You will be A-thei-ssimilated.

[Sean]

There are many cases of children raised in atheist homes becoming religious, perhaps most famously Akiane Kramarik, an 8 yer old child prodegy who sees spiritual visions and paints them exquisitely. Her faith is so powerful she's converted her parents.

Ah yes, her faith also sells the same paintings for $5,000 - $3m according to her website. Would that I could be that 'spiritual'...

[thestoat]

Hi lo - hope you had a good time

Jesus is mentioned frequently in the Qur'an by Mohammed.

Ah yes, sorry about that, when I asked about Jesus mentioned outside of the Bible, I meant "outside of religious texts" - obviously there will be religious back scratching.

There are many cases of children raised in atheist homes becoming religious

Apart from Sean's comment, clearly demonstrating you picked a poor example, that does not refute my statement. I didn't state that religion was impossible without indoctrination. Indoctrination, however, plays a large part in religious propagation - I know of many cases of it and I am sure many reading this forum do too.

123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.

Interesting book - I had not come across this before. But of course any work of that source is highly subjective. For example, in the US Civil War, the slave owners believed that it was their God given right to own black slaves, because they were inferior beings, and without souls - much like animals. So though it could be argued this wasn't a religious war, religion was used to justify many horrific deaths. Similarly in WW2, Hitler used the 'Jews Killed Jesus' thing. The point is that many many millions have died because of religion. Some could argue that is a good thing (overpopulation, etc). It is still a fact.

Are you familiar with the Ottoman Empire? The Muslim rule of Europe was what pulled it out the Dark Ages.

Eh? Are you saying Muslim rule of Europe was what pulled the Ottoman Empire out the Dark Ages?

You said "religion hinders development of society"
I said "Go look at some of the Muslim states that suppress women because of religion" - this is an example of religion hindering society
How can you refute that?

[Crackpot]

it was the Crusades that brought Europe out of the Dark ages (and Put the Arab world into it's own) The concepts plundered from the ME (at the very least it's numbering system which the Arabs then abandoned) fueled the age of rapid understanding and learning that was the renaissance.

REligion can either hinder or advance societies. and People like to forget that the RCC was the driving force behind the Renaissance. Oddly it was a crisis of Faith on the churches part that by and large ended it's wide support for the Sciences and unfortunately started a pattern that persists to this day between the two. You see It started with the Idea that Since God Is true the Sciences can only help to reveal that truth. Come Copernicus who proposed a Heliocentric solar system instead of realizing that a Geocentric Universe Is not a Biblical concept that doesn't even largely effect the story of creation (they must have already realized by then that there was a day and night for 2 days before there was a sun) The powers that be instead of heeding their faith leaped into outright denial of observable facts.

I often wonder about what the world would have been like if that schism never happened.

It would probably be way to rational and boring for anyones tastes.

[loCAtek]

To this day missionaries, go to places to be good examples of their faith, while doing so they offer free eduction, healthcare and shelter.

Apart from Sean's comment, clearly demonstrating you picked a poor example, that does not refute my statement. I didn't state that religion was impossible without indoctrination. Indoctrination, however, plays a large part in religious propagation - I know of many cases of it and I am sure many reading this forum do too.

Indoctrination is the teaching of any cultural behaviors: gender roles, language use, etiquette, or what side of the road you drive on, etc.
Indoctrination is a common method of imparting the native culture. Any society will teach members wishing to be a part of it 'This is how we are.'
It seems to be implied that indoctrination is a form of coercion.

There have been times in history, where religion has been forced on people, but you could say that about any cultural behavior,
E.G. In China, against their wishes, most are only allowed to have only one child.
In East Germany, against their wishes, people were not allowed to travel.
In Libya, against their wishes, people had to live under a dictatorship.

If it violates your civil rights, I'd call that coercion, not indoctrination. You can coerce people into following dogma, but you're well aware, you can't force spiritual faith into people. Inner faith, that real belief, is cultivated, the same way you cultivate curiosity, or creativity. Often you're introduced to one of the ways you can cultivate that faith, through your culture's, or your family's religion. Granted, there are others ways you can choose to cultivate faith, because if it is just indoctrination, then you still have that freedom to choose that education or another one. The point is find your inner faith.

[thestoat]

you can't force spiritual faith into people

Now you are simply talking about the quality of the end result. I do know of indoctrinated people who have since thought about things and decided "yes, religion is where its at". That's quality. Others have been indoctrinated and don't really think about it. It's just what they do and what they believe - without thought. Less quality there imo.

My experience is that ALL the religious ones I know (quite a few) have or had a religious upbringing. NONE are religious having had no indoctrination. I am quite sure those sort of people do exist, but from what I have seen they are in a minority.

Indoctrination is the teaching of any cultural behaviors: gender roles, language use, etiquette, or what side of the road you drive on, etc.

No, lo, that is not correct. Once again you show a profound lack of understanding of basic English words.

Wikipedia:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

Perfect. MOST of the religious people I know have NOT questioned their faith.

[liberty]

This was one of the bloodest comflicts and battles at one of the most relgioiua times in europe but religoin played no part: Battle of Chalons: Attila the Hun Versus Flavius Aetius

[loCAtek]

That's allegorical, stoat. I've posted the scientific studies that show most persons are 'hardwired' for religion. i did peruse dictionary.com and the like, and hadn't seen where lack of questioning/choice was an vital part of the definition. Wiki lists it's source for this assertion as;

^ Wilson, J., 1964. "Education and indoctrination", in T.H.B. Hollins, ed. Aims in Education: the philosophic approach(Manchester University Press).

and Richard Dawkins, but he's a biologist, not a sociologist.

It's interesting to note that in this book Aims in Education: the philosophic approach

...a few different modes of education, including Catholic Neo-Thomism by Rev. George Andrew Beck Archbishop of Liverpool, are said to be ones based on personal experience and rational thought.

<insert the gratuitous priest joke here, to get it outta the way then, thX>

[Sean]

To this day missionaries, go to places to be good examples of their faith, while doing so they offer free eduction, healthcare and shelter.

And never to shove their belief system down the throats of people who have gotten along nicely without it for thousands of years thank you very much. Never I tell you!

Indoctrination is ALL about accepting tenets without question. The Catholic catechism is probably the best example. Mind you, telling a 'heathen' people that they can have free healthcare, education and shelter if they accept your God without question is probably quite effective too...







Oh and many Catholic priests have sexually abused young children but have been protected by the church. <insert belly laugh here>.

[loCAtek]

Um, you don't know where MajGenl.Meade is, do you? Now, I can believe you, or say a real missionary?

<insert joke Sean gets here; oh wait, that would leave this space blank. Pardon, carry on...>

[Sean]

Are you really numb enough to think that what I described never happens?

[thestoat]

i did peruse dictionary.com and the like, and hadn't seen where lack of questioning/choice was an vital part of the definition.

Then peruse a bit further/harder

Indoctrinate: to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically

—Synonyms
1. brainwash, propagandize.

[Sean]

I find it interesting that Lo is unable to see past her blinkers and mindlessly believes what the church would have her believe without question. She jumps through hoops and makes herself look like a complete muppet in her childish attempts to discredit anything outside of her belief system.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of indoctrination.

[Crackpot]

actually she does this over a religion she doen't even claim to believe.

[thestoat]

actually she does this over a religion she doen't even claim to believe.

Maybe the indoctrination runs deeply within...

[Scooter]

Humans 'hardwired for religion'

and in a later post, you reference this by saying

I've posted the scientific studies that show most persons are 'hardwired' for religion.

You didn't post any "scientific studies". You posted the comments of a psychologist who believes that humans have an innate tendency to refuse to let go of some irrational beliefs no matter how much evidence contradicts them. It's not exactly a compliment to religion to be saying that it owes its existence to the fact that humans cling to it only because they are born too stubbornly irrational to do any differently.

4. religion hinders development of society.
Yup. Why would you refute that? Go look at some of the Muslim states that suppress women because of religion and then revisit the statement

Are you familiar with the Ottoman Empire? The Muslim rule of Europe was what pulled it out the Dark Ages.

Leaving aside the fact that Ottoman control of Muslim lands did not come about for centuries after the Dark Ages, and that Muslim rule in Europe to that time was limited to present-day Spain and Portugal...

The advancement of science in Muslim lands and its corresponding languishing in western Europe was due largely to geography. Under the Roman Empire, Greek had been the language of science and most scientific work was centred in the East. After the Empire's fall, the Greek texts were largely lost to the West, but they were accessible by Muslim scholars, who also came into contact with scientific advances in India upon which they could build. Religion can only take credit for this advancement to the extent that (at first) religious authorities stayed out of the way. When religious authorities became concerned that science was (in their eyes) coming into conflict with divine revelation, certain lines of scientific inquiry were stifled, just as happened in the West when the Church had the power to enforce its will.

If science and religion are in conflict and religion is in power, science is going to lose. Period.

That's allegorical, stoat.

Perhaps you should check a dictionary for the meaning of allegory, because whatever you meant to say, this wasn't it.

i did peruse dictionary.com and the like, and hadn't seen where lack of questioning/choice was an vital part of the definition.

Perhaps seeing it bolded in the definitions would help:

in·doc·tri·nate
   [in-dok-truh-neyt]

–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach or inculcate.

3. to imbue with learning.

—Synonyms
1. brainwash, propagandize.


indoctrinate (ɪnˈdɒktrɪˌneɪt)

— vb

1. to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically

2. rare to impart learning to; instruct

How could trying to imbue someone with a biased point of view or getting them to accept doctrines uncritically imply anything but a lack of questioning/choice?

It's interesting to note that in this book Aims in Education: the philosophic approach

...a few different modes of education, including Catholic Neo-Thomism by Rev. George Andrew Beck Archbishop of Liverpool, are said to be ones based on personal experience and rational thought.

The Church has always accepted the value of experience and rational thought on its own terms, and Archbishop Beck reinterates this quite clearly:

Truth cannot contradict truth without destroying the very first principle of human reason. Philosophy, independent of revelation, maintains the autonomy of human reason, but it is subject in a negative sense to the guidance of Faith by which its conclusions can be checked. The Church commends the Thomist philosophy because its conclusions are in harmony with, and help to explain, the revealed truth of which she claims to be the guardian and interpreter.

His meaning is clear:
1. A "truth" arrived at through human reason alone cannot really be a truth if it stands in conflict with divine revelation.
2. The Church accepts Thomist philosophy only because its conclusions pose no conflict with divine revelation.
3. The Church considers itself the sole arbiter of what constitutes truth.

[rubato]

To this day missionaries, go to places to be good examples of their faith, while doing so they offer free eduction, healthcare and shelter.

And never to shove their belief system down the throats of people who have gotten along nicely without it for thousands of years thank you very much. Never I tell you!

Indoctrination is ALL about accepting tenets without question. The Catholic catechism is probably the best example. Mind you, telling a 'heathen' people that they can have free healthcare, education and shelter if they accept your God without question is probably quite effective too...
... "

Mark Twain called it "getting people to trade 24-carat Confucianism for counterfeit Christianity."

'struth


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

actually she does this over a religion she doen't even claim to believe.

I've said, I wasn't a Christian, not that I don't believe in it.
I support the quest to spirituality no matter what path. What difference does it make- when, where, how, why; so as you are truly seeking?

actually she does this over a religion she doen't even claim to believe.

Maybe the indoctrination runs deeply within...

That's hilarious; my mother was an atheist and my father an agnostic who mocked religion.

[Sean]

I've said, I wasn't a Christian, not that I don't believe in it.

Brilliant! So you believe the teachings of Christianity? Jesus as saviour and all that?

Yet you are not a Christian...

[loCAtek]

Yes



Carl Jung:

Why is psychology the youngest of the empirical sciences? Why have we not long since discovered the unconscious and raised up its treasure-house of eternal images? Simply because we had a religious formula for everything psychic — and one that is far more beautiful and comprehensive than immediate experience. Though the Christian view of the world has paled for many people, the symbolic treasure-rooms of the East are still full of marvels that can nourish for a long time to come the passion for show and new clothes. What is more, these images — be they Christian or Buddhist or what you will — are lovely, mysterious, richly intuitive.

...

Whereas the personal unconscious consists for the most part of "complexes", the content of the collective unconscious is made up essentially of "archetypes". The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them 'motifs'; in the psychology of primitives they correspond to Levy-Bruhl's concept of "representations collectives," and in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and Mauss as 'categories of the imagination'... My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals.

...

[Scooter]

Yeah, so? The religious beliefs a person holds tells us something about his/her psychology. Is that supposed to be a shocking revelation?