Assume Nothing

So you would force it on your children; that's my point. And I also think you're full of shit, saying you wouldn't care if they didn't want to learn english. In fact, I'd say you'd be an awful parent to allow that. I'm even sure it's illegal in some countries to refuse to have your child educated in the native language... So do you plan to teach your children both conservative and liberal values, both communist and democratic ones, both racist and non-racist ones? Do you plan to read your children Mein Kampf, and tell them how great a leader Hitler was, so they can decide for themselves whether or not to hate Jews? I doubt it. There's one point here: Parents have the right to teach their children and pass down their opinions to them. This happens in practically everything a parent teaches a child. You're actually under the ill-conceived implicit notion that all opinions are equal, insofar that teaching a child to adopt poorly substantiated ones should be deemed morally permissible? That opinions should be taught as literal, infallible truths when it's blatantly not the case? That children should receive limited exposure to dissenting opinions because you fear they might be dissuaded from the religion/ideology they were coerced into from a tender age? In response to your questions - of course, I'd present both sides of the spectrum to my children when they're at a suitable age to understand and decide for themselves which position is stronger, and thus which position to adopt. I hold no moral qualms against it. What's wrong with a dissenting opinion, if you could simply illustrate why a particular position is more substantiated, thus better to adopt? I find it laughable that you have the audacity to critique my views as though it was an atheistic world view - and you're calling me presumptuous, but I digress. It's funny, though. EDIT - I'll have to check this post for errors tomorrow. 04:43am, I should sleep.

I'm bewildered by the 'Cracked' song - the title of which is 'If it's true spread your legs baby' If my interpretation is not wrong, it's just a sweaty guy mumbling in what seems to be an asthma/OCD/anxiety attack for 5 minutes in an attempt to ask an ugly stripper to spread her legs, literally? Uh, what? I'm confused. Why?

If it doesn't harm others or infringe on other peoples rights, and its not harming you in a way that is going to cost other people money, I generally don't see the harm. On a totally different track, this thread has gotten me thinking about something. Discussion is all well and good from a theoretical, and philosophical perspective, in a pursuit to try and define morality, but it has very little relevance to most of the descisions we make, because most of the time, you either don't have the time, or don't take the time, to actually think about it. Most of the time, your decisions are going to be made the same we you pick a product in the grocery store. You subconscious mind will use markers in your memory to quickly go through your entire life experience for everything relevant, tally up the pros and cons using whatever criteria your specific brain uses, and provide the decision to your conscious mind before your even aware your making a choice. This is what happens every time your say, looking at the various penut butters on the shelf, and you just pick one without being aware of thinking about it. This is how most decisions are made. As a point of interest, if you can simplify it down to yes/no conditions, an MRI can tell you what your choice is before you know it yourself. The subconscious does a lot of leading. My actual immediate point, is that for example, I can try to figure out what I base my moral choices on, but it doesn't really work. There is going to be a lot of inconsistencies, because the mechanism being used to analyse myself is not connected to the one that actually makes most of the choices. Someplace in my brain there is hardwired into it, if not the actual rules that my mind uses, the source material that my brain uses every time it makes a choice. I would also suspect that it has made a lot of shortcuts so that it doesn't have to go through the whole process every time, which would mean you can set your own precedents. If you make an exception once, your brain is probably going to use that as the basis for any similar situation in the future, because it requires a lot less work. In our day to day livelihoods, a majority of our decisions are emotionally based - it's simply a cognitive function that has served us best. Rational thought isn't as necessary as a majority of our decisions have very limited ranges of consequences. On the contrary - in ethical dilemmas, or choices which may have significant implications, rational thought is necessary in order to make a morally righteous decisions because a poor decision could be harmful to many parties involved.

I'm digressing, but that argumentation seems flawed. Are you suggesting that deriving happiness/love/pleasure alone is the primary factor of whether something should be deemed morally acceptable?

Argumentum ad Populum/verecundiam? Try illustrating how it's an essential part of life, instead of appealing to popularity or authority.

Semi relevant.

That's why I'm skeptical of the poorly documented events of history. Please note that we're digressing here.

If religion isn't about the supernatural claims, then what good is the purported 'God' they teach of? It can be just as well achieved by teaching secular morals, without the baggage of needing to accept these supernatural claims and therefore denying academic ones (at least, this is applicable to fundamentalism). EDIT @obfuscator - then there's no discussion with you, because you're talking about something completely different.

I've highlighted the differences already. It's not the same at all. You're comparing the natural to the supernatural - that's significant of a difference enough.

There are people who aren't well accepting of critical analysis in every field, not just religion. And I'm talking about studying the bible from a theological, philosophical, historical, literary and scientific perceptive. There have been thousands of studies done on the bible in every discipline. You're suggesting that religious indoctrination involves this, which it obviously doesn't by definition. Supernatural claims are different to natural claims, because without critical analysis, it's indistinguishable from superstition. I'm well accepting of those who have religious discussions, who don't teach religion as fact. I'm not sure where the direction of this discussion is heading. What exactly is your position/point on this matter again? What would be the concluding statement that can be drawn from your arguments? EDIT: I like how you're equivocating the term indoctrination now.

Eh? I'd like to see you post something better. I'm speaking in a general sense, where I'd be correct. I'm not asserting that all of any one group acts that way. If you're talking about studying the Bible as literature, that's not even close to critically analyzing the supernatural claims.

what the [bleep] wouldn't think you being a uni student and a historian would say this the biggest difference being american history (and the english language) has been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered -- and is pretty much asserted and based in fact whilst the other party is spinning fictions And the bible hasn't been exhaustively documented, discussed and covered? It's not the same as academic studies. Christian apologists are dismissive of counter-arguments, whereas academic scholars are accepting of disputes (in their relevant field). It's substantiated by the living proof we have in this thread.

@Gingy - I understand that religious teachings can be relevant, but is it necessary? Is it not possible for secular organizations to teach the same moral values without the supernatural baggage that comes along with religion? @Range - I'm not sure what the point of the distinction is, because either way - the effects of it's the same. A child of tender age, say... 5, lacks the capacity to choose to deviate away from the religion. It's much more difficult for a child of that age to think critically than a child at the age of 12-15. I understand that religious moderates don't lend so much weight to the 'book of revelation', but I don't quite understand precisely how much they believe in religious texts. It's easier to criticize fundamentalists, and admittedly there has been instances where I've grouped them with 'Christians' in general. Please elaborate on the ideals and practices of religious moderates, and what they believe - it's difficult to find the ideals of religious moderates, as they're less inclined to post anything in the first place.

I don't think it was an accident. To digress, some thread statistics: [hide]Who posted in: Things that annoy the HELL out of you. Member name Posts Dizzle229 394 Duff 344 Skeptic 336 Giordano 330 H2PM 328 Rob 322 Nomrombom 317 Alg 307 riku3220 296 K4ylan 267 champion 211 Saru_Inc 206 Lokie 202 AppallingCoatHanger 173 star_in_the_sky 171 Dax 154 ElkNight 142 Vezon_Dash 137 Maleficus1055 130 Surprise 129 Maze 129 obfuscator 119 Aegis_Urien 118 ItsASpork 115 The_Gabe 109 Dupin 107 Killerred005 99 who_am_i 90 Hakaan 86 TTanT 85 i_love_burritos 82 Distracted 80 All_Is_Great 75 Crocefisso 73 Ginger_Warrior 72 Sarge 67 Bows 66 Nenga 64 Skull 62 Napalm 62 unkn0wnwarrior 62 Sbrideau 58 Sam 53 Range_This11 52 Skeptical 49 Wongtong 44 Skully 43 Langzor 42 Lenin64 42 Racheya 42 3rkid 41 Tim 40 fastortoise 36 Ieyfura 35 Shiny 35 sees_all1 35 OldJoe 35 Ouchy 34 Jernlov 31 Donkeykong23 29 blaah 29 Randox 28 aeternitatis 27 foursideking 26 mcneilp 25 Orpheus 25 Dreamtongirl 24 BlindBaker 22 Demoli 22 Jeffwilson99 21 Aiko 19 rangeor 16 Hedgehog 15 Hobgoblinpie 15 Zeno 15 Piscis_Rex 15 Pirate_Felix 15 Askthedude 15 Noxxx 14 Flodder450 14 Romy 14 Zygimantas 14 krimi 13 SaqPrets 12 meb 11 stevepole 11 roccodog 11 Blake 11 fakeitormakeit2 11 Star_Fox 10 Icuownage 10 Pinkbullet3 10 Saradomin_Mage 10 Dragonlordjl 9 Nexaduro 9 Gid 9 Flyingjj 9 Ring_World 9 Bouwzie 9 ranqe 8 Rainy_Day 8 Aeon_ 8 tripsis 8 aspeeder 7 Nadril 7 EmEss 7 Abc1230 7 Sonikku 7 Azvareth 7 Kiriyama 6 jjrox32 6 kamykazee 6 Gwasha 6 HappyNooblet 6 D Jay99 6 Hawks 6 lizzywizzy 6 Tec106 6 xAres 6 Sprint 5 MonkeyChee 5 Guy 5 Earth 5 Jaffy1 5 Albel 5 Surprises 5 meol 5 IeatWindex 5 Junkmutt 5 Lekti 5 jrhairychest 5 MrGreens 5 iamcoool11 5 Magbill 5 dusky 4 EarthySun 4 The Dark Lord 4 Cacmypants 4 Newb 4 Surrealist 4 angel_mage 4 Dheginsea 4 tigershelby2 4 holiday 4 Tim_Finch 4 RESULTS 4 Nightwhisper 4 SirHartlar 4 Lose No Hope 4 sohkmj1 3 Blutters 3 Celery 3 AdamMonkey0 3 Implying 3 Bird_of_Prey 3 detroit187 3 bballer 3 Fallen_GIGO 3 Hamtaro 3 andufusthebronze 3 LifeAndDeath 3 Sturrhurr 3 IGoddessI 3 Myweponsg00d 3 Adam007 3 Bloodstain 3 1_man_army 3 highlanders 3 IXxPURITYxXI 3 Leoo 3 RsnLeadSayingHello 3 doomy 3 Asmodeous4 2 3PointMan 2 fishy227 2 Mightybigboo31 2 Brodly 2 Xecer 2 httpBen 2 Naive 2 Laura 2 Iamdan 2 i_trollz_u 2 Durant 2 Jonanananas 2 anonymous_user 2 Erewhon2 2 Returned3 2 Nyosuht 2 baalboy5 2 extremetexanfan 2 RpgGamer 2 I_am_Geed 2 saml 2 Poppet 2 howbadisbad 2 Millard 2 SeyedKevin 2 Georgelemmons 2 Vulxai 2 Diesel 2 Dragonmaker9 2 JeremyM 2 Jehosaphat 2 h3art 2 quitthegame 2 Monk 2 Nero 2 1dedecek 2 Sterlite 2 Robert_R 2 EFG 2 ezeeipancake 2 KittyKat 2 Nifflin 2 Arthu 2 Marduk_God 2 God_Himself 2 PurpleCrayon 2 Turnpike 2 Tiigon 2 Zealot 2 Haaa_Haaa0 2 Markup 2 Roberthree 2 Wavemasta 2 1337_Byte 2 eias 2 darkly 2 Fra 2 Buzzcut3 1 svs 1 noble_aloof 1 Goonstalf 1 a_bert 1 TheDarkSide 1 Andy 1 Naraku893 1 Snipersas 1 Stilev 1 SUbandgeek 1 Cubewarrior1 1 Knitewulf 1 Will_H 1 Son_Of_Judas 1 Damo 1 Normalize 1 pegpenguin 1 dinoboy100 1 Big_Stingman 1 MIB 1 Danqazmlp 1 Olbritishchap 1 20Rice04 1 Wavyyy 1 divingduck 1 Kaphias 1 Iiccee 1 db300 1 n_odie 1 Shin 1 Thisbenathan 1 dsavi 1 LaserDude333 1 Thatbassman 1 Vandite 1 pope_skills 1 kavasake 1 BBK 1 Probably_Halo 1 mckinzy5 1 Brad25891 1 xXep1cpwn3rXx 1 Th3_Crusader 1 GottaGetDownOnfriday 1 Pan_Nx 1 Pianokid13 1 GimmeMyAccount 1 Tom_Servo 1 xsarah 1 Mr_Adam 1 exodus199 1 Sir_Redhead 1 uzi0espil 1 Enamoured 1 duckking 1 PuppyKing 1 foofoomagoo 1 Da_rk_Slayer 1 Matey 1 vb354 1 MrDNA 1 x1strife 1 Roxie 1 Abendav 1 swampjedi 1 SeanCalibur 1 wretched_axe 1 Hugger_88 1 mario_sunny 1 Eureka 1 Ice_and_Spec 1 cultjunky 1 Ellac 1 1roddad1 1 Phuunhym 1 PhaperPlane 1 walka92 1 FirenLazah 1 Lemeja 1 Sylph 1 Morrison 1 ElementOfOne 1 Mythological 1 ThurinEthir 1 katha610 1 Shadiochao 1 Harakiri 1 No_Foo 1 MysteriousWaters 1 mughinn 1 Synthox 1 Lion_3 1 Lawrence 1 gago 1 tortilliachp 1 re4p3r1 1 Toxicity02 1 Joes_So_Cool 1 RUNESCAPEfantasy 1 xxlegendxx 1 Lukeh 1 Wingless 1 M_u_s_ii_X 1 Dire_Wolf 1 Ryannator 1 Poopingman 1 Exploit 1 chenw 1 Wizz 1 Dark_Yeng 1 sockmonster 1 darkace21 1 Iconic 1 MRMRM 1 Alakazam 1 Pluckey 1 RussetAlpha 1 Hegelstad 1 the-whisky-bar 1 WhiteHorn 1 Kenshinjapan 1 boyzloveme15 1 Undo 1 Ruggig 1 DuckyTheSwan 1 deskjethp 1 Low_C 1 East_Garden 1 You_MadBroRS 1 Jeremy841 1 Technologic 1 Comical 1 konzserwas 1 MuffinMaddy 1 catluva359 1 Sheynara 1 Actaeon 1 Miaow 1 toast647 1 blakdragon39 1 30741987 1 My_Eggs 1 Grim_ 1 iamsomebody1 1 doglover953 1 polyvore 1 Aten 1[/hide]

You've lost me from 'but despite the fact...' I don't see how there's any relationship between having moral principles to being under indoctrination? I'm confused.

You've essentially admitted that your morality is not derived from your deity - the greater good concept is a fundamental part of consequentialism. In ethical dilemmas, sometimes it's honestly choosing between the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not against every religion - I don't know enough about all of them to make that judgement. The three main contenders, the Abrahamic faiths - Islam, Christianity, Judaism happen to be in agreement in regards to religious teachings, which is indistinguishable from religious indoctrination when practiced on young children. I consider absolute morality to be a flawed concept too - there are obvious exceptions to the rule, yet according to the book of revelation, no such exceptions exist. 'Thou shalt not steal' - even in the case of severe impoverishment, on the verges of death? What if theft was necessary to save lives, like the theft of a key from a corrupt guard? 'Thou shalt not lie' - even when not lying means condemning many people to their deaths? e.g. if you lived in Nazi Germany, and you were hiding Jews (and subsequently questioned about it) - would you lie about hiding Jews? 'Thou shalt not kill' - what if it was necessitated in combat, or self defense? Then again, it doesn't seem to be very well held, so it's pointless criticising this one. There's problems with every commandment, which is why I'm against the notion of absolute morality as a whole. I do like how Christianity forms thousands of denominations so adherents can cherry-pick and deliberately interpret the Bible in a way that suites their ideals the best. I don't understand religious moderates - what's the point? I find it easier to be deistic, but maybe that's me.

... what?

'Christian' values. Do they happen to be cherry-picked, or do they endorse slavery, rape, murder, etc. too?

It depends on the age range. If you were taught at the tender age of say... 5, then you lacked the capacity to be critical, so any religious teaching at that age would constitute religious indoctrination. If you were taught at 12-15, however, then it's easier to argue that it's just a teaching because you can simply reject the teachings as opposed to accepting them on the command of authority.

It's part of my childhood. I've attended multiple churches before. It wasn't acceptable to question the 'word of the lord', apparently. This is still derailing from the original topic of whether child indoctrination is immoral, though.

... I've never seen a single priest, preacher, or apologist call for critical examination of their purported 'holy' texts without resorting to fallacious argumentation. I'd really like to see religious teachings that allowed adherents to question the beliefs.

How do you distinguish religious indoctrination from religious teachings, if they both reject scrutiny and critical examination?

I'm making the assumption? It's the very definition of religious indoctrination. Define your terms if you don't agree. There's no point having this discussion if you're going to be too lazy to do these simple tasks to clarify what you mean by moral/immoral/right/wrong/ethical/indoctrination/etc. If you're referring to indoctrination as 'education', then this is a meaningless discussion. I'm referring specifically to teaching children to accept religious 'truths' as factual without any evidence/argument - purely on the basis of faith or personal revelation. EDIT - Oh, religious teachings, I misread. Okay, then tell me when/where would a Christian tell a child to question religious beliefs - to examine religious assertions under scrutiny? EDIT 2 - Teaching politics, societal behaviours and mannerisms are nothing like religious indoctrination. You're conflating them to cause confusion. I don't take issue with those forms of 'indoctrination' because it doesn't instill fear like the way religious indoctrination does, nor does it limit learning/doubt, and it's unlikely to be as harmful to well-being on the basis of the previous premises.

Source? Where are children being taught to think uncritically? I have a problem with that too, if you could identify it. Do they happen to instill significant levels of fear, too? You know, like the statements regarding eternal fiery torture if they practiced normal activities, like masturbation? Your argumentation has been no better than mine. Before you remove a splinter from your neighbour's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye.