JCC God Exists.

Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Jun 3, 2013.

?

God Exists.

yes 51 vote(s) 40.5%
no 40 vote(s) 31.7%
nnnnnNNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!! 22 vote(s) 17.5%
dunno 35 vote(s) 27.8%
no curr 5 vote(s) 4.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    To a non-religious person this is a sinister development; to a religious person there is nothing objectionable about this whatsoever. How would you seriously propose actually addressing this "problem"; abrogate the right of religious people to raise their own children?
  2. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    So it is bad because they are A)exposed to an idea and B)subsequently might not reject it? How is that not true of any idea a child encounters? Should teaching a child anything be considered abusive? Should they spend the first 18 years of their life in a sensory deprivation chamber? Your argument is laughably weak here.

    Absolutely I do. Why shouldn't Marxist parents teach their children about Marxism? What do I care? Do you think I am afraid of communism? That I really have any sort of ideological objection to it at all?

    Lol
    TOSCHESTATION and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  3. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    It is not "technically" coercion, it is coercion. The point of pointing it out is to make people aware of things in a way they never were before. You are in "Christian apologetic Terminator" mode and can't stop looking for some windmill to contemptuously swing at.

    o_O

    Except pretty much everyone else has been arguing exactly the opposite.

    I guess I am one of those perverse libertarians then.

    I didn't say it was "anodyne", I simply chose to restrict the focus of this conversation to proving that the propagation of religion relies on social control mechanisms.
    Last edited by Emperor_Billy_Bob, Jun 26, 2013
  4. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    And what harm has anyone brought up? Ender Sai's note that if children hear about ideas, they might like them instead of reject them?
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  5. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    I brought up the harm my mother has suffered for one, but really anyone who has taken the time to read a newspaper in the last 12 years can tell what the unquestioned propagation of the Christian meme has done to the politics of this country.
  6. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    The propagation of any value system relies on the same mechanisms. When you punish a child for physically retaliating to another child taking a toy away from him, you are imparting values that have absolutely no ontological footing to him or her by way of a visceral shaming code, not demonstrating an judgment-independent empirical truth or logical axiom.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    Thanks brah. I've never read Nietzsche or pomo philosophers so I think that insight is unique and new.
  8. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Holy ****, that is an awesome sentence. You should write Dune novels.
  9. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    Frank Herbert was ******* awesome, and I will not have him shamed by comparison to Condition2SQ.
  10. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Do you have any grasp of how little credibility Dawkin's "meme" concept has from a hard science standpoint?

    Your enthusiasm for that stupidity aside, you realize that like Bush a number of politicians and public figures became religious in adulthood? If your objection is to the actual content of ideas, that's one thing. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the methods of disseminating those ideas.

    By contrast, your "SUNDAY SCHOOL IS THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" position is much more novel, nuanced, and insightful.

    Oh, wait.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Jun 26, 2013
    TOSCHESTATION and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  11. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Then you would seem to be bereft of a point other than wanting to use this "coercion" angle as a novel approach to attack Christianity in general, even as you admit there's no substantive difference between imparting Christian values and another set of values, other than the fact that Christian values sometimes don't dovetail with your own. Whatever the flaws of Christian epistemology are are flaws unto themselves. The "child brainwashing" extension is totally superfluous since it can be applied to any ideology imparted to youth.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Jun 26, 2013
    TOSCHESTATION and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  12. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    There's nothing wrong with threatening dis-ownership for atheism or agnosticism!
  13. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    But I am not saying that it is morally wrong. I am simply affirming 1. it is coercion, 2. it has negative effects (from my point of view) on people and on this country, therefore 3.) I oppose it.

    I understand well enough why Christians are so slap-happy to spread their religion. I am simply opposed to that mindset and most things that go with it.
  14. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    I have a grasp of how strongly Christian apologists hate it and wish to tear it apart. Ultimately, I am not terribly interested in how much "hard science" cred it has. As a shorthand for social reproduction, it is pretty on point.

    An irrelevancy. Christianity's survival depends on the conversion of children at a young age. The factors that allow it to survive and thrive are infinitely more complex than that, however, and I think too much for this thread.

    It is an illusion that objections to those two things can be separated. Your aim seems to be to create some sort of rhetorical space where, even if you dislike Christianity, it is perfectly okay for adults to coerce their children into practicing Christianity. But it cannot be done.

    Rather, the affirmative position you are advancing, "It is harmless to enforce Christianity on your children" is the flawed one.
  15. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
  16. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Coercion distinct from what other tenable form of autonomous child rearing? The right to impart one's core values to one's children is very nearly as fundamental as the right of self-defense. If you find those values to be unethical or fallacious, then they are that unto themselves, completely independent of how they are disseminated to the next generation.
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  17. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    This (for me) would be a descriptive statement. Not normative. And I suspect that it is where we disagree.
    Last edited by Emperor_Billy_Bob, Jun 26, 2013
  18. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I think it all comes to down to whether you are educating or indoctrinating your children. The difference is that when you educate your children you invite critical examination as opposed to indoctrination where critical thought is discouraged.
    V-2 likes this.
  19. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    How is it an illusion to think that modes of instruction are distinct from content of instruction? Are you paying any attention to the content of your words, and how they sequence together into sentences? Or are just random strings of letters coming from your keyboard at this point? Please take the time to defend this ridiculous, stupid, and manifestly incorrect assertion.

    Most especially when the only thing you've been able to dredge up for evidence of harm is the fact that you don't like Christianity. Frankly, Ender was doing better with his "red scare" fear-mongering.
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  20. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    That's a bit of a false dichotomy.. Value judgments are not derived from critical thinking. If Richard Ramirez were the most formidable logician in history it wouldn't have made him a better person.
    Emperor_Billy_Bob likes this.
  21. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    First of all, Marshall McCluhan.

    Second of all, what one thinks about the content of instructions effects IN WHAT WAYS one thinks it is appropriate to teach people that material. Whether it is appropriate to indoctrinate children into Christianity hinges on the question "Is Christianity true?". If it is not, it is literally a dark, scary lie meant to force compliance to authorities. If it is true, it is IMPERATIVE that children be indoctrinated into it. (That most people don't realize this is simply a reflection of the fact that most people don't take the consequences of a religious worldview seriously, i.e. they don't take religion truly seriously.)

    Third of all, expressing condescending shock and dismay at your opponents argument is not an effective rhetorical tool unless everyone involved in twelve years old.

    This is a game, and I expect you to keep trying to hit this with a rhetorical hammer. You know, and I know, that it is trivially easy to write up a list of horrible things that can be attributed to the spread of Christianity, from its creation until now. But I have also been in dozens if not hundreds of these sorts of discussions, and know that the answer is always going to be "That isn't true Christianity derp a der der derp", which is completely unconvincing to anyone without an investment in overzealous Christian apologetics. It seems fruitless to tread that path.
    Last edited by Emperor_Billy_Bob, Jun 26, 2013
  22. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    No it doesn't. You've seemed not to notice, but your own paragraph doesn't even support this. You spent no time talking about the modes of instruction. The entire of your discussion revolved around what priority the instruction should have. On the actual topic of teaching methods, I don't support methods that would be harmful or traumatic to the recipient/learner, regardless of whether I think what's being taught is important or not. This is sort of a consequence of that whole "ends vs means" discussion we were having earlier, and which earned so much of your disdain. I guess it may surprise you to learn that most people aren't nearly so enthusiastic about taking extreme measures as you apparently are.

    I've asked for evidence of harm deriving from the modes of instruction for Christianity, not the content or practice of the religion itself. Because that's what you've asserted exists. And you consistently fail to provide any, including now. Try again?
    TOSCHESTATION likes this.
  23. Emperor_Billy_Bob Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2000
    star 7
    Yeah, it does.

    Because what priority the instruction has effects the way it is taught, unless the teacher is a moron.

    Good for you, I guess

    Not so. I addressed that in the previous post. It doesn't surprise me at all. I accept it for what it is- evidence that people do not, subconsciously at least, accept the truth of Christianity.

    You are attempting to define "modes" narrowly to score illusory rhetorical advantage.

    Again, since you refuse to embrace anything that could be called "subtlety" or "insight", if you perceive Christianity as false and dangerous, then Sunday School, with its cutesy feel good messages and (when you are a child) the unmatched authority of every single adult you meet, is powerful inducement to accept what you are being taught. It is never taught in a way that truly pushes critical thought (at least that I have ever seen) or any sort of true individualism. Aside from that, at least in my experience, Christianity is very guilt laden and relies on adults shaming children and overwhelming them within a peer group. It is like public school, only where the issues are cosmic and your family will hate you if you do poorly.

    It lends to a society overly keen on a kind of social conservatism and authoritarianism. It has manifestly created a large section of society which engages with nearly all issues in an apocalyptic, with us or against us mentality that poisons all forms of dialogue.

    On the other hand, if you perceive Christianity as being true, it is merely a familial and gentle way to induce good feelings in children and help them to learn about the religion.
    Last edited by Emperor_Billy_Bob, Jun 26, 2013
  24. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Can we get this thread back on track of making relevant statements about worshiping things that clearly deserve to be worshipped such as steak, bacon, and Nic Cage?
    TOSCHESTATION, Jedi Merkurian and V-2 like this.
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    What?

    Wocky, the point was more than if you use a doctrine like Marxism (which I picked because historically it has been used in lieu religion) and hammer it at kids who grow not to question it, it's inherent not a good thing. Yet when the same is done with the magical bearded Gandalf in the sky, it's ok because love and Jewish carpenters and rainbows and condos on heaven lane!

    One form of doctrine that has blind devotion is not much better than another in my view.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.