case, my experience going to what were considered the best public schools in a large east coast city was that we were simply told a lot of facts. There was very little time for us being critical or exhibiting critical thinking skills, except, for example in reading comprehension when picking out the correct multiple choice answers. I have spoken to a lot of people about education, in fact I made my living as a teacher for many years, and I don't think my experiences were out of the ordinary. History was doled out as a series of facts, some of them rather pernicious. There was one social studies teacher who did give us a rather complex textbook that taught history via issues and we were asked to take stands. But this is the only time in that subject. By far and away the pedagogy was based on us as something like tape recorders.
And this is if I just focus on the content of the education. You teach people also by how they are taught, what is not said, how, for example, girls are treated rather than boys, and so on. In this indoctrination ran rampant.
And people who were critical of both implicit indoctrination or challenged ideas or even wanted to speculate or find out the reasons for certain assertions were often not treated well by the teachers.
I find this confusing also. I assume you mean that one must take in the information/doctrines etc uncritically. But I am not sure.
Yes, it can, but I found it rarely did. I want to stress here how much we were taught that we did not need to be active in our educations. How we needed to take in information that was chosen for us. That our own interests were not important and also, perhaps most important, that critical thinking in relation to the incoming ideas was discouraged. Ideally, you are right. I just think it is much more rare than it ought to be. Education could be like this, but where it is like this it is the exception. It often happens at the college level - but not always even there - but by this time we have already learned how to learn. We have already been trained how to take in information. Our brains have gone through their most remarkable learning periods and our characters have solidified in many ways. It is late in the game.
They might, some do. And some of the problem is inevitable, given the relationships between parents and children. But my experiences with well educated atheists, my parents amongst them, scientists, journalists, what have you, is that there are sacred cows and issues in these households also. Even in those instances where critical thinking and debate are allowed on certain topics I have seen children reduced to tears by sarcasm, condescension and other 'form' rather than 'content' facets of the parent's education of the children.
If I were killed and my child had to be raised by one of these families or a group of fundamentalists, yes, I would choose one of these families. I am to a certain extent being provocative. But I do think that we overestimate ideas like 'being open minded' 'rational discussions' and do not notice the real dynamics, that, yes, I do believe end up indoctrinating the children. Not to speak of those topics that all families have where no discussion and dissent are allowed. Or those areas of education, for example again that of what it is to be a boy rather than a girl, where the teaching is rarely laid out in black and white. It is not a topic of discussion: today we will tell you what we expect a boy to act like in the world and you may question us critically about this. But rather something that is taught through thousands of cues, subtle rewards and punishments and not so subtle ones, even by the families that consider themselves so enlightened and secular.
I think it is just peachy to take the religious to task for the ways that they indoctrinate their children, but I feel this is often used as a distraction from the ways in which these patterns are endemic in parenting and schooling. I think there is a beam in everyone's eye and no time or room for smugness or at least we are not like them thinking.
Also somehow 'religious' families seems to mean the most blunt of the fundamentalists, when in fact there are many religious families that encourage critical thinking and an exchange course I took under some Jesuits damn well put my CI skills to the task.
So my reaction in this thread is that a reaction to what seems to me to be a habitual implicit self-congratulation on the part of rationalists/atheists for something they really haven't achieved yet. This self-congratulation takes its form often in pointing out that what they do is indoctrination.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by 'teachings are applied critically'. But the students or the teachers?
In any case, my experience going to what were considered the best public schools in a large east coast city was that we were simply told a lot of facts. There was very little time for us being critical or exhibiting critical thinking skills, except, for example in reading comprehension when picking out the correct multiple choice answers. I have spoken to a lot of people about education, in fact I made my living as a teacher for many years, and I don't think my experiences were out of the ordinary. History was doled out as a series of facts, some of them rather pernicious. There was one social studies teacher who did give us a rather complex textbook that taught history via issues and we were asked to take stands. But this is the only time in that subject. By far and away the pedagogy was based on us as something like tape recorders.
And this is if I just focus on the content of the education. You teach people also by how they are taught, what is not said, how, for example, girls are treated rather than boys, and so on. In this indoctrination ran rampant.
And people who were critical of both implicit indoctrination or challenged ideas or even wanted to speculate or find out the reasons for certain assertions were often not treated well by the teachers.
I find this confusing also. I assume you mean that one must take in the information/doctrines etc uncritically. But I am not sure.
Yes, it can, but I found it rarely did. I want to stress here how much we were taught that we did not need to be active in our educations. How we needed to take in information that was chosen for us. That our own interests were not important and also, perhaps most important, that critical thinking in relation to the incoming ideas was discouraged. Ideally, you are right. I just think it is much more rare than it ought to be. Education could be like this, but where it is like this it is the exception. It often happens at the college level - but not always even there - but by this time we have already learned how to learn. We have already been trained how to take in information. Our brains have gone through their most remarkable learning periods and our characters have solidified in many ways. It is late in the game.
They might, some do. And some of the problem is inevitable, given the relationships between parents and children. But my experiences with well educated atheists, my parents amongst them, scientists, journalists, what have you, is that there are sacred cows and issues in these households also. Even in those instances where critical thinking and debate are allowed on certain topics I have seen children reduced to tears by sarcasm, condescension and other 'form' rather than 'content' facets of the parent's education of the children.
If I were killed and my child had to be raised by one of these families or a group of fundamentalists, yes, I would choose one of these families. I am to a certain extent being provocative. But I do think that we overestimate ideas like 'being open minded' 'rational discussions' and do not notice the real dynamics, that, yes, I do believe end up indoctrinating the children. Not to speak of those topics that all families have where no discussion and dissent are allowed. Or those areas of education, for example again that of what it is to be a boy rather than a girl, where the teaching is rarely laid out in black and white. It is not a topic of discussion: today we will tell you what we expect a boy to act like in the world and you may question us critically about this. But rather something that is taught through thousands of cues, subtle rewards and punishments and not so subtle ones, even by the families that consider themselves so enlightened and secular.
I think it is just peachy to take the religious to task for the ways that they indoctrinate their children, but I feel this is often used as a distraction from the ways in which these patterns are endemic in parenting and schooling. I think there is a beam in everyone's eye and no time or room for smugness or at least we are not like them thinking.
Also somehow 'religious' families seems to mean the most blunt of the fundamentalists, when in fact there are many religious families that encourage critical thinking and an exchange course I took under some Jesuits damn well put my CI skills to the task.
So my reaction in this thread is that a reaction to what seems to me to be a habitual implicit self-congratulation on the part of rationalists/atheists for something they really haven't achieved yet. This self-congratulation takes its form often in pointing out that what they do is indoctrination.
Conscience is a religious concept.
Conscience is a Human trait
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Conscience is a religious concept.
I can testify to the fact that atheists have consciences. I am not an atheist but I have some in my family and I know others. They have nagging concerns about what they have or might have done wrong. They feel regret and remorse about acts they realize they wish they had not committed. They face, despite hardship, facets of their personalities, attitudes and psychology that may not be pleasant for others. And so on.
I went up to a preacher on a street corner once who was preaching out loud, I asked him an honest question and he barked back at me go away you're sapping my energy!!
OP "whats the most narrow minded ignorant thing you've heard a religious person say?"
this thread "Torture and Atheist Morality"
and this "Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon"
and this "People Don't Know ... Anything" to date; theres bound to be more. lol.
this thread "Torture and Atheist Morality"
and this "Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon"
and this "People Don't Know ... Anything" to date; theres bound to be more. lol.
I can go one better
how about "god bless you"?
Or "can i tell you about god" (from a JW while im in my PJ's trying to hold the dogs back from atacking them)
my dad taught me how to deal with them when they ask if you believe in god you how many and which ones