Faith, feminism and abortion

FEMINISM:
"Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances? Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?"

ANS:
Feminism is the body of natural properties that exclusively define feminine nature, the major property being Motherhood. To be a feminist is to be in accord with those defining properties which are dictated by the Nature Law (NL). However, pro-abortion is in discord with Motherhood; it is the anti-thesis of Motherhood.

Right to Life is the basic fundamental principle of all human natures. To obscure or rescind it is a rebuke of feminism, namely, if you’re dead, feminism is not only inconceivable but it’s purposeless.

Any thing that compromises innocent human life is a serious breech of the NL. Since abortion is the imputation of Motherhood, pro-abortionists cannot be “feminists” but are a contradiction of “feminism's” crowning property, Motherhood. A woman, to be a Feminist, must be in accord with her nature, and consequently with her God who created that nature.

Pro-abortionists are diametrically opposed, to the dictates of the NL and consequently are the antipode of Feminism and the antipathy of pro-life feminist. Therefore, a Pro-Abortion Feminist is a meaningless incoherency.

No one can intentionally compromise the murder of an innocent person irrespective of any faith or lack there of; viz. we can never, at our own capricious discretion. choose to violate any inviolable rights. However this is what a Pro-Abortion Feminist does by denying the right to life in her own womb.

Either we have inviolable rights, as is implicitly and explicitly stated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, in the Declaration, is implicitly stated in the 14th Amendment, and in addition, is revealed in the NL or there is no such thing as "inviolable" rights.” To the contrary, all men are endowed by God, their Creator, with certain inalienable rights.

To deny the Right to Life, the fundamental basis for all human rights, as the Court has done, is to render all inviolable rights violable. However, our Declaration declares that these rights are inviolable, and when a government "continuously" violates these rights, its citizenry not only has a right to replace that government with one in accord with the NL, but has a duty to do so.

Consequently, the Court exceeded its authority and trespassed upon rights it had no authority to violate. Hence, the conclusion of "Roe" is a Constitutional anathema and a rebuke of the NL.

Moreover, the sole authority and giver of all natures and therefore, all human life is God, the same Judeo-Christian God that created the NL that the Founding Fathers relied on for our basic rights, as is so protected in our Declaration and Constitution.

No man can create an immortal soul for the “conceived” but God who creates all men. The Moral Law (ML) is inscribed in the NL and defines all human behavior. Therefore, since our rights are God given, viz. natural; only man can forfeit these rights by abusing them. Hence, the FF recognized these rights are above the authority of man and consequently are inviolable.

There are many beliefs—Pagan, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto, Agnostic, and Atheists who honor some kind of god, whether it be animal, mineral money or self. However, these are not the real God, Whose Existence is His Essence, who has no beginning or end, viz. He is “He Who Is,” unchangeable, outside of time, and the “Cause of All Causes.”

Consequently, since the Creator is the Cause of all things, then all authority comes from God. However, murder, the unjust and intentional taking of an innocent human life, violates God’s N&ML, and is in discord with God and subsequently "Feminism." But that is what Pro-Abortionists do, viz. to claim a right to violate God’s law and subsequently, their own feminine nature.

Thus, pro-abortionists are not Feminists but only claim to be. The real Feminists do not contradict Human Life and Motherhood, or God, but are in accord with them.

Consequently, Palin is the quintessential epitome of “Feminism," who embraces Motherhood and life, while Pro-Abortionists are the antithetical anomaly of "Feminism.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
farnaz_mansouri2 :
“JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY”

IRT:
"Judeo-Christian"--one of the great oxymorons of our time, per Susan Jacoby, yours truly, millions of others. And it’s hyphenated. Ain't no Judeo in that Christian, none that the Judeos see, at any rate.”

ANS:
To the contrary, the whole New Testament is based on the Old Testament. Consequently, the fundamental basic moral laws are inscribed in the “Ten Commandments.”

Moreover Jesus quoted the OT Scriptures multiple times ensuring their authority as binding on Christianity in its fundamental moral principles. In addition, the social principles of family and marriage never changed from Judaism to Christianity. Notwithstanding, the Jews recognized the same and only God as that of the Christians.

Jesus came to fulfill the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, not to destroy it. Thus it is written in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

IRT:
“Might just as well say Greco-Christian, Egypto-Christian, or jes' Christian.”

ANS:
No, you cannot say Greco Christians if by Greco we mean Greek Mythology. Christianity is based on the Revelations God revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament, not on the mythical belief of the many gods of the Greeks nor was Christianity based on anything in accord with the Egyptian paganism except man's immortality.

The fundamental similarity and link between Judaism and Christianity is in accord with the purposes of the Jewish religion. Christianity is in no way based on the Greek pagan mythologies. They made their gods human, an oxymoron. In fact, St. Paul was thoroughly rejected by the Greeks. On the day of Pentecost, many Jews became Christians, 3,000 and 5,000 at different times.

The Jews, in one instance, had to run the Apostles out of one town because they were afraid they would convert the whole town. Hence the Jewish religion was interpenetrated in the roots of Christianity, and the basis of Christianity are not anywhere near the pagan Greek religion.

ABORTION IS A VIOLATION OF THE MORAL OBJECTIVE LAW:

"The basis of MORAL values cannot be provisional and changeable "majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for Civil Law itself.

"If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis.

"Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between Civil Law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.

"Certainly the purpose of Civil Law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the Civil Law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defense of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality.

"The real purpose of Civil Law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, Civil Law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee.

"First and fundamental among these is the inviolable Right to Life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which—were it prohibited—would cause more serious harm. It can never be presumed to legitimize as a right of individuals—even if they are the majority of the members of society—an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the Right to Life

The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

"The Church points out that 'it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily.'

"'For to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'.

"Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, as abortion defiles the Right to Life, the State would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force."

Runnin,
"So, Timmy, as you write, during this time a mytholgy was thought up by an "Abraham," a wandering, hallucinating, delusional, ranting goat herder"

I highly doubt "Abraham" existed. These are just stories.

"He questioned the idea and action of sacrificing your best born to a god"

He probably did not exist. You make it sound as if we owe the end of human sacrifice to one Jew. Humans began to question human sacrifice. There is nothing special about Jews.

"Humans of that area, the area of the world that gave rise to the Western version of "civilization," were so in love with sacrificing children to gods, the Jews have been, for the most part, persona non grata, ever since"

That's right. Hitler was upset at them for ending human sacrifice to the Gods. Todays antisemitism is all about our lamenting the end of human sacrifice. We blame the Jews for that. What??? Times change old man. A jewish person born today or even 100 years ago has zero connection to the mythical character of Abraham. We do not have the Jewish people to thank for the end of human sacrifice. Nor would we not know what gravity is today if Newton had never been born. Someone else would have figured it out. You have not gotten over the idea of "the others" yet if you think that we owe the end of Human sacrifice to the Jews.
"If one starts with the Abraham/Isaac story, and if one also knows what all the other human beings of the early civilizations were doing, it might give one a new understanding"

Only if one was so naive as to believe that the Abraham/Isaac story is real.
"Too bad Timmy wasn't the "Abraham" -- we could have skipped all the bad stuff humans have ever done"

Too bad you think we owe our civilized manner of living to a single Jew who most likely never existed. And if Mohammed had never existed, we would not know what Zero is? Same logic.
"I would thoroughly enjoy living in a world of Timmys only"

Od statement since you still do not seem to know what a Timmy is.
Accordingly, I lived in a world dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethic, for which I am grateful"

You chose to call your ethic "Judeo Christian" I say this is someone who still hasn't gotten over the concept of "The Others".

"I lived well, and live well, never having been bothered by a Christian, or a Jew, except for benefiting from all their good stuff"

ONly one who believes there are "others" could call human ethics "their stuff".

"They have better "good stuff" than anybody else, to my experience"

Who? The others?

"NAVIN1, however, has motivated me to deeper studies of the Hindu ethic, if there is such a thing"

No more than there is such a thing as the Jewish ethic. Both are just human ethics manifested in people who grew up in different ancient religious traditions.

"Actually, I admire more the North American Indian's ethic -- to the extent that I think Timmy and I are still guests in their country"

More "others" thinking. I was born in my country. I am a guest in no one's country. Every piece of land on this earth was conquered and taken from somebody at some point. There is no land on earth that belongs to any one race. This is the kind of thinking that causes wars. Which is why it is coming out of the mouth of a World Warrist.

"Addendum. I learn more, I learn better, I understand more and better, when I read a people's mythology, than I do reading "official" historys of them -- written by them, or written by "others."

I have read everything you have read on the history of human cultures. This is where you have that disease where you think you are the only one who is capable of seeing through the bs.
"Oh, Timmy, the time you and I could have had, if I were to have been your manager"

It never would have happened. I always picked my managers and never let them pick me. I I doubt if you would have passed my interview.

"Huh. We're having a pretty good time, as it is"

Tru dat.

D12

I made no declarations of any kind. This is your first misunderstanding but far from your last. I put out observations that are up for discussion. You seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing spirituality with religion. You seem to think they mean the same thing. Perhaps spirituality is too ambiguous a term for someone of your emotional state to separate from religion. But I shall try to explain what I mean and hopefully you will not mistake my explanation of my personal observation for another declaration of what others must listen to or believe. For now, forget I ever used the word "spirituality" because I think it is throwing you.

Sometimes they make phone commercials that are meant to choke people up. They are meant to touch people's hearts and give them a lump in their throat. Ever see the one of the young man calling his grandfather from Dieppe to thank him for fighting in WW2? I'm getting glassy eyed and a lump in my throat just from thinking about it right now that's how powerful it was. Or how about a movie where the underdog triumphs against all odds because of determination to do what's right?

Sitting in the audience for all of these things, Daniel, are people of different religions and cultures. And yet all get that lump in their throat at the very same scene. Virtually all are having exactly the same experience with that lump in the throat. There is a common connection to what is good and righteous. Often these moments are about the protection of innocents from harm.

Here's the important part, Daniel. I'm not telling you what that means or what it is. I am not telling you that it is God or spirituality or anything else. Forget the word spirituality if it is throwing you. Just call it a common connection to human goodness if you want. Call it whatever you want. That is the "to each his own" part. If some people want to call that a spiritual connectedness then that's fine and if others want to call it whatever they want that's fine too. Science actually can shed some light on it if one studies evolutionary biology and yet still does not give a completely satisfactory explanation.

But, Daniel, I am only pointing to a common emotional experience that I see in all of us across all religions and cultures. If you do not see this then that is fine, I was asking you for your opinion on my observation not making any declarations. You are more than welcome to say "I do not know what you are talking about Timmy, I have never had a lump in my throat in concert with millions watching the same phone commercial."

But I am not trying to tell you anything more about that thing, Daniel, other than I think it binds us all together in one particular way and I choose to call that spirituality as do many other people. But others may chose to call it something else or think of it as having different origins or meanings and they can even call it God if they want. The difference between what I am saying and a religion is that I am not trying to tell anyone what that lump in the throat means or that it is God or that it is anything else. I am only making the observation that I see it everywhere I go.

I also make the observation (not declaration) that when I hear religious people talking about their religious experiences of say "Jesus entering their heart" at a certain time in their life, it seems to me like someone has convinced them that that lump in their throat or shivers up their spine, when they think of someone selflessly caring for the innocent, is God, or Jesus, or the holy spirit of whatever religion or cult they are pushing.

It happened to me, Daniel. The ministers who were trying to indoctrinate me at the age of 7 (too late suckas) tried to do this to me. They tried to tell me that my emotions towards human goodness are really their God talking through me. They know how powerful my connection is to that thing and they are trying to tell me that it is their God.

I think we can all observe that thing and observe it as virtually universally common in the human species. And we can all have our own interpretation of how that thing ties into the universe or existence or God or whatever you want to call it. But I am saying I do not know anything more about it than it seems rather universal. And it seems to be a positive thing that we can all share and enjoy.

But so long as it is a mystery, some people will always try and fill in that mystery with their answer to what it is. Personally I leave it a mystery and that is what makes me use the term spirituality. Others can fill in their own answer or leave it an ongoing mystery if they chose. But I think the practice of trying to tell others that you know something about this thing and it's connection to God and his wishes for us is when you get religions and cults forming. I have no interest in outlawing this practice. But I will continue to criticize it as people pretending to know things they do not know.

It's not a declaration, Daniel. It is my observation and opinion. You are welcome to yours. I am not trying to tell anyone how to live their lives. I'm just telling them what I think.

For example, I think your recent posts to me have been posts from a complete turd. This is not a declaration. Just an observation.

Let me see if I understand Timmy's latest tour de force reasoning:

There is a common spirituality which Timmy declares he is sorry that I do not understand. He apparently does understand this common spirituality even though he says no one can know God, that people can only believe in God.

So this common spirituality is to be distinguished from God, for it is knowable while God is unknowable...Furthermore this common spirituality is to be distinguished from religion--religion has been snuck on top of this common spirituality, is an impurity as it were...

Strange this common spirituality which is to be distinguished from God and which Timmy knows but is nevertheless difficult to understand for people have snuck religion and who knows what else on top of it...but Timmy knows this common spirituality...

And this common spirituality according to Timmy is compatible with each person doing his own thing--except presumably religion and who knows what else that Timmy might dislike...

So we have common spirituality compatible with each to his own which nevertheless had religion imposed on it which of course is each to his own that is incompatible with the common spirituality...Need I go on?

Timmy's latest comedy routine: He has the common spirituality behind his back which he invites the audience to explain, because of course the audience is composed of individuals and each individual according to Timmy is to his own. Now the audience starts guessing, and some say God, others say Catholicism and so on. And of course Timmy says no to who knows how many of these guesses even though he did say each person to his own. But let us allow Timmy to continue with his comedy sketch. We keep guessing. Timmy tells us the common spirituality is that which had religion snuck in on top of it and that religion is bad so although each to his own, please no religion. So people keep guessing and we must wait the verdict of the sublime Timmy who has known all along the common spirituality even though he says no one can know God. The common spirituality can be known, yes, but not God. But of course no one knows the common spirituality unless passing the muster of Timmy...As you may guess, this will be a long comedy sketch as people throw their guesses of the common spirituality Timmy's way and fight amongst themselves about what it is. Meanwhile Timmy laughs and says "it's not God, it's the common spirituality people!" A great comedy sketch which needs no punchline. The punchline is self-explanatory: The comedian who knows nothing of what he speaks drawing his lowest common denominator--the common spirituality?--audience along and arriving at...what? What dear Socratic Timmy? The common spirituality? The perfect political state? Oh, Canada!

FARNAZ_MANSOURI2.

"'Judeo-Christian'"--one of the great oxymorons of our time, per Susan Jacoby, yours truly, millions of others. And its hyphenated. Ain't no Judeo in that Christian, none that the Judeos see, at any rate."

"Might just as well say Greco-Christian, Egypto-Christian, or jes' Christian."

I accept the point, if one is paying attention to only the loud-mouthed Christian preachers. However, they are not among the Christians who founded this nation, nor are they the ones who keep it going -- at least not up to now.

I know mostly Jews, have been with them for my past 50 years. My family relations are all Christians, so I know them, too. There are great similarities in the ethics of both, I find.

Maybe I am "Old School." And, yes, the loud-mouthed Christian preachers seem to be dominating the scene. "Seem to be," because that's the media's interest.

If I accept the "media version" of Christians, I would have a great fear, so I understand. So, I will declare a further intention: if the media version of Christians ever gain sway, I will help the Judeo-Christian's (in spite of your denial "it" exists) smash them, too.

It's great to be a "free-rider."

Accordingly, I lived in a world dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethic, for which I am grateful.
------------------
"Judeo-Christian"--one of the great oxymorons of our time, per Susan Jacoby, yours truly, millions of others. And its hyphenated. Ain't no Judeo in that Christian, none that the Judeos see, at any rate.

Might just as well say Greco-Christian, Egypto-Christian, or jes' Christian.

"But the Christians did keep many of the ideas of the Jews for the bases of their culture and society -- seeking justice."
------------------------------
Don't think so.

Also, much enamored was the Christian cult of the mystery religions of the region.

Timmy, let's just start with this one:

"You show too much respect for the heat induced hallucinations and delusional rantings of bronze age nomadic goat herders."

Yes, those goat herders lived in exciting and adventurous times. "Civilizations," as humans since those times have defined it, were developed and being developed all around them, with different tribes "feeding" on the fringes. The big one was the Egyptians, their wonderous structures, and their "Book of the Dead" (interesting title). And the Sumars, and their wonderous structures and their Marduk fire furnaces for the sacrifice of children. Thus, this area is sometimes referred to as "The Cradle of Civilization." (Interesting word, here, "Cradle.")

An aside, Will Durant has declared the first and most needed idea for those civilizations to arise is the idea, and action/practice, of slavery, and reading the histories of all ancient human activities, worldwide, I find that true.

So, Timmy, as you write, during this time a mytholgy was thought up by an "Abraham," a wandering, hallucinating, delusional, ranting goat herder. He questioned the idea and action of sacrificing your best born to a god. The story is the first to teach a god that perhaps this is an unnecessary thing.

It took a long time for even those goat herders to give up the practice. This idea of giving up the practice of sacrificing human's most important chance for progress, is the singularly most important event that gave rise to a better "civilization" -- the Western version.

Humans of that area, the area of the world that gave rise to the Western version of "civilization," were so in love with sacrificing children to gods, the Jews have been, for the most part, persona non grata, ever since.

Astoundingly, to me, the cult of Jews that became known as Christians embraced the sacrifice of the most important child to ever live (according to their belief), as the foundation of their religion. But the Christians did keep many of the ideas of the Jews for the bases of their culture and society -- seeking justice. After their begiinings, the Chrstians included some of the ancient Greek thought, too.

Actually, my studies reveal the Chrsitians included in their ideas and practices as much Pagan Greek thought, as they did anything from the Old Testament.

If one starts with the Abraham/Isaac story, and if one also knows what all the other human beings of the early civilizations were doing, it might give one a new understanding.

I know, that is a lot to ask. Here, I merely give a starting point to maybe skim the surface of the entire story, keeping an open mind. The skimming led me to deeper studies of the matter.

Yes, I think it is too darned bad that humans have had to go through what they have gone through, to just get to where they are, today -- to Timmy. Too bad Timmy wasn't the "Abraham" -- we could have skipped all the bad stuff humans have ever done.

I would thoroughly enjoy living in a world of Timmys only. I did not, and I understand Timmy's hope. Accordingly, I lived in a world dominated by the Judeo-Christian ethic, for which I am grateful. I lived well, and live well, never having been bothered by a Christian, or a Jew, except for benefiting from all their good stuff. They have better "good stuff" than anybody else, to my experience.

NAVIN1, however, has motivated me to deeper studies of the Hindu ethic, if there is such a thing. What was a put-off, to knowing the Hindu, the Confucian, and some others, is that I never admired very much those current civilizations, and how most of their populations live.

Actually, I admire more the North American Indian's ethic -- to the extent that I think Timmy and I are still guests in their country. At least they never sacrificed their first born, or any other born, to gods.

Addendum. I learn more, I learn better, I understand more and better, when I read a people's mythology, than I do reading "official" historys of them -- written by them, or written by "others."

Oh, Timmy, the time you and I could have had, if I were to have been your manager.

Huh. We're having a pretty good time, as it is -- and I don't even need the ten percent.

Some paragraphs by Timmy below;

" I just pointed out that I saw a common human spirit towards goodness peace and harmony. All religions have these elements in them. Do you believe that these people were not naturally that way to begin with, but rather their religion, and only their religion brought it our in them?

If you can not see a difference between the natural human spirit of peace and love verses religious idea that love only comes
from our particular God and only our particular God is the true way to peace and love, then I feel sorry for you.

My argument is against anyone explaining anyone else's spiritual experiences to them as though they know something about them or God. My argument is that a person's spirituality should be their own individual thing to interpret. My confidence is that humanity peace and happiness will flourish when people are not told by priests reading from ancient texts what their spirituality is or means.

Again you confuse religion with spirituality. Spirituality is already in our hearts. Religion is what gets snuck in there. And usually before you can even speak."

Timmy, you seem utterly confused, deep into the problem of the "one and many" which has plagued philosophers for thousands of years. You have a "common spirituality" which apparently is evident to to you then you have an "each to his own, question everything" thing going. You seem not to grasp that all universality or common spirituality is articulated by particular individuals and that these universals are not in existence prior to individuals articulating them, and these universals are never clear because of differences between individuals. What is this common spirituality of yours utterly compatible with each to his own? I would like to hear it clearly articulated. So would philosophers moral, political and aesthetic.

A simple example of the confusion you find yourself in is when you tell me, in the last paragraph I posted by you above, that spirituality is in our hearts and religion is snuck in there. You have spirituality existing before the religion snuck in our hearts, which of course if actually existing--the spirituality--should prevent such a sneaking in of religion, but religion in the vast majority of people is snuck in anyway which begs the question of whether spirituality evidently discernible from religion is in their hearts in the first place. Get a grasp of universals and particulars and order with respect to the two. So far you are far from sublime. Might want to practice some yoga some more.

Runnin,

"Timmy, then let me put it this way. You had exactly the upbringing and early education that caused you to become the person you are today"

Only if you are talking about all of my encouragement to question everything. That is what made me the person I am today. That and my genes. My parents taught me to question my teachers. And my parents were divorced so they also taught me to question each other. Some of my teachers (not all) taught me to question everything including my other teachers. I am grateful for that.

As for all of the stuff I learned from my text books, I am grateful for most of it, and I questioned the rest. If I was fooled by some of the bs for a while, I got past it long ago. I owe it all to my encouragement to think for myself and question everything.

"And, I think you think you are a good person, and I will agree that you are"

And yet you remain alert and on guard for the day you may have to squash me like a bug. ;)

"I just wonder about the habit of casting aspersions, continually, on so many, from the experiences of so few"

It's not the experience of so few. Google "quiverfull" and "Christian Dominionism." Watch Jesus camp. Listen to Sarah Palin speak. The protestant church I attended was a typical one. There are millions of them. Did you go to one as a child? My experience was far far from out of the ordinary. Many children go through much worse much younger.

"And, as the Jews teach their children virtually the same Ten Commandments, as Christians do, is there a reason you leave out criticizing Jewish parents?"

Hell. This whole thing started when I answered the question of why Christianity was so popular in the US. I have only been following through on that point. Not only have I never even hinted at doing anything about it, I have expressly stated that I would fight against any attempt to stop Christian parents from teaching their children as they see fit. I think that fundamentalist or overly religious Jewish parents are indoctrinating their children, but it is not quite as coercive as the doctrine of Hell. But most Jewish parents that I have seen teach their kids to think for themselves on matters of God.

"In this matter, I read an anger from you that goes beyond the pale"

Only because I am talking to you. When I talk to the Christians who come to my door, and the Christian family I have dinner with every week, I am quite nice. I like them. It's not their fault they are deluded. It's the religion's fault. It was designed to delude them.

"You do very well explain the source of this anger"

It is not the source of my anger. It is the source of my information. If I have any anger, it is people like you who are the source, not the Christians.

"You may or may not believe me, but I am an atheist and have been for longer than you have lived"

You're right. I may or may not believe that. You sure seem hung up on original sin. But I suppose it could be a secular version. But I'll accept that you are an atheist. But one with what Dennett refers to as belief in belief. It's kind of an elitist way of thinking. "Yes I'm much too smart to believe all of that clap trap but if it keeps the plebes from rioting in the streets I'd like to keep the ruse going".

"I know also that it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that built and runs my country."

It was human ethic in my opinion. Here you are on about the others again. It's so tribal.

"No nation has done more for the general good of mankind, than the United States of America"

Agreed.

"Yes, there are scars and warts, but that statement is still fact"

Tru dat.

"I support the Judeo-Christian ethic until I see a another one do better"

I support some of it. But not all of it. It can't be good right across the board can it? Surely there are flaws. Hell???

"Other than that support, I am a "free-rider," a non-thinking atheist. I merely don't believe in any god any human has told about"

Congrats. All I am doing is criticizing the practice of pretending to know who God is and what God wants. It causes much trouble in my world, and they are all shiesters.

"In fact, as I have said before, my reading of the Old Testament is that of a people teaching their god to be a decent human being"

You show too much respect for the heat induced hallucinations and delusional rantings of bronze age nomadic goat herders. We are much smarter than that now. Thou shalt not kill falls under the "well duh" category in todays societies. You think we would not have figured this out without the the Jews? or should I say "The Others?"

"Lastly, there is no evidence of a Christian child being told he will go to Hell, and miss Heaven, if he questions a thing in the Bible"

Yes there is but you would have to read more of my writing than you care to for me to explain it to you.

"Christians are questioning the Bible all the time"

The ones who are on the road to recovery are. But most of them still have a long way to go.

"Yes, some of the Christian cults are not questioning, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water"

What baby? Hell? Your baby?

"Maybe you were raised in a cult"

I was not.

Timmy, then let me put it this way. You had exactly the upbringing and early education that caused you to become the person you are today. And, I think you think you are a good person, and I will agree that you are.

I just wonder about the habit of casting aspersions, continually, on so many, from the experiences of so few. And, as the Jews teach their children virtually the same Ten Commandments, as Christians do, is there a reason you leave out criticizing Jewish parents?

Yes, I remember, once you included Jewish parents, but only that once.

Let's not forget, without the Jews there would be no Christians.

In this matter, I read an anger from you that goes beyond the pale. You do very well explain the source of this anger, and that is your perception of the experience. I accept your story, but it is an unusual one.

You may or may not believe me, but I am an atheist and have been for longer than you have lived, much longer. I know also that it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that built and runs my country. No nation has done more for the general good of mankind, than the United States of America -- not one other even close. Yes, there are scars and warts, but that statement is still fact.

I support the Judeo-Christian ethic until I see a another one do better. Other than that support, I am a "free-rider," a non-thinking atheist. I merely don't believe in any god any human has told about.

In fact, as I have said before, my reading of the Old Testament is that of a people teaching their god to be a decent human being.

Lastly, there is no evidence of a Christian child being told he will go to Hell, and miss Heaven, if he questions a thing in the Bible -- Christians are questioning the Bible all the time, just as the prophets in the Bible questioned their god -- sort of the dialectic approach. Yes, some of the Christian cults are not questioning, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Maybe you were raised in a cult. That's not good. Are they popular in Canada?

Sorry for the double or triple post. It wasn't showing as posted for quite a while and I thought there was an error so I submitted again.

To The Church's Lawyer and Chief Demagogue,

"Can you give any evidence, other than a Dennett declaration, to prove that?"

And also give you a short post as per your wishes? No.
But can I do it at length? Oh yes sir. Be careful what you wish for. If you can get through this one I will gladly give you more.

Since I did not say "all Christian children" I have much evidence in the form of several friends and acquaintances and Schaum's personal account, and my personal account, although mine was at age 7 - 9 and was really just one summer of Sunday School and a little regular Sunday attendance and a Christian Camp.

The Camp was particularly enlightening for an 8 year-old who was not already completely under the spell. Ask me about how they edited my letters to home from the camp. Good thing this didn't happen to me before I was 5 which is when all those psychological authorities you hold so dear say many of our ideas about our world are set in stone. Good thing I got past that age a good couple of years before the supposedly harmless protestant ministers got ahold of me. They had to catch me up to speed quickly because I was behind in the indoctrination. They showed me lots of drawings I remember. God of course, jolly looking old man, so similar looking to Santa Clause. And Angels, so beautiful, and then Heaven. And oh my God, it was so beautiful. The kind of place you would hate (no world wars) but most people, kids especially would love. Drawings of Kids with their families and their dead grandparents waking through meadows of sublime flora.

And them oh my God the drawings from Hell were, well, pretty horrifically graphic. I remember being in the Vatican much later in life and looking up at the frescos and seeing one in particular where there was the most evil looking monster of a devil creature with a long iron rod with a glowing red hot ball of fire on the end of it. There was a woman who was having sex with more than one man, kind of an orgy scene, and this devil creature was ramming the hot fire poker up her hoo hoo. You know, giving her what she clearly deserved. I remember seeing that and thinking to myself how much it reminded me of the cartoons of hell they showed me in Sunday school back when I was 7 years old.

Anyway, I know you hate long posts from me, but any time you ask me for evidence of what Christians are taught you are going to have to expect to do a lot of reading. I'm stopping here but I can type on and on and on from just my own 2 year experience. And this was in a supposedly harmless protestant church in a Suburb of one of the most progressive cities in the world. You should hear Schaum's story.

"It is not true. Maybe you should have stayed in school a little longer, and learned to use more than one reference"

It most certainly is true. The only way it would not be is if I said "all Christian children." It would however be true in my opinion if I said Many or eve most Christian Children.

"You make a lot of statements like that one, referring to what American Christian parents teach their children"

They teach from a book that is available pretty much anywhere. The first thing they teach about the book is that it is authored by the God to whom the child has been praying to for food every night since they can remember being alive. I can start quoting from that book any time you like but the posts will be lengthly. Your choice. Just say go.

"Back before atheists got a bit of a toe-hold, say before 1945, it was the grown Christian and Jewish children that smashed the Nazi regime"

No sir, it was one strong man who sent them to war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, Hitler was Europe's problem and Europe's problem alone to the Americans. Well, except for the liberal arts majors of course.

"The Nazi's, too, had expressed great interest in what parents taught their children, the Christian and Jewish children"

Therefore I am a Nazi, yes I see. It's very clear. You make an unbelievably strong case. The Church would be proud of you.

"I don't think you mean what you say. I don't think you've lived long enough -- for you -- to have yet thought anything through'

And I am wondering what you are talking about old man?

"If I quote everything you've written about your criticism/opinion of Christian parents teaching their children, knowing people, especially Jews, will think Goebbels is reincarnated"

You have fun with that. It's good cause. I am very dangerous. The church would be proud.

"Timmy, you need to read, and understand, you own words, not anyone else's. Then, if you still stand by them, well, good luck"

You need an awareness raising because the church has you protecting ideas (not a race of people) against free speech.

Here's an example to show how the Church has you protecting their ideas against free speech by making you mistake a race for a set of ideas.

Imagine someone here posted the opinion that "Humans and capitalism go hand in glove" and then someone else re-quoted that and commented "Puke".

Goebbels?

How about when people go even further though and say straight up, Liberals make me want to puke? ... Goebbels?

Political ideas are fair game for harsh criticism why are religious ones different? Why are you protecting them with this Goebbels demagoguery? Church orders? What about parents teaching their children to hate other races? Are you concerned about that? Would you not be critical of what Nazi parents teach their children? In that case you would be like, "hey whatever works for them"? Those parents would not be affecting your society in a negative way? You would mind your own business? Whatever works?

To The Church's Lawyer and Chief Demagogue,

"Can you give any evidence, other than a Dennett declaration, to prove that?"

And also give you a short post as per your wishes? No.
But can I do it at length? Oh yes sir. Be careful what you wish for. If you can get through this one I will gladly give you more.

Since I did not say "all Christian children" I have much evidence in the form of several friends and acquaintances and Schaum's personal account, and my personal account, although mine was at age 7 - 9 and was really just one summer of Sunday School and a little regular Sunday attendance and a Christian Camp.

The Camp was particularly enlightening for an 8 year-old who was not already completely under the spell. Ask me about how they edited my letters to home from the camp. Good thing this didn't happen to me before I was 5 which is when all those psychological authorities you hold so dear say many of our ideas about our world are set in stone. Good thing I got past that age a good couple of years before the supposedly harmless protestant ministers got ahold of me. They had to catch me up to speed quickly because I was behind in the indoctrination. They showed me lots of drawings I remember. God of course, jolly looking old man, so similar looking to Santa Clause. And Angels, so beautiful, and then Heaven. And oh my God, it was so beautiful. The kind of place you would hate (no world wars) but most people, kids especially would love. Drawings of Kids with their families and their dead grandparents waking through meadows of sublime flora.

And them oh my God the drawings from Hell were, well, pretty horrifically graphic. I remember being in the Vatican much later in life and looking up at the frescos and seeing one in particular where there was the most evil looking monster of a devil creature with a long iron rod with a glowing red hot ball of fire on the end of it. There was a woman who was having sex with more than one man, kind of an orgy scene, and this devil creature was ramming the hot fire poker up her hoo hoo. You know, giving her what she clearly deserved. I remember seeing that and thinking to myself how much it reminded me of the cartoons of hell they showed me in Sunday school back when I was 7 years old.

Anyway, I know you hate long posts from me, but any time you ask me for evidence of what Christians are taught you are going to have to expect to do a lot of reading. I'm stopping here but I can type on and on and on from just my own 2 year experience. And this was in a supposedly harmless protestant church in a Suburb of one of the most progressive cities in the world. You should hear Schaum's story.

"It is not true. Maybe you should have stayed in school a little longer, and learned to use more than one reference"

It most certainly is true. The only way it would not be is if I said "all Christian children." It would however be true in my opinion if I said Many or eve most Christian Children.

"You make a lot of statements like that one, referring to what American Christian parents teach their children"

They teach from a book that is available pretty much anywhere. The first thing they teach about the book is that it is authored by the God to whom the child has been praying to for food every night since they can remember being alive. I can start quoting from that book any time you like but the posts will be lengthly. Your choice. Just say go.

"Back before atheists got a bit of a toe-hold, say before 1945, it was the grown Christian and Jewish children that smashed the Nazi regime"

No sir, it was one strong man who sent them to war because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Prior to that, Hitler was Europe's problem and Europe's problem alone to the Americans. Well, except for the liberal arts majors of course.

"The Nazi's, too, had expressed great interest in what parents taught their children, the Christian and Jewish children"

Therefore I am a Nazi, yes I see. It's very clear. You make an unbelievably strong case. The Church would be proud of you.

"I don't think you mean what you say. I don't think you've lived long enough -- for you -- to have yet thought anything through'

And I am wondering what you are talking about old man?

"If I quote everything you've written about your criticism/opinion of Christian parents teaching their children, knowing people, especially Jews, will think Goebbels is reincarnated"

You have fun with that. It's good cause. I am very dangerous. The church would be proud.

"Timmy, you need to read, and understand, you own words, not anyone else's. Then, if you still stand by them, well, good luck"

You need an awareness raising because the church has you protecting ideas (not a race of people) against free speech.

Here's an example to show how the Church has you protecting their ideas against free speech by making you mistake a race for a set of ideas.

Imagine someone here posted the opinion that "Humans and capitalism go hand in glove" and then someone else re-quoted that and commented "Puke".

Goebbels?

How about when people go even further though and say straight up, Liberals make me want to puke? ... Goebbels?

Political ideas are fair game for harsh criticism why are religious ones different? Why are you protecting them with this Goebbels demagoguery? Church orders? What about parents teaching their children to hate other races? Are you concerned about that? Would you not be critical of what Nazi parents teach their children? In that case you would be like, "hey whatever works for them"? Those parents would not be affecting your society in a negative way? You would mind your own business? Whatever works?

Timmy wrote:

"...(Christian) children told that they will burn in hell and not go to heaven if they question anything in the book."

Can you give any evidence, other than a Dennett declaration, to prove that?

It is not true. Maybe you should have stayed in school a little longer, and learned to use more than one referrence.

You make a lot of statements like that one, referring to what American Christian parents teach their children. Back before atheists got a bit of a toe-hold, say before 1945, it was the grown Christian and Jewish children that smashed the Nazi regime. The Nazi's, too, had expressed great interest in what parents taught their children, the Christian and Jewish children.

I don't think you mean what you say. I don't think you've lived long enough -- for you -- to have yet thought anything through.

If I quote everything you've written about your criticism/opinion of Christan parents teaching their children, knowing people, especially Jews, will think Goebbels is reincarnated.

Timmy, you need to read, and understand, you own words, not anyone else's. Then, if you still stand by them, well, good luck.

Runnin says:

"Atheists, of which I am, if they ever take control -- get control -- I'll help the Jews and the Christians smash them like a bug -- should the need for smashing arise"

One of us has really bought the idea "The others" and one of us is not so tribal.

Liberal arts degree. That's pretty funny. I never even finished high school.

Twisty,

"Anything you are taught and accept is indoctrination"

Only if you accept it uncritically according to the definition that I am using which is in the dictionary. I did not accept anything my teachers taught uncritically. Nor was I tricked into doing so by brain washing doctrines such as Hell.

"Before you could question anything you first had to understand what you were questioning"

And you also need to not be afraid to question for fear of going to Hell.

"Some things should be obvious and are unquestionable such as the principle of Contradiction, viz. “A thing “cannot be” and “be” under the same time and circumstance"

You mean like an omniscient God and human free will can not both co-exist.

"Education with bias is indoctrination"

Again, not by the dictionary definition I am using.

"However, if you question everything, as is obvious, you become a skeptic"

Such is human nature. Unless of course your natural skepticism was drilled out of you through fear of Hell.

"I see, you are even questioning the Dictionary"

No, just your ability to read one.

"Namely, Dictionary.Com defines indoctrinate as to teach or inculcate"

There are several definitions. If you want to use the one that can not be distinguished from the word "teach" then why have 2 different words "teach and "indoctrinate".

The definition I used makes a distinction.

Indoctrinate: "To teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"

"You go to Hell if you know God’s will and refuse to obey it, or refuse to seek the truth"

Someone needs to read his own good book again. You go to Hell if you do not believe that Jesus is God. Disbelief in God is all that is required for a trip to Hell.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TIMMY 2:
“INDOCTRINATION”

Anything you are taught and accept is indoctrination. What ever you learn on your own and believe is not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/INDOCTRINATE?o=100084

1. to teach, or
2. to inculcate.

IRT:
“No one ever told me that if I did not believe my math teacher or my history teacher that I would burn in Hell."

ANS:
They didn’t tell you those things because they were not true.’ If they had taught you that, they would be a weird school.

IRT:
"No one told me not to hang out with kids from other religions or atheists because they were corrupt by Satan and they might take me to Hell with them."

ANS:
The reason they didn’t tell you that is because it isn’t true, and schools are designed to teach the truth. No Catholic school would do that. You go to Hell if you know God’s will and refuse to obey it, or refuse to seek the truth. Questioning what is incoherent is seeking the truth, but denying what is obvious is dimwitted.

IRT:
"I was taught information."

ANS:
Consequently, you were indoctrinated in the fundamental principles of Math, English Grammar, and Reading. Before you could question anything you first had to understand what you were questioning.

IRT:
"I was not taught not to question. In fact I had some very good teachers to imbue with learning. Educated with Bias, yes. But fortunately, thanks to some very good teachers, who specifically taught me to question everything. So no, by the definition I already gave, which is in the dictionary. I do not consider myself indoctrinated."

ANS:
Some things should be obvious and are unquestionable such as the principle of Contradiction, viz. “A thing “cannot be” and “be” under the same time and circumstance. and the principle “The Whole is greater than the Part,” Hence, some things must be taken for granted or else you couldn’t be able to reason or intelligently converse.

Education with bias is indoctrination. Even to be taught to question everything is an indoctrination of rules for learning. However, if you question everything, as is obvious, you become a skeptic.

I see, you are even questioning the Dictionary. Namely, Dictionary.Com defines indoctrinate as to teach or inculcate.

And D12,

The reason people suspect that you are religious is because you and Runnin both have an exceptionally strong belief in original sin. Only the Catholic church preaches this garbage. Besides you and Roadrunnin, most of us have only heard Catholics express the belief that Hell is a good and necessary concept.

Oh D12,

At least now you know where I live so you will have even less problem shooting me.

Funny how you've never heard me talk about shooting or smashing the religious like a bug. But both you and Runnin have declared several times each how ready you are to cause physical harm to others because you do not like what they say.

Have you not noticed that?

"and still at the end of the day banal as can be, not a shred of the exquisite, sublime or profound"

I know you wish it were so Daniel but like it or not I have made my living as an artist. I am a spiritual person, I do yoga and meditate every day, I am sensitive and emotional and artistic and live in the midst of the sublime. Perhaps if you wish that it weren't true harder.

"Everything just a joke apparently"

Everything certainly can be made funny, but everything is certainly not a joke. We all have a serious side, even us comedians. Especially us comedians

"that is what not being brainwashed amounts to evidently"

Not being brainwashed means not being taught to pray to the God of Abraham for your food before you could speak.

"But maybe he jokes better in speech than writing"

I get paid very well to do both.

"Ah, the common evolving spirituality we must all aspire to!"

Who said "must"? I just pointed out that I saw a common human spirit towards goodness peace and harmony. All religions have these elements in them. Do you believe that these people were not naturally that way to begin with, but rather their religion, and only their religion brought it our in them?

"Spirituality which must be explained to us by the atheists apparently lest we confuse it with what they will be ready to declare religion!"

If you can not see a difference between the natural human spirit of peace and love verses religious idea that love only comes from our particular God and only our particular God is the true way to peace and love, then I feel sorry for you.

"How interesting the world promises to be!"

Here we agree.

"The atheists explaining spirituality to us!"

Your words not mine. My argument is against anyone explaining anyone else's spiritual experiences to them as though they know something about them or God. My argument is that a person's spirituality should be their own individual thing to interpret. My confidence is that humanity peace and happiness will flourish when people are not told by priests reading from ancient texts what their spirituality is or means.

"God forbid we confuse it with God"

God who? It's not about confusing it with god, it's about having someone tell you that it is about their God in particular. I have no problem with people believing in God, Daniel. I have a problem with people who pretend to know something about God.

Let me ask you a question, Daniel. Do you think that one of the religions is right? Or may be right? Do you think that there are people on this planet who know who God is and what God wants? Do you believe that there are people on earth who know God? I believe there are not. What's your take.

"Or rather atheists forbid we confuse it with God"

Only in this world you and Roadrunnin see coming where The Atheists take power and force everyone out of religion. I can not help your paranoid fantasies.

"Why not ask Tofino Tim what spirituality is Roadrunnin'?"

To each his own when it comes to spirituality.

"Yep, the more I think of it Roadrunnin' the salvation of religion lies with you"

Yes. The church's lawyer/chief demagogue will play a pivotal role in the future of religion.

"Notice how God and golf both begin with the letter "G". That is a deep spiritual mystery"

Notice the same with "Daniel" and "Dufus"

"Nice to know one does not have to pretend to be an atheist to sneak spirituality into people's hearts"

Again you confuse religion with spirituality. Spirituality is already in our hearts. Religion is what gets snuck in there. And usually before you can even speak.

But you and Runnin keep thinking that people just happen to choose the religion they were taught to believe in since infancy. What a fluke?

Try not to get too upset about Tofino Tim Roadrunnin', the guy is a professional comedian--there really is something amusing about atheists like him who think about God more than most religious folk (kind of like gay bashers thinking of homosexuality day and night and betraying...) and declare themselves so non-brainwashed, so freethinking, questioning everything, and still at the end of the day banal as can be, not a shred of the exquisite, sublime or profound. Everything just a joke apparently--that is what not being brainwashed amounts to evidently...At least we hope at least a joke, so far not a lot humorous...But maybe he jokes better in speech than writing...Ah, the common evolving spirituality we must all aspire to! Spirituality which must be explained to us by the atheists apparently lest we confuse it with what they will be ready to declare religion! How interesting the world promises to be! The atheists explaining spirituality to us! How noble of them to have the spiritual sentiment not to mention explain it to us! God forbid we confuse it with God. Or rather atheists forbid we confuse it with God. Why not ask Tofino Tim what spirituality is Roadrunnin'? You might get lucky. He might instruct you in person, hold up a golf ball and declare God a golf ball, or rather that a golf ball is spiritual...and really, when you think of it, a golf ball is a pretty nice thing to hold in the hand, as pleasant to hold as a rosary to be sure, and much more pleasant than a crucifix...Perhaps God should have given us his balls to hold, we might believe in him more... Certainly atheists would believe in God if he gave them his balls and a bag of clubs to bang, bop or tap 'em with. Yep, the more I think of it Roadrunnin' the salvation of religion lies with you. Notice how God and golf both begin with the letter "G". That is a deep spiritual mystery. Notice how Timmy and tyranny both begin with "T". I detect a pattern. Notice how you "T" up to golf. Maybe you can convince Timmy to let you strike a few golf balls off his head. Oh wait! Tofino Tim will point out that that is a little too close to shooting atheists! No, no need to shoot atheists--not when they promise to teach us spirituality after religion has left the world. Funny, atheists--I was accused of pretending to be an atheist to sneak God into people's hearts. Nice to know one does not have to pretend to be an atheist to sneak spirituality into people's hearts. In fact one must be an atheist apparently to talk about spirituality at all....

"IRT:
Ahh, Runnin, see how I have banished you back to the cracks again? See how all you have now are the meaningless whimpers and slimy insinuations that you hurl from the cracks but can not back up with facts or quotes or logic of any kind? Too dumb by a half to defend your demagoguery with point by point intellect."

TWSSY, you are wrong to criticize this paragraph written by Timmy. It is a requirement for a Liberal Arts degree, or when conversing with those with a Liberal Arts degree, and certainly when performing for those with a Liberal Arts degree.

Twisty,

"Weren’t you indoctrinated, or did you just go to school and knew mathematics before the teacher could indoctrinate you."

No one ever told me that if I did not believe my math teacher or my history teacher that I would burn in Hell. No one told me not to hang out with kids from other religions or atheists because they were corrupt by Satan and they might take me to Hell with them.

I was taught information. I was not taught not to question that information. In fact I had some very good teachers who specifically taught me to question everything. So no, by the definition I already gave, which is in the dictionary. I do not consider myself indoctrinated. Educated with Bias, yes. But fortunately, thanks to some very good teachers, taught to question everything.

I'm loving you right now, Runnin.

Sometimes you use real speak that can actually be addressed in an Intellectual discussion. And this one was slanderous light for your usual. Almost civil. Almost. I shall respond in kind. Actually much more kind. This one will be slander free. I'll see your somewhat civil tone and raise you three tones nicer. And yet still in disagreement perhaps.

Do not fear the length. Remember you love to read. I know I'm not your favorite author but this one will not be a waste of time I promise you.

"Timmy. You live in a hemisphere of the world, developed by Christians"

I suppose. I see them more as humans of an era when virtually all were religious and the religion of the founders of the USA was Christianity. In other words, I don't see Christians as a different type of people than other people, like a race or even a character type. I see them as humans of an era when virtually all were religious and these particular humans were born into Christian families. The fact that there are religions in every part of the world that conflict in many ways, but intersect in the most important ideals of goodness and peace and harmony tells me that there is one thing in this world called spirituality (for lack of a better word) and that the various religions are pseudo hijackers (again, for a lack of a better word) of that common spirituality that exists all over the world. People connect to religions because of the promise of everlasting peace. We all want peace and happiness, but religions and ideologies and separate countries and people seeing each other as separate races and us vs them "others."

To me it seems clear that the human spirituality is one thing that could bond us all but the various man made religions are people pretending to know something about your spiritual experiences and manipulating you through them. This to me is as clear as the nose on anyone's face and I am ever baffled that others do not notice this. Sorry to be so long winded but it really is a little complicated to explain how I do not really see people as "Christians" as though they are a certain type of people who have a certain thing figured out. They are spiritual humans who were born into Christian families to me.

"It galls you"

Hopefully the explanation above will help you to see that it does not. I am happy for all of the good things that those spiritual peaceful humans did. I'm upset with the writers of certain evil parts of religious books which unfortunately have become central doctrines of the religions. I am not mad at the people. I hold no ill will towards the adherents. And I even forgive the people who wrote those mind corrupting doctrines way back when. It probably wasn't their fault either. I just know that there is one common peaceful spirituality and all of these religions are getting in the way. Not the people. The religions. I know you don't see it that way. I know you see the evil doctrines that I see as the only thing keeping the horrible human animal from tearing each others throats out. I hope I am not slandering you here or misrepresenting you in anyway. Please tell me if I have that wrong. I did gather that from things that you have said.

"I respect what they did, and what they keep on doing"

I too respect what kind spiritual humans have done.

"No Christian has ever bothered me, not one bit"

Me either. You'd be shocked at my reaction when they come to my door on the weekends sometimes. I always invite them in and offer tea or lemonade and we talk about Jesus. And I listen as they tell me how he was the son of God, and then I politely tell them how much I am inspired by the words of Jesus, but I think that the evidence shows that he was more likely a spiritual preacher man or an amalgamation of many preacher men from the time. I give them my line about how it inspires me more to think that those words were written by a human rather than the thought that humans are corrupted and only a god could write such words. They smile uncomfortably, thank me for the tea and chat and get ready to move on. Sometimes I see something in the young one's eyes that tells me that I made them think. And I feel great. I feel like Goebbels. ;)

"That they bother you is just too darned bad -- for you, I guess"

I hope you understand now. They do not bother me at all. The thing that has hijacked their goodness bothers me. But do not worry. I have no intention of doing anything about it but talking to the Christians who want to talk to me about their lord, in the way that I described above. And to criticize the THING that I think is corrupting people's spirituality generation after generation due to the mind corrupting doctrines in the THING (religion) not in the people. To me the people are victims of the thing, and for some reason, speaking out about this makes you think that I am Joseph Geobbels.

"Most of what helped me, during my life, was taught to me by Jews -- the earliest Christians. No Jew has ever bothered me"

Jews? You mean good spiritual humans who grew up in Jewish families never bothered you? Me either.

However that might sound to you. That is the philosophy I have come to empirically. just 120,000 years ago we were most likely just 1,200 special hominids who survived a near world extinction. This bottleneck in the gene pool is now believed to be what created modern man. (homo sapien sapien) Possibly just two tribes possibly just one. Most scientists believe the number may have been as low as 600 breeding couples. 1,200 people. That's the population of my current home town of Tofino, BC. It's a small community here. Everyone knows everyone mostly. And half us us are first nations. Interesting. But this community is the size of the community we started out as. One small community and one race. Our current races are only a result of separation from each other due to the fact that we set out of Africa in all directions and did not run into each other again until we had circumnavigated and finally populated the entire planet. From that point on the distances between us began to erode by roads and then rail and ship and car and plane and our separate races have ever so slowly begun to meld back into one because we are mingling. And we really have been one all along. And there is one human spirit it seems to me. (save the anomalies) Hands across the world. Peace and harmony. Everyone connects to those ideas from all of the religions. It is only the separate and conflicting doctrines that get in the way of us celebrating that spirit all together. Not in one religion. But in one ongoing ever evolving spiritual conversation (aided by the new technology of instant and free world wide communication and self education)

"Atheists, of which I am, if they ever take control -- get control -- I'll help the Jews and the Christians smash them like a bug -- should the need for smashing arise"

I just don't understand this sentence. If the Atheists take control? How? What? If any group called "The Atheists" ever "took control" of society, I would help you, and all of the good and spiritual humans who grew up in Christian and Jewish families, smash The Atheists like a bug -- should the need for smashing arise.

But man that sentence is eerily close to D12's "I am an atheist, but as for my fellow atheists, I would have not trouble shooting them."

"That's all I do now, read and play Golf. Scored a 91, this morning"

I can respect that lifestyle. I just read, write and surf. And play a little golf. And work on my house. But that's it.

"What's very funny, to me, Timmy, is that I spent the frist half of my life, thinking like you tell me you think"

I think when you wrote that you were not really clear how I think. I'm not sure that you are now either, but I hope so.

"I have no fear of you, or your type"

But you may need to smash us one day, and we are dangerously close to Joseph Goebbels. Hmmm.

"Most of you become adults, sometime along the way. The ones who don't end up in 12 Step meetings. Or, they just sit around, wondering what happened"

I don't think you know me at all.

Okay, slander free I think. Cordially in disagreement with honest explanations. You don't have to raise my bet, but can you at least call?

Okay I play a little poker too. But that's it.

Timmy2
Hmmm. No posts From the Catholic church's star lawyer/demagogue on Sunday morning. Hmmm. Meetings to attend? It's all making sense now. The stated fear of secularists and the edicts they may lay down when they "take power". Rushes to the defense of the Christian wish not to be criticized for brainwashing their children. And then the most telling of all:

ANS:
Weren’t you indoctrinated, or did you just go to school and knew mathematics before the teacher could indoctrinate you. No one ever indoctrinated you on reading, or grammar, or history. You were infused with the knowledge of them all and never had to go to school, or never had to be indoctrinated on how to speak. Sorry my friend, everyone in the civilized world is indoctrinated until they are old enough to think for themselves.

IRT:
“I prefer intellectual discussions with adults,”

ANS:
I wonder why. You never say anything intelligent. Everything you say is derisive, insulting, acerbic and bombastic. As to the Truth, how would you know what the truth is? You haven’t said anything that can be said to even simulate the truth let alone be a truth, certainly in these last few post. If anything, your remarks seem to be an exposition of your bitterness that exudes from your frustration of not knowing the truth.

“How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.”

IRT:
Ahh, Runnin, see how I have banished you back to the cracks again? See how all you have now are the meaningless whimpers and slimy insinuations that you hurl from the cracks but can not back up with facts or quotes or logic of any kind? Too dumb by a half to defend your demagoguery with point by point intellect.

ANS:
Is the above remarks any indication of your logic, facts, or pure buffoonery? Logic requires reasoning. Not to believe in God is a crime against reason; it’s a contradiction of reason because the existence of God is not only reasonable but also logical, but you cannot reason there is a God and therefore you can’t be logical.

Catholicism has proven its authenticity by the very fact that those who have rebuked it, and who have denied its authority have eventually destroyed themselves. Three primary examples of atheistic societies are China, Russia, and North Korea. Nations like South Korea, Taiwan and East Germany vs. West Germany were examples that prove atheism and agnosticism are stark failures. Only the mentally blind cannot see the destruction they’ve caused.

The Secularist on the Court and the Socialist Communist running the White House are ostentatious examples of their failures. The proof is before your eyes and you are incapable of seeing it.

Hence it is a theory of philosophy that “Whatever is received is received according to the nature of the recipient. Consequently, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

Now, I get to only the first couple of words, and that's about it, Timmy. You live in a hemisphere of the world, developed by Christians. It galls you. I respect what they did, and what they keep on doing. No Christian has ever bothered me, not one bit. That they bother you is just too darned bad -- for you, I guess.

Most of what helped me, during my life, was taught to me by Jews -- the earliest Christians. No Jew has ever bothered me.

Atheists, of which I am, if they ever take control -- get control -- I'll help the Jews and the Christians smash them like a bug -- should the need for smashing arise.

Just so you know, some of my opinions are formed from reading the works of Viktor Frankl and Alexander Mitscherlich -- and, of course, many others.

That's all I do now, read and play Golf. Scored a 91, this morning, very tough Golf course, 71.3, 139 slope. If I could'a sank a putt, it'd a been an 84 -- four 3-putts. The greens were running about an 11, on the stemp meter.

What's very funny, to me, Timmy, is that I spent the frist half of my life, thinking like you tell me you think. I have no fear of you, or your type. Most of you become adults, sometime along the way. The ones who don't end up in 12 Step meetings. Or, they just sit around, wondering what happened.

Hmmm. No posts From the Catholic church's star lawyer/demagogue on Sunday morning. Hmmm. Meetings to attend?

It's all making sense now. The stated fear of secularists and the edicts they may lay down when they "take power". Rushes to the defense of the Christian wish not to be criticized for brainwashing their children. And then the most telling of all:

"Your bunker will not save you when my lord comes."

Hoh Heh Huh ahem....... I mean Amen brother.

Runnin, you wouldn't be the first Christian who's snuck on here pretending to be an atheist in the hopes that it might help him defend his God.

"when your time comes" may just have blown your cover old chap.

Ahh, Runnin, see how I have banished you back to the cracks again? See how all you have now are the meaningless whimpers and slimy insinuations that you hurl from the cracks but can not back up with facts or quotes or logic of any kind? Too dumb by a half to defend your demagoguery with point by point intellect.

But what does one expect from a dupe of the Catholic church?God's lawyer/demagogue. What's your next assignment from the church oh great fatalist/world warrist? I've got one up your alley. Worthy of a first rate demagogue such as yourself. Make a note about how most black people are Christians and then tie that in with an accusation that "Timmy hates black people now?" Give it a go, this one is actually easier that the Goebbels one if you think about it.

"All your words speak for themselves"

And all of your words are now exposed as empty whimpers hurled from the cracks again. Without content.

"and, when the time comes, your bunker will not save you"

When the time comes? Oh my, the Christians really did get to you. Do you hear trumpets on horseback in the distance? Is the Lord returning soon to put an end to the evil Timmy's who dare speak out against him? Is that why my bunker won't save me because no one can escape the wrath of God? lol, dupe.

Please, Runnin, do tell us about the "time" that is coming? Please pop your head out of the cracks long enough to at least tell us about this "time" that is coming, when Timmy gets his. I can't wait.

Hoh Heh Hee hee hee hee hee.

Still off script eh? Better run and tell the Pope!

Ah, good, Timmy -- shorter is better. I got only a third of the way through your first, of today.

All your words speak for themselves, and, when the time comes, your bunker will not save you.

"Timmy, have somebody wake me when your defense rests"

What, the church doesn't even offer it's best pawn/lawyer/demagogue wake up calls?

But hey, if I'm the defense does that make you the prosecutor?

Hey I think Goebbels did some prosecuting didn't he?

So are you prosecuting like Gobbels? Ot just spouting off like him?

But really aren't we all Joseph Goebbels, when you think about it? Aren't we all brainwashed when you really think about it?

Heh HoH HEEEH hoo hooo Haaaaahhhhh

Did I get it right?

You choose the tone going forward, Runnin. I can play nice, or I can play the slimy demagogue and character assassination game that you seem to enjoy. It's not my default mode but I can hang with the best of them don't kid yourself, and you are far from the best of them. But it's also ugliness that no one wants to see. Even though you and I might enjoy it.

I prefer intellectual discussions with adults, but it's your call. I can have a bit of both worlds here, I don't mind. I'm just not sure our audience would appreciate it.

Although Daniel does get a thrill out of saying things like "Timmy strikes back!"

Timmy, have somebody wake me when your defense rests.

Runnin!!!

Wow, you decided to come out of the cracks and take ownership of a comment for a change and actually try to defend it or back it up. I'm proud of you. And yet I'm afraid I egged you on knowing that if I could just once get you do try and defend one of your slimy insinuations, you would show your ignorance.

"I find that kind of spouting-off dangerously similar to that of Josef Goebbels"

Ha. This is going to be fun. The fatalist/world warrist is spouting off about my spouting off. How cute. But right out of the gate, you have it backwards, sir. Goebbels was in favor of childhood indoctrination and brainwashing and I am against it.

"And what is incredible about that, is that you don't even know it!"

Exclamation point! Maybe you should have put two !! to really show your weakness!!!!

Let us now watch your pathetic demagoguery exposed as such and exposed as proof of your ignorance as you try to explain it. Now I know why you always shy away from attempting to back-up anything you say.

"Goebbels also thought himself to be one of the "enlightened," of the "enlightened age"

So did Ghandi. Dangerous man he was. He could deliver a sonic boom snap to your nuts with that towel he wore. Make you talk like a girl. Don't be fooled by his appearance.

"He would also use words like "Puke,"

So did Rosanna Rosannadanna

"and apply those words to a "certain" group"

I applied it to an idea. The idea that humans and religion go hand in glove. Need reading glasses? But perhaps you refuse to go to an optometrist because you don't want to break you record at having never been to a doctor and lose a golf buddy bet? What a moron, can't tell the difference between an idea and a group. Or are you just a slimy demagogue? Or both.

But not only have you shown your ignorance, you have shown clearly now that you are the one who has bought the bs.

Now I certainly was referring to a "group" or rather, most of a group, in the second quote where I referred to "teaching a child to pray to God for it's food before it can even speak" as brainwashing, and I certainly stand by that who could think otherwise? But here's where they have you fooled you "not so wise" old man.

The "groups" Goebbels was referring to were a race (in his eyes. They were an ethnicity in actuality) of people and he was judging them by race. But while you have managed to escape the "belief in God" part of the Christian bs, they still have you believing that their stupid ideas deserve the same kind protection against criticism as a race of people. People do not chose their race but they do chose their religious beliefs, or at least this is what you have trapped yourself into arguing for.

Ideas are always fair game and to try and protect them from criticism, like you would a race, is how they managed to dupe you into helping them stop freedom of speech that is critical of their doctrines. They have you calling anyone who openly criticizes their cult "Goebbels". Well done pawn. So funny. A pawn for the church who calls himself a fatalist, and a world warrist, and says "whatever works" but then comes running to the aid of cult when it is being criticized, instead of coming to the aid of it's victims.

"And he is on record as disapproving of "certain" family practices"

Not indoctrination though. He was all for that one you dupe.

"So, since your writing about certain Christians is similar to Josef Goebbels, about Jews, I asked about your plans for the Jews"

Ah but we have established instead that you are a pawn of the great religion, who is too dumb, even at the age of 72, to tell the difference between a religion and a race. And who's dumbness has been taken advantage of by a cult to have him serve as their lawyer, or in this case, as their slimy demagogue.

But we already knew that they had you believing that what we can expect from secular democracy are things similar to the edicts of an ancient pagan Roman emperor.

Go back to launching your sly insinuations from the cracks. But You are not smart enough come out into the light of day and try to explain them

In honor of Schaum, I remind you that when it comes to IDEAS, especially stupid religious ones, "say what you think and F@&*% anyone who doesn't like it."

But no, the church has their little pawn acting as though their stupid dangerous ideas are a race of people deserving of a cloak of protection against criticism. You are either too dumb to see the difference between a race, and a religious cult, or your Goebbels slur was just you being the slimy demagogue crack slitherer you are.

Either way, one more time in Schaum's words, "You lose again idiot."

Because, Timmy, you wrote:

"But Gee why is Christianity still popular in the USA in such an enlightened age? I guess it's because humans and religion just go hand in glove."

"Puke."

"That is out and out mind control brainwashing infants. And almost all Christian families do this."

I find that kind of spouting-off dangerously similar to that of Josef Goebbels.

And what is incredible about that, is that you don't even know it!

Goebbels also thought himself to be one of the "enlightened," of the "enlightened age." He would also use words like "Puke," and apply those words to a "certain" group. And he is on record as disapproving of "certain" family practices.

So, since your writing about certain Christians is similar to Josef Goebbels, about Jews, I asked about your plans for the Jews.

And now you have answered. Thank you.

How's that bunker-building coming along?

Counter,

Do you honestly believe that you gave your children freedom of religion? At what age? After you had formed their beliefs for them?

And Runnin, what's with the German speak?

Got something to say that you'd like to say in a less..... um how shall we say this... in a less chicken sh!t manner?

Back to your cracks, slitherer.

Runnin,

"And das Juden, Timmy?"

Yes, but only the religious ones. Non religious ethnic Jews give their children the choice to decide what they believe about God for themselves. And God bless them for that.

Counter

"Because I know it to be the TRUTH"

No you don't. You only think you do because you were brainwashed by your parents to pray to your God before you could even speak. Muslim parents know the truth too. But let me guess, they are wrong and you are right. And Hindu parents are wrong but you are right. All these religions and you and your children just happened to be born into a family that believes in the right god? Wow, God must have been looking over you, but not looking over all the brown people. What a fluke.

Deluded like your parents before you who were deluded by their parents before them. Sorry pal, but you've been duped into a cult.

"Not going to teach them about something so complex that they don't understand"

Like God and Jesus? They can understand that but not that other people believe in different gods? They won't understand that or you just don't want them to understand that?

"The one thing that Christ did more than anything was draw himself close to the kids"

No, that was Mohammed. Or was it Buddha? Or was it Vishnu? They are all wrong and your religion happens to be right. Lucky you don't you think?

"And don't give me this malarky about what you would teach your kids"

You are wrong. I believe in kids making their own choice. You do not trust your kids to do so because you know that the only way you can ensure that they will believe in your God is by not telling them about the others, and telling them when they can barely speak that your God is the one true God.

"You call Christian delusional due to you own lack of knowledge and spiritual IQ"

Indeed but I would never let my kids hear me talk like that until they have decided for themselves. I trust human intelligence unindoctrinated so much that I would not need to indoctrinate my kids to be atheists or agnostics I could give them all of the information available and let them come to their own conclusion.

"You assume that the ancients did not know anything"

Not at all, they knew much, but they also believed in all kinds of Gods and that makes perfect sense to me. Why they believed in those gods also makes perfect sense looking at the history of man.

"Or that their connection to God was due to their lack of knowledge of science , whatever"

What connection to God? It's just words in a book and they contradict each other so much it's obvious they didn't know jack squat about God.

"you have to convince yourself that there is some other reason that the majority of people believe in some sort of God, whether is be Allah or the God of Abraham"

Some sort of God? Is that what you told your children or did you tell them exactly which God was true. You try to use the numbers of people who believe in different prophets and God than yourself to back your case? But you didn't even tell your children about those billions of people who believe that another prophet had the last word over Jesus? Or that the people who invented the God you believe in in the first place do not believe that Jesus was the son of God? Tell them the truth. Give them the information to make up their own minds.

"Of course we say grace. Of course we do. We appreciate the fact that we are blessed . We are thankful to be blessed"

And of course you do not tell your children about other ideas about God, of course you give them no choice in religion.

"And you would tell your kid you are one of the unbelievers? As soon as he /she heard that, they will follow your lead"

I can't imagine a child even asking about how the universe came into being or how life began until he was old enough to hear the truth about all of the different theories there are on the matter.

"People decide what to teach their kids"

I am aware and if you hadn't noticed, I am not trying to take away your right to indoctrinate your child and I will fight anyone else who tries to do that. But I want you to hear my opinion about it and I want your kids to hear too one day. Hopefully this cult spell will break one day and kids can chose what to believe for themselves.

"I sent my daughter to a liberal school and she has kept her faith even through that"

Of course. Risk Hell when so many believe it is true? She's probably running on Occam's razor these days.

"It is a weakness, because all you can have faith in, is in what you can prove to yourself"

Nonsense. My faith is in my fellow humans. It was a human who wrote the words of Jesus, and that, my friend, is far more inspiring for me to be kind to me fellow human than believing that only a God could have written such words because we humans are corrupt and sinners.

"It's sad that you cannot see or fathom who Jesus Christ really is"

Actually I think that I can see who he really was (a man or 2 or 3 or 9) and you are blinded by your childhood indoctrination.

"As for freedom of religion , that is the right i have to teach them that truth"

Indeed. I support your right. But I criticize what you are doing with it.

"When kids become adults, they can examine the truth of the New testament and make their own choice"

Of course they can. It's just much harder when they are in a cult and they were brainwashed from birth to believe without question.

"and this leads me to think just another good reason for not wanting atheists to be in the Congress"

You go girl. And I will too.

"Your concept of religion and "freedom of religion" is pretty strange"

How so?

"From my perch, you would want all children to be neutral and be taught everything there is to know about the false religions of the world and then make choices"

False religions? You mean like yours? I do want children taught about all religions, yes. So they can choose for themselves instead of their parents choosing for them.

"THe fact that you have come to the conclusion that all of this materiality just came to be from really who knows where"

That is not a conclusion. "Who knows where" is not a conclusion. It's a question. That is a person who does not draw conclusions about things for which there is no evidence. Especially when so many others believe in so many different answers.

"and you cannot conceive of a God outside of time, space, and the universe itself and outside of our dimension"

Conceive of? Of course I can. Believe that you know him? Not a chance, nut ball.

"You are swimming upstream , actually up the Niagara Falls and will never succeed in getting our "word" out because what you espouse is utter horse manure"

Same goes for the muslims and the Hindus and the Buddhists and all of the agnostics and the atheists all over the world. What they all believe is utter horse manure. Or so your parents duped you into believing.

"the common theme among all you atheist out here on this forum and others is how impressed with yourselves you are, and your own "rationality" and intelligence.
It will be your own undoing in the end."

I don't know about "all you atheists," but I certainly am impressed with myself. And, because I started out undone, I don't mind a bit ending up "undoing."

ABORTION, LAW, AND GOD:

All things that act, act for and end. Life is an act and life has an end, a purpose.

“The natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.94). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action.

“When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns.

“Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, MAN IS MASTER OF HIS CONDUCT.

“Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law.

“The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself [THE NATURAL & MORAL LAW (N&ML)]. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; THOSE AT VARIANCE WITH OUR NATURE ARE WRONG AND IMMORAL.”

All Civil Law must be based on human nature and hence, the Natural & Moral Law. Any law that contradicts human nature is not a law but an unjust dictate of immorality.

Man cannot be made to act immorally, and there can be no just law that makes man be immoral, since such acts contradicts the N&ML. A right to murder unborn children is not a just law and is no law at all, because it is a contradiction of the N&ML.

The Court has trespassed on our inalienable rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and in effect violated the 4th, the 5th, the 9th and 14th Amendments, and the 5th Article of the Constitution irrespective of “Roe” and “Lawrence v. Texas,” that are beyond the authority of the Judiciary. The Court illicitly redefined man in “Roe,” violating the Natural Law and illegally violated Justice by impugning Marriage and Family in “Lawrence.”

There are no rights to be immoral, but the Court wrote immorality into the Constitution and made it a Constitutional right.

You know why Timmy- why I taught my kids about Christ?

Because I know it to be the TRUTH. Why and what other cultures do what they do - I do have opinions about. I do. Not going to teach them about something so complex that they don't understand. The one thing that Christ did more than anything was draw himself close to the kids.
And don't give me this malarky about what you would teach your kids.I have read your posts. You call Christian delusional due to you own lack of knowledge and spiritual IQ. You assume that the ancients did not know anything. Or that their connection to God was due to their lack of knowledge of science , whatever. YOU HAVE TO SAY THESE THINGS. in your world, since you have decided God does not exist, you have to convince yourself that there is some other reason that the majority of people believe in some sort of God, whether is be Allah or the God of Abraham.

And you imaginations are so inane - and off the mark.

Of course we say grace. Of course we do. We appreciate the fact that we are blessed . We are thankful to be blessed.

And you would tell your kid you are one of the unbelievers? As soon as he /she heard that, they will follow your lead.

People decide what to teach their kids. I believe in higher education and have an advanced degree myself. I sent my daughter to a liberal school and she has kept her faith even through that. It has made her stronger and she has not given in to the subjective erroneous leftist bents of the university. It has made her even stronger. I don't find unbridled cynicism of the atheist crowd to be a strength. It is a weakness, because all you can have faith in , is in what you can prove to yourself. And if he only truth is what you can prove to yourself, that is very sad. It's sad that you cannot see or fathom who Jesus Christ really is.

As for freedom of religion , that is the right i have to teach them that truth. When kids become adults, they can examine the truth of the New testament and make their own choice . Many do, and many get involved in other things in the world and become indoctrinated as you say with others think. It is part of what you defended in another post but at the same time call it delusional and almost immoral to exercise with my kids. Thank God you are not a politician ,and this leads me to think just another good reason for not wanting atheists to be in the Congress.

Your concept of religion and "freedom of religion" is pretty strange. From my perch, you would want all children to be neutral and be taught everything there is to know about the false religions of the world and then make choices. They can choose anyway when they are older.

Really I think it is again the atheist that is deficient. THe fact that you have come to the conclusion that all of this materiality just came to be from really who knows where, and you cannot conceive of a God outside of time, space, and the universe itself and outside of our dimension - that created this and started all of this with His guiding hand , but choose to believe in nothingness, that is deficient thinking IMO.

You are swimming upstream , actually up the Niagara Falls and will never succeed in getting our "word" out because what you espouse is utter horse manure.

the common theme among all you atheist out here on this forum and others is how impressed with yourselves you are, and your own "rationality" and intelligence. It will be your own undoing in the end.

I agree that abortion is a moral issue. I believe that the churches and organizations who hold the position that abortion is wrong, have the moral authority within their purview to control and enforce their position. It is not the states responsibility to enforce church law. There are many aspects of a religious life that are moral issues and we do not expect the state to enforce them.

Off topic but since the subject was raised yet again:

http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/mayjune2000/exclusivism/index.php

"John Hick, a noted British philosopher of religion, estimates that 95 percent of the people of the world owe their religious affiliation to an accident of birth. The faith of the vast majority of believers depends upon where they were born and when.

Those born in Saudi Arabia will almost certainly be Moslems, and those born and raised in India will for the most part be Hindus. Nevertheless, the religion of millions of people can sometimes change abruptly in the face of major political and social upheavals. In the middle of the sixth century ce, virtually all the people of the Near East and Northern Africa, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt were Christian. By the end of the following century, the people in these lands were largely Moslem, as a result of the militant spread of Islam.

The Situation Today

Barring military conquest, conversion to a faith other than that of one’s birth is rare. Some Jews, Moslems, and Hindus do convert to Christianity, but not often. Similarly, it is not common for Christians to become Moslems or Jews.

Most people are satisfied that their own faith is the true one or at least good enough to satisfy their religious and emotional needs. Had St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas been born in Mecca at the start of the present century, the chances are that they would not have been Christians but loyal followers of the prophet Mohammed."

From:

"James M. Somerville taught philosophy for many years at Fordham University, where he was chair of the department and co-founder of the journal International Philosophical Quarterly. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy from Xavier University in Cincinnati and a Quest Book author (contributing to The Goddess Re-Awakening, 1989). His most recent book is The Mystical Sense of the Gospels (Crossroad, 1997). "

"But Gee why is Christianity still popular in the USA in such an enlightened age? I guess it's because humans and religion just go hand in glove."

"Puke."

"That is out and out mind control brainwashing infants. And almost all Christian families do this."

And das Juden, Timmy?

1-mankind indoctrinated by the creator god
2-mankind indoctrinated by parents
3-mankind indoctrinated by environment.
4-mankind indoctrinated by self.
5-mankind indoctrinated by other invisiable creatures.

all the above are true.

what indoctrinate in the mother the love and careing for here baby?who indoctrinate life and death?
who taught the lion to eat beef instead of potatoes?

where a camel get patience and tolerance from?who gave wisdom to the owl?

sal (mule)who digged the famous erie canal don humanity a great job and favor much more than those who indoctrinated in harvard ,where sal received her education ?

who breath soul in the fetus?

all praise goes to the creator god who indoctrinate mankind how to speak .

But Gee why is Christianity still popular in the USA in such an enlightened age? I guess it's because humans and religion just go hand in glove.

Puke.

Counter,

I'll bet before your children knew 5 words, they were praying to God for their food. Remember before your child could speak, when you were saying grace at the dinner table, and the baby was sitting there but only knew a few words at this point, or perhaps none. But remember how you reached over and put the baby's hands into the praying position and thought that was so cute, perhaps you even took a picture. And then as soon as the child was old enough to understand enough words you let them know that this ritual that they were doing was praying to God to give thanks for their food, which sustains their life and God provides?

Not indoctrination? You're right. That is out and out mind control brainwashing infants. And almost all Christian families do this.

Counter

"I did not teach my kids that much about hell"

That much? lol.

Like I tell many mistaken and error prone atheists, it is about the 1) loving the Lord thy God with all my heart soul and mind, and Loving our neighbor as ourselves"

Or go to hell and not to heaven. That is the doctrine. That is the punishment that is taught. You are not "all Christians". At some point your kids learn about hell, when they're old enough to need to know about it right? before they go out and start thinking for themselves? You didn't let them go out into the world without letting them know about the consequences of sinning against the lord did you?

But by that time they already believed in God without question because you have always told them that he created them and loves them and why wouldn't they believe you? When you were telling them about God for the first time you didn't tell them that there are many people all over the world who believe in different Gods and that most scientists do not believe in God at all did you? Or did you shield them from that information until their belief in your god was set in stone? Did you ever tell them that? Or did you just try to keep it from them long enough to hopefully not be too damaging to the belief you chose for them when they finally discover these things on their own? You gave your children no choice in their religion. You chose it for them.

"It is not about hell, it is about completing ourselves as humans"

Or go to hell. Those are your options. Complete yourself through the lord, or do not go to heaven but straight to hell.

"you have to come up with some reason out your ass about indoctrination"

Did you tell your children the truth about other opinions on the origin of everything? Or did teach them to accept a set of beliefs uncritically? You know damn well you did the latter.

No one is allowed to question the lord or God. How is a child going to possibly believe anything else growing up in this environment? You gave them no choice. Just as your parents gave you no choice. Or is it a coincidence that Muslim children are all muslims and Christian children are all Christians? Indoctrination. Not choice. It's obvious.

"Just another indication of elitism"

Just another lame old hack Christian talking point.

"Tell me this-if you have kids and or don't - you really think that you would NOT tell them God does not exist in your opinion? Is that indoctrination the other way?"

I would not tell my child anything about god until he asked. And when he did, I'd tell him, "well, Some people believe that God created everything, and some people believe that God is everything, and some people don't believe in God at all, and some people believe that no one really knows how it all got here, and I am one of those. I would tell him about all of the world's major religions and teach him the history of the world and hope that his school does the same and let him chose for himself what to believe.

But you gave your child none of that pertinent information. You told your children that God created them and that's the truth. You told them that God loves them and that one day they would get to be with God and all of their friends and family in heaven. And perhaps you waited until later to let them know about Hell, or perhaps you left that up to the co-indoctrinator, oops I mean the church. But make no mistake about it, before your child knew that their were differing opinions on God, your child learned about what happens to people who do not believe in God or sin against God.

You gave your children no choice of religion. No freedom of religion. And you know it.

I posted on the Texas curriculum because it had been mentioned earlier. Again, I implore David Waters to ban Yeal9, who is the banned CCNL1. He wastes space on every thread with his ancient and irrelevant cuts and pastes. And, surely, he was not banned only to be permitted to sign on again under a fake moniker. A lot of us left it alone at first, but he rapidly returned to his insanity. Please, David. He accuses Susan Jacoby of false posting. And we need this because...?
-------------------------------------------
Conservatives make changes to Texas curriculum

By APRIL CASTRO
The Associated Press
Friday, May 21, 2010; 2:11 AM

AUSTIN, Texas -- Public school students in Texas would be required to evaluate efforts by global organizations to undermine U.S. sovereignty in one of a series of changes that conservatives on the State Board of Education made Thursday to new social studies guidelines.

With little discussion from Democrats on the board, conservatives also added language that would require students to discuss solvency of "long-term entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare."

The board is making final edits to the new guidelines, with a final vote expected Friday. The board's decisions will set the standards for teaching history and social studies to some 4.8 million public school students for the next 10 years. The monthslong process of adopting the curriculum has made the board a lightning rod for ideological debate.

In some of the most contentious debate, the board added a reference to President Barack Obama, which critics had complained was conspicuously absent. But Democrats showed more life than they had all day when Republican David Bradley tried to refer to the first black president as Barack Hussein Obama.

"I think we give him the full honor and privilege of his full name," Bradley said.

"The intent behind what you're doing, I think is pretty obvious," said Republican Bob Craig, urging Bradley to withdraw the suggestion.

"Please Mr. Bradley, don't use the middle name," said Democrat Lawrence Allen. "You know it's going to have a negative connotation in the press. Yes, it's his birth name, but you know the significance it will play in the press. We don't have to deal with it."

Finally Bradley relented.

"To put an end to the whining I withdraw the motion," he said.

Earlier in the evening, prolonged debate came over whether to include Confederate President Jefferson Davis' inaugural address with a lesson on Abraham Lincoln's philosophical views; the board decided to require students to contrast the two views. A proposal to refer to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade" was changed to call it the "trans-Atlantic slave trade."

One of the board's most outspoken conservatives, Republican Don McLeroy, offered the amendment requiring students to evaluate efforts by global organizations to undermine U.S. sovereignty. He argued that efforts to "put us under world court" and to "impose the sovereignty of Americas under treaties that have been signed with these United Nations organizations" were threats to individual freedom and liberty.

Another Republican amendment dropped the study of a landmark 1949 federal court ruling that declared schools could not legally segregate Mexican American students, even though the practice remained popular in Texas for decades. But Craig successfully restored it.

The board rejected a renewed effort to include labor leader Dolores Huerta as an example of good citizenship in third-grade history classes. Huerta, who worked alongside Cesar Chavez for farmworkers' rights, was removed from the list in January amid concerns that she was affiliated with socialists. Huerta is listed in a high school history class.

The board also rejected an effort to add former San Antonio mayor and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros to a fourth-grade example of notable Texans and spent prolonged time debating which Civil War battles and heroes from Texas should be added to a seventh-grade class.

The standards will be used to develop state tests and by textbook publishers that develop materials for the nation based on Texas, one of the largest markets.

McLeroy believes the Texas history curriculum has been unfairly skewed after years of Democrats controlling the board.

Other proposals would tone down criticisms of the Red Scare and Sen. Joe McCarthy's anti-communist hearings of the 1950s.

Educators have blasted the proposed curriculum for politicizing education. Teachers also have said the document is too long and will force students to memorize lists of names rather than thinking critically.

Off topic but since the subject was brought up yet again:

"Of the 21,786 public high schools examined by U.S. News and its partner in the project, School Evaluation Services, 1,750 were recognized for considerably outperforming their state's standards. In that group, there were 561 schools that also were found to be doing an excellent job of preparing students for college-level coursework. California leads the nation this year with 110 high schools that earned recognition, followed by New York (53 schools), Texas (50 schools), Illinois (37 schools), Florida (24 schools), and Massachusetts (21 schools). "

And this news item:

"SBOE gives final okay to social studies standards;
tweaks graduation requirements

AUSTIN- The State Board of Education approved new social studies curriculum standards on a series of 9-5 votes today.
The final votes came after two days of lengthy debate this week in which the board considered 213 amendments to the standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. New standards for the high school economics course passed on a 14-0 vote.

The updated standards, known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, will be effective with the 2010-2011 school year. During that year, educators will receive training on the new standards and will write curriculum guides. The new standards will then be used in classrooms beginning in the 2011-2012 school year.
Work on the social studies curriculum began in January 2009 and attracted intense international attention and comment. Standing-room-only crowds watched as the board debated many sensitive topics.

Among the amendments that were approved that attracted considerable debate were these standards:
• Analyze Abraham Lincoln’s ideas about liberty, equality, union and government as contained in his first and second inaugural addresses and the Gettysburg Address and contrast them with the ideas contained in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address. (8th grade U.S. History);
• Examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and compare and contrast this to the phrase “separation of church and state.” (Government);
• Explain instances of institutional racism in American society. (Sociology);
• Discuss the solvency of long term entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. (U.S. History since 1877).

The board also voted to add a direct reference to the election of President Barack H. Obama and to require World History students to explain the political philosophies of individuals such as Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson also continues to be referenced in a number of other TEKS.

In other action, the board made a slight but important adjustment to the state’s high school graduation requirements. The board voted to allow students who successfully complete a two or three-credit career and technical education work-based training course prior to the 2011-2012 school year to count the class towards physical education graduation requirements.

Recent updates to the graduation requirements had eliminated the ability to receive a P.E. substitution for these CTE classes, which caused some upperclassmen to be without the required P.E. credits. Friday’s action allows them to receive the credit they believed they would receive when they began these multi-year graduation programs.

The board also agreed that “science and physical education graduation requirements successfully completed prior to the 2010-2011 school year shall count toward graduation in the manner established at the time the credit was earned.” This change is particularly helpful to students who took the Integrated Physics and Chemistry class.

The state’s looming budget deficit, estimated to be $18 billion in the next biennium, also caused the board to postpone issuing textbook Proclamation 2012, which would call for the purchase of new kindergarten through 12th grade science instructional materials. The science materials were estimated to cost $347 million, which would be in addition to the $888 million in funding that must be requested to cover already approved new English language arts materials, continuing contracts and freight.
Instead, board members decided to purchase supplemental instructional materials that only cover new science curriculum standards for science classes offered in grades 5, 6, 7 and 8, as well as biology, chemistry, physics and Integrated Physics and Chemistry. It is particularly critical to provide the high school materials because the state’s new end-of-course exams will be built on the updated science standards adopted last year.

The board agreed to allow publishers to submit bids on a per-student, per-teacher or statewide license basis. "

Given the singular approach to religion, justice, curriculum, ethics, etc., held dear by so many Texans, I'd recommend a secession from the Union and the re-establishment of the Lone Star Republic.

Those reasonably in sync with the remaining 49 states would be free to relocate wherever they wished.

Persiflage, it is I, Farnaz--It's a long story--sign on problems, although not blocked, etc.

Timmy, ad nauseaum

"Yes those children grow up to be adults and can then chose for themselves. But my personal belief is that because 80% of people believe in this particular faith, and it is designed to perpetuate itself, it is very difficult for any of these children who were indoctrinated to really get over that indoctrination, given that there is no societal pressure to do so and so much brethren in the faith. I have no doubt that these people get much good out of their faith, but I do not believe that it is their chosen faith. I do believe that they become addicted to it, and this is where that void that Persiflage talks about comes into play. "

More CRAP from Timmy

I don't think you really know very many Christians or you have a strange idea of what Christian are . We are not addicted . That is just a misrepresentation of the word. We don't teach , I did not teach my kids that much about hell. We did not even mention it. Like I tell many mistaken and error prone atheists, it is about the 1) loving the Lord thy God with all my heart soul and mind, and Loving our neighbor as ourselves. It is not about hell, it is about completing ourselves as humans.

It is also about giving up self, which in my observation, most atheists are very impressed with themselves, and have this chip on their shoulders that , oh my, people INDOCTRINATE their children about Jesus Christ and God. That can be the only reason Christians believe. Really the only thing I can think of is that since you are beyond believing in God, anyone that disagrees with you, you have to come up with some reason out your ass about indoctrination.

Just another indication of elitism .

Tell me this-if you have kids and or don't - you really think that you would NOT tell them God does not exist in your opinion? Is that indoctrination the other way?

It sure is.

D12:

'Uh, that was "Kick out the Jams" by the MC5, Wayne Kramer and Sonic Smith on guitar flashin' long before punk bullsh*t. Yeah, Detroit....'

for when D12 wakes up -

Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and Bob Seger, definitely - Ted Nugent, not so much.......and Motown, a whole other thing that has sadly been lost to time. A much slimmer Aretha is doing (non-vocal) TV commercials.....

Time flies.

Daniel's passed out with a lampshade on his head.

NAVIN1

"I did not say we were all 100% indoctrinated"

I also said nothing about anyone being 100% indoctrinated.

"Again, if we want to substitute my use of indoctrination to socialization, I don't care"

The distinction matters when we are talking about Christian children. If your definition of indoctrination is so broad, then I'll need to use a stronger word to distinguish the difference between a mysterious tone in my history book and Children told that they will burn in hell and not go to heaven if they question anything in the book. If you want to use your definition of indoctrination, I'll step up my description of what happens to Christian children to "brain washing". I think it is irresponsible not to make a distinction because there is one. A huge one.

"Christians certainly threatened me with hell but that did not compel me to believe unthinkingly"

Good grief. Were you 3 yeas old? Was it your parents who told you from the time you could barely speak that you were created by the one true god and that you will go to hell is you disbelieve this and did they continue with this indoctrination for your entire childhood and on into you teen years and on into your adult years and force you to church and into Christian camps and make you pray to God every day and tell you that all of your schoolmates who did not believe this were also going to hell and they might take you with them if you let satan get ahold of you and your friends are a sure path to Satan and hell......????

What is wrong with you? Why won"t you make the distinction. I find it heinous not to. It must go with an agenda of some sort.

"There is no eternal damnation in Hinduism"

Correct. And you have never heard me refer to the indoctrination of Hindu Children for that reason.

"No one told me to be Hindu"

I know that.

"I did not choose to do it because of group membership"

I know that. I do not accuse you of being indoctrinated except in the way that you call me indoctrinated but not in the way that Christian children are brainwashed.

"and because the polyideological approach is one that the world needs to understand now"

I see no conflict in being polyideological and criticizing certain Christian doctrines or even Christianity in general. The main reason I criticize it is precisely because it is monoideological.

"Hinduism is a brand that needs to be propagated so that we can free humanity from the forces leading to nuclear war (not propagated by converts but rather by the mindset of tolerance and no otherness)"

By using the words "Hinduism is a brand that NEEDS TO BE PROPAGATED" you are being monoideological. Your caveat that people do not actually have to convert does not fix that problem. To say that any one religion "needs" to be propagated to stop nuclear war is definitely monoideological.

"We all choose our ignorance"

I choose no ignorance.

"We all choose the fields in which we will become experts"

It's not my choice to not become an expert in everything. I just don't have the time. No one does.

"Tamas, inertia, allows us to accept the indoctrination/socialization"

So does common sense. I didn't need to learn about any "Tamas" from the Hindu book of Hinduism. I just needed to be not brainwashed into thinking that my own personal thoughts were evil by the concept of original sin and Hell.

"I don't want or need you to agree with me or the Gita"

And I do not need you to agree with me either. I only want you to hear my voice. And I want to hear yours.

"But, I suspect that those that think Hindus are a bunch of indoctrinated superstitious cow worshipers would be in for a surprise if they took that path seriously"

I know a lot of atheists. I can't imagine any of them characterizing Hindus as you just described. You're talking about Jethro and Billy Bob the Christians, not atheists. Have you ever heard a scientist use that language to describe Hindus?

"I think the world will be one large step closer to learning to live together"

When we all learn Hinduism? But hey we don't actually have to convert, we just have to understand that your reality is the real one right?

I think the world will be one large step closer to learning to live together when there are no more people walking around pretending to know God. Please understand, I have no problem with people who actually know God. But this whole "God will be evidenceless and only some will see it" thing is a sham as old as modern man at least. It's a scam that, when brought out into the full light of day (Internet + time), will be brought down like all scams that get uncovered. And when this scam is no longer bought by the masses (internet + Globalization + time) then I think that humanity will be one large step closer to learning to live together"

But then, I am just another idiot on this planet trying to figure it all out. But that is this idiots opinion until someone convinces me otherwise. And contrary to popular opinion, I am loyal to none of my beliefs. The reason I present by beliefs so boldly is precisely to challenge them. In doing this, i have had many many beliefs changed over time. And that's a good thing. I was wrong and I always am looking to see if I am still wrong about any of my beliefs. I want to be right, whatever right is. And no, I do not call that "worshiping the truth".

I'm afraid Texas has almost made Timmy's case single-handedly, regarding the indoctrination thing. I may be willing to resurrect 'brainwashing' just for Texas.

Politics at it's most pitiful. Texas isn't just teaching history, it's re-writing history to suit it's hyper-conservative agenda.

Now this is exactly what indoctrination is all about. You can't really extract the protestant fundamentalism from the politics. I wonder if Mexico is still interested in expanding??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37271857/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

Howard Zinn and Jared Diamond are excellent "revisionists" in my mind. I too had to relearn history and make up my own mind based on the biases of authors and sources as to the lesson to be learned. You may find nonwestern histories also intriguing (chinese and vedic).

I did not say we were all 100% indoctrinated. We are all indoctrinated and we are taught by some caring rascals to fight that indoctrination. Again, if we want to substitute my use of indoctrination to socialization, I don't care. Christians certainly threatened me with hell but that did not compel me to believe unthinkingly. There is no eternal damnation in Hinduism. Christians certainly promised me heaven by converting. It did not compel me to be unthinking in my approach to religion. There is no eternal salvation in Hinduism. There is Moksha but that is another thing entirely.

No one told me to be Hindu. I was strongly encouraged not to do so. I did not choose to do it because of group membership. I chose to take on that name because it represents a body of literature that seems to worship Truth Itself, that aligned with my interests, and because the polyideological approach is one that the world needs to understand now - that even what seems to be crazy to some may to others be as loving as a mother goddess. Hinduism is a brand that needs to be propagated so that we can free humanity from the forces leading to nuclear war (not propagated by converts but rather by the mindset of tolerance and no otherness).

We all choose our ignorance. We all choose the fields in which we will become experts. It takes effort, personal sacrifice, yagya, to execute those choices. Tamas, inertia, allows us to accept the indoctrination/socialization. Rajas, passion, drives us to upend it for a personal utility. Satva, truth, liberates us from it. We all have each of these. I am tamasic towards most sports. I am rajasic towards my profession and personal life. I am attempting to be satvic in my holding Truth as my personified god (ishavara as Krishna) that leads me to the one that is (brahman). And the Gita says that yagya, sacrifice, is the greatest gift to mankind.

asato ma sat, gamaya
untruth me truth, guide me

tamaso ma jyotir, gamaya
inertia me lightness, guide me

myrityur ma amrtam, gamaya
death (finitude) me immortal (eternal), guide me

I don't want or need you to agree with me or the Gita. But, I suspect that those that think Hindus are a bunch of indoctrinated superstitious cow worshipers would be in for a surprise if they took that path seriously.

Even if not, if we can promote the vedic injunction, there is one truth people call it by many names, I think the world will be one large step closer to learning to live together (as opposed to the idea that you are all wrong/delusional/infidel and I have the right/best/only way).

But then, I am just another idiot on this planet trying to be both transcendental and immanent, material and immaterial.

hariaum

FAITH AND ABORTION

During Sarah Palen’s nomination address, I saw her little girl holding Sarah’s little baby. She was straightening his hair and you could see the loving care she had for this little child the liberals criticized her for not aborting. Feminism is being a good mother, with child or not having a child to love. Motherhood is an instinct that is embedded in all women until the kill it.

Mother Teresa:
“I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.

“The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other."

And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.

“When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out of society - that spiritual poverty is much harder to overcome. And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome.

“Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street. And one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the Sisters: "You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse." So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed, and there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, as she said two words only: "thank you" - and she died.

“I could not help but examine my conscience before her. And I asked: "What would I say if I were in her place?" And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: "I am hungry, I am dying, I am cold, I am in pain," or something. But she gave me much more - she gave me her grateful love. And she died with a smile on her face.

“Then there was the man we picked up from the drain, half eaten by worms and, after we had brought him to the home, he only said, "I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die as an angel, loved and cared for." Then, after we had removed all the worms from his body, all he said, with a big smile, was: "Sister, I am going home to God" - and he died.

It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything. Like an angel - this is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich even when they are materially poor.” That is because every life is sacred.

NAVIN1

You might be interested in knowing that I am actually mad at my education in History from school. We only learned Canadian history and a very small amount of American History. That was the only mandatory history course and it was only mandatory in Grade 9 and 10. After that I dropped History like a hot rock because I hated it. It was so boring and lame. And then I got older and started self educating myself on-line and by buying books. Now history is my favorite subject and I'm so pissed that it was taught so horribly at my school. Particularly that it did not start at the beginning of history but rather it started in 1776. I was so bothered by this that I wrote an entire screenplay for a movie about a history teacher who goes rogue and leaves the assigned curriculum to teach Canadian and American history and instead spends the year teaching her kids the history of the entire world, indeed the entire universe. I was hoping the film might inspire change, but alas I never was able to sell it. Not very commercial.

If you're skeptical at all about this and you have an e-mail address that you don't mind sharing I could send you the screenplay I wrote about it. It might help you understand your Canadian neighbors even a little more, eh?

Anyway, point being that I am well aware of the biases in my education. Was I at the time? In high school I was but not during elementary school. But because I was not indoctrinated to hold these truths uncritically or without skepticism, because I was not told that I would go to hell when i was 4 if I did not believe everything my teachers told me, I was able to see through the BS as I came of age. If I had been "indoctrinated' to believe everything my teachers said without question upon penalty of eternal hellfire, I doubt I would have been able to see through my conditioning so easily.

Do you see what I am saying?

Timmy, just drinkin' a bit. Probably wacky tabacky would be better. Not a whole lot positive about drinkin'. Didn't mean to imply anything about "strikin' back". Probably "Star wars" memory that "strikin' back" thing. Just finished shopping...Drinkin' a beer. Over the past couple weeks started drinkin' again after something like 25 years. Didn't miss a whole lot. I should have screwed more over the last 25 years. I definitely recommend that opportunity to get laid take it...unless she obviously is scaggy....Just relaxin', nothin' serious. Don't worry about my "out for blood thing". I think too much to be consistently hostile to people--one of the blessings of thinking I suppose...As if I could consistently be someone's enemy. My mind wanders too much to be consistently someone's enemy...I would be killed first....

NAVIN1

"I've personally seen, even on this site, the belief that someone insists they are right while everyone else is wrong, perhaps indoctrinated to be wrong"

I didn't see that, and I've been here for a while. Who was it?

D12

I'm not really "striking back". I'm just explaining.

Hey are you wasted on booze or the wacky tobacky? Maybe I'll join you.

Mono

"predestination,preordination,preindoctrination,precreation,the will before the creation.mankind is indoctrinated by the creator of mankind way before the womb"

What is your evidence of this? What makes you believe it is so? Did you look up the word "indoctrination" yet?

Persiflage,

thanks. I have been reading Chomsky for some time. As with all humans / ideas, some I agree with, others I don't.

The psychological and sociological literature is certainly filled with society teaching certain ways of interacting with the world. If this were not so then the entirety of the social sciences would evaporate into a mathematical formulation.

I agree that the us v them is the place to start and agree that it gets messy. I also agree with the example you give. I've personally seen, even on this site, the belief that someone insists they are right while everyone else is wrong, perhaps indoctrinated to be wrong. A Hindu in America this usually came from zealous christians but often enough from like-minded atheists. Sometimes getting messy is the way to get to the root of a conceptual construct.

hariaum

KICK OUT the jams....

I wonder if Mono and Navin would engage in a threesome...Islam plus India plus Western Civilization....

Uh, that was "Kick out the Jams" by the MC5, Wayne Kramer and Sonic Smith on guitar flashin' long before punk bullsh*t. Yeah, Detroit....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM6nasmkg7A

Timmy strikes back...Juzz keep it cool people, keep it coolin'....

predestination,preordination,preindoctrination,precreation,the will before the creation.
mankind is indoctrinated by the creator of mankind way before the womb.

indoctrination by parents or the environment should not contradict the indoctrination of the creator of mankind .

its not a clash of civilization or a choice,its a clash between mankind and his almighty creator.

NAVIN1

"Timmy now recognizes that society does not indoctrinate, parents do, cool"

Not only parents. Anyone who attempts to: "teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"

"just as Timmy may want to force his kids to believe what Timmy believes"

Force? Never

"Timmy began with mentioning a few facts he had learned in school, like 2+2 does not equal 5, but when his indoctrination was broken, he qualified his statement he had learned from school that 2+2 dos equal 5 some times?

I did? I do not remember doing this. How could my indoctrination be broken when you have not shown yet that I was indoctrinated in the first place. Someone who is not indoctrinated can not have their indoctrination broken because they do not have an indoctrination to break.

"Yet he does not recognize the indoctrination"

Because there isn't one. Or at least you still have not shown any evidence of one. Do you need to see a doctor for you amnesia?

"Persiflage has a good point: perhaps I am equating too strongly the construct of socialization and indoctrination"

Indeed. Because you want so badly for atheism to be a religion.

"In the Timmy definition, indoctrination would be the parent compulsion part of socialization"

Not the "Timmy" definition. The dictionary definition. And as I said before it does not have to be a parent necessarily.

"But as I do not see all indoctrination as "bad", ie I want to compel my kids to learn despite their insistence that life is all play, then I also have no trouble with Persiflage's offering"

And I also have no trouble with it. I just don't call what you described above "Indoctrination" because no one is trying to coerce anyone into accepting a set of beliefs uncritically. Your children are not told that they will go to hell if they dare see life as all play. Are they? Are they told not to question?

"It would be interesting, though, on how one establishes the line between indoctrination and socialization"

It's real easy. Just ask yourself, is anyone attempting to teach people to accept a set of beliefs uncritically? If the answer is yes then it is indoctrination, if the answer is no then it is socialization I guess.

"Perhaps it is that legitimacy an outsider places on what a society teaches"

No. It's what I said above. I am the one who brought up indoctrination and I have told what I mean by it and that is the dictionary definition I have quoted several times now. This is not rocket science. Are people being coerced to think uncritically or not? It's that simple.

"(Theirs is indoctrination, ours is socialization.) But any clarification would be appreciated"

Just read the damn definition I gave you out of the dictionary. It will help you decipher between indoctrination and socialization by the definition I am using every time. There is no need for confusion here. The dictionary definition is so clear. Give me an example of an instance that you can not decipher from indoctrination or socialization and I will show you how easy it is.

However by the definition of indoctrination that you are using, one can hardly decipher it from "teaching" or "learning".

"Teaching what you think is true is of course reasonable. We each teach what we believe to be true to those willing to listen to us. The content is of course important but the intent to teach what we honestly believe is good"

I'm with you.

"Teaching what you know is a lie is just lying"

Certainly.

"Choosing not to teach someone is to choose to disempower them"

So I am disempowering everyone I am not teaching? This seems wrong to me. They have the power to learn from someone else, or the internet, or a library, or their own experience, don't they? How are they disempowered by me not teaching them.

"Certainly societies choose to keep their citizens uneducated, ie Pakistan banning Youtube and Facebook for the draw mohamed cartoon day"

That is the government that did that, not the society. Do you know the difference?

"Teaching of history happens near adulthood. Wow, and I thought the US system of education was behind. In the US history is taught early in elementary school"

If you recall, we were discussing me personally and what my indoctrination was. I learned nothing about history until I attended High School. 9th grade. I am the subject matter here because I am the one you are saying is indoctrinated. Let's stick to my education for now.

"Man, in Canada they don't learn history until adulthood"

No, I said 14. That's a teenager. I said almost adulthood. And this was 30 years ago, they might teach it earlier now, though I don't know why ten year olds need to learn history. I'm not against it, but I would have been when I was ten. But 30 years ago is when I got my education that you claimed to know so much about but now seem completely ignorant of. Remember the amnesia comment? Like you knew what was in my text books but I did not? It seems that situation is reversed now.

"they don't have tone in their textbooks"

They might, I don't recall a particular tone. Can you name the tone from my text books? I can name the tone from the Christian doctrines that I made my accusation against. Can you do the same? Can you be as specific as I was? It is not enough to insinuate that there was a tone. In order to back up your assertion that I was indoctrinated, you need to explain the exact tone you are referring to that may have indoctrinated me to not think critically for myself.

"they don't have educators decide what goes in textbooks"

Why yes they do. Care to elaborate now on the indoctrinations techniques that those educators put into my text books like I did with the Christians?

"they don't have mathematics teachers skip over fundamental assumptions for elementary schools"

I don't recall. You have evidence that they have done this with the intent to teach me to not think critically?

"they don't teach that a certain grammar is logical"

I don't remember them saying that it was logical. Did they? I thought they just taught me how to communicate effectively with my fellow english speaking humans. Can't teach kids every language and the grammar that goes with all of those languages, but you can offer them the opportunity to learn all of that in high school and post secondary education.

"Now I understand my Canadian neighbors so much better, eh"

I really don't think that you do.

Navin:

'It would be interesting, though, on how one establishes the line between indoctrination and socialization. Perhaps it is that legitimacy an outsider places on what a society teaches. (Theirs is indoctrination, ours is socialization.) But any clarification would be appreciated.'
_________________

Outsiders vs insiders would no doubt be an excellent place to look for varying/contrasting definitions of indoctrination. I believe this process will get complicated right away though. Which observers are the more objective?

If you take a poll of Chinese regarding their occupation of Tibet, I'm betting you will find a significant majority that agree completely with this oppressive and patently illegitimate move (in the opinion of Tibetans, and all of the free democratic Western world).

When this issue comes up here On Faith, the pro-Chinese, anti-Tibetan posters are readily apparent as to their national heritage.

Tibetans obviously have a very different view, and would probably attribute the predominant Chinese view to indoctrination, and they would be right - or would they? Or can it be attributed to socialization?

Look at the Chomsky link for a more radical point of view....he believes that humans are subtly manipulated by their own culture to believe lots of things that are morally wrong or mis-guided, and ultimately work to their own detriment.

You have to admire a guy that will disagree with just about anybody at any time! A brilliant man......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

It's suits me to become wasted. I should become wasted. A little less analysis and a little more enthusiasm....

"There's a little girl pink bow bow bow, there's a little girl pink bow bow bow, yeah,

There's a little boy with a spidah in his hand, there's a little boy with a spidah in his hand, oh oh oh, oh oh oh....yeah,"

White Stripes--gotta love 'em. Dan is officially wasted....

D12

I assume you've seen "It Might Get Loud"

Teaching what you think is true is of course reasonable. We each teach what we believe to be true to those willing to listen to us. The content is of course important but the intent to teach what we honestly believe is good.

Teaching what you know is a lie is just lying.

Choosing not to teach someone is to choose to disempower them. Certainly societies choose to keep their citizens uneducated, ie Pakistan banning Youtube and Facebook for the draw mohamed cartoon day.

Teaching of history happens near adulthood. Wow, and I thought the US system of education was behind. In the US history is taught early in elementary school - long before abstraction is well functional in the human brain. Man, in Canada they don't learn history until adulthood, they don't have tone in their textbooks, they don't have educators decide what goes in textbooks, they don't have mathematics teachers skip over fundamental assumptions for elementary schools, they don't teach that a certain grammar is logical. Now I understand my Canadian neighbors so much better, eh.

hariaum

"But as I do not see all indoctrination as "bad", ie I want to compel my kids to learn despite their insistence that life is all play, then I also have no trouble with Persiflage's offering. It would be interesting, though, on how one establishes the line between indoctrination and socialization. Perhaps it is that legitimacy an outsider places on what a society teaches. (Theirs is indoctrination, ours is socialization.) But any clarification would be appreciated."

Heavy Navin...but Dan is too wasted to reply other than by saying juzz play it cool people....

So we are getting somewhere again:

1) Timmy speaks of his belief system, not a truth, cool

2) Timmy now recognizes that society does not indoctrinate, parents do, cool.
Of course that means that a society of christians do not indoctrinate but christian parents do, and of course parents have certain rights to indoctrinate their kids to their belief system, just as Timmy may want to force his kids to believe what Timmy believes, or he may not (just like christian parents)

3) Timmy began with mentioning a few facts he had learned in school, like 2+2 does not equal 5, but when his indoctrination was broken, he qualified his statement he had learned from school that 2+2 dos equal 5 some times. Yet he does not recognize the indoctrination.

4) Persiflage has a good point: perhaps I am equating too strongly the construct of socialization and indoctrination. In the Timmy definition, indoctrination would be the parent compulsion part of socialization. But as I do not see all indoctrination as "bad", ie I want to compel my kids to learn despite their insistence that life is all play, then I also have no trouble with Persiflage's offering. It would be interesting, though, on how one establishes the line between indoctrination and socialization. Perhaps it is that legitimacy an outsider places on what a society teaches. (Theirs is indoctrination, ours is socialization.) But any clarification would be appreciated.

hariaum

Oh yeah, listening to an early White Stripes bootleg with Jack White thrashing and stomping around....

Dan has a plan: Get too wasted to write. Who knows? I might even get civilized....

And Timmy's back in action! Go Timmy go! Friday! Gotta live it up!

Still no examples of how I was indoctrinated by my text books, teachers or society. Still no examples of what I have been indoctrinated to believe. Why is this such a difficult thing for people who are claiming to be experts in my education.

NAVIN1 says that I was indoctrinated by my school text books. He seemed to talk with knowledge about how my school board met long before I attended school to lay out a plan to indoctrinate me. He really sounded as though he had much knowledge about my teachers, text books and what was in the that was indoctrinating.

Then he said: "maybe you need to see a doctor for your amnesia if you can't remember what was in your text books"

Now doesn't this sound like he himself knows what is in my textbooks? So why can he not elaborate just a little. Does he not sound like someone who should easily be able to point to the doctrines I was taught that are so manipulative they lead to an indoctrination? He just suddenly went all quiet about my text books as though he's got nothin.

I don't think people should accuse others of being indoctrinated if they can not back it up with some specific examples such as I have provided when it comes to Christian children. Examples of the doctrines that are manipulative (believe or go to Hell, heretics etc) an example of the authority figure who purposely tried to teach me to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, such as Parents in the case of the Christian children. And an example of what I have been lead to falsely believe.

But neither Mr Riunnin nor NAVIN1 who both tell me about how my education has indoctrinated me into certain false beliefs that they seem to be aware of but I am not of course because I am indoctrinated, can not provide any examples to back up their bogus assertions.

No big whoop. Just pointing it out. I'm only here for fun and amusement anyway. And stumping two preachers making false assertions with a simple challenge is fun I must say. And it is also amusing.

'Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances? Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?'

The morally correct and logically indisputable answers are No and Yes - D12, we are in agreement!

On the other hand, you can be a Catholic in both cases - in fact, such is often the case, and this is why there is a complete divide among Catholics regarding this issue in particular (and plenty of others as well).

A great many Catholics simply ignore the Vatican and the doctrinaire rules layed out by Papal authority. These are mainly people that are willing to take complete responsibility for their own moral and ethical decisions in life.

There are huge differences between religionists, and this even includes Catholics!

MONO

"species every where are indoctrinated by the creator "

Someone else here needs to look up the world "indoctrinate"

Hint: It can only occur outside of the womb. Unless of course you have some evidence to the contrary.

Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances? Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?

I would have to say no to the first question. To the second question I would have to say yes. And obviously my answers to the questions reveal that I am a supporter of abortion, for the questions themselves are a piece of dexterousness which will reveal whether one has been finessing the questions in favor or disfavor of abortion.

Why a person cannot be a feminist if against abortion is relatively easy to explain. If a woman cannot abort a child she is essentially not a tandem partner in perhaps the most crucial decision with respect to the human race--its genetic legacy--but a mere recepticle for man's decision concerning the genetic future of the race.

It is absolutely crucial in my opinion that women have choice with respect to their children because this just makes the argument more intense and necessary of exactly what we want our genetic future to be. Without women having a say we have a one-sided development as it were. In other words my fondest hope is that men and women will get together and make intelligent decisions as to what kind of children they will allow to be born.

We must get at genetics and have the most favorable children born. At least cut down on obvious birth defects, etc. And if we make such a religion in a sense we can say a person can have faith and support abortion in some cases. We just have to redefine religion somewhat. Make it a faith in the genetic future of man--that we are evolving man toward a sacred, or at least superior, type of being.

In other words I view abortion as a necessary step toward selecting the genetic future of the human race. To be against abortion, not to mention against in the name of religion, is to retreat from selecting the genetic future of the race. Both men and women must be empowered and given a say in the decision of selecting the genetic future of the race.

I would say that societies which give women an increased say in their lives are right now with a definite advantage over societies which do not. The latter societies have men making all the decisions while the former have women with a say in sexual partner not to mention children. In fact I would say the entire future of the race depends on freeing women first and then educating them relentlessly in especially biology--and especially the aspect of genetics.

Biology--let that be taught to women. Then let women turn that into the new mystery religion backed by the Sacred Mother. The Sacred Mother, the Earth Mother, demands a new race of men--and abortion is one of the tools in the realization of this religion's hopes. A new paganism of increasing intelligence in selecting children. Religion is compatible with abortion--we just need a new religion. But one not so far from the old. The deep old.
Woman more sacred than ever due to an increased understanding of selection of children.

The New Earth religion. Then perhaps truly the New Age religion.

Timmy definitely needs to be given credit for effort in discussion. Timmy seems to be writing quite a lot lately. We should probably pay more attention to what he says as he seems to be quite involved in his writing these days.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SPENCER1 :
THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE:

IRT:
"Every event in nature proceeds continuously from an earlier state or stage."

ANS:
Potential beings proceeding without a starting point is irrational as Aristotle points out in his demonstration of a Primary Mover. Something potential cannot start itself, it has no existence. Only a being in existence can move a being in potency to actuality. How ever for a potential being to exist it must have a preexisting being to cause its existence. However, all beings that are moved proceed from potency to act or vice versa and are contingent beings.

Moreover, all beings that have been created are composites, viz. they are composed of essence and existence, and essences do not exist until they are given existence. However, there cannot be an infinite string of potential beings given existence unless there is an uncaused being who has no potency and therefore whose essence is his existence. That being is whom we call God who is Aristotle's Prime Mover Christianity's God, the one so designated by the Founding Fathers in the "Declaration of Independence."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IB

“Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.”

“It is impossible according to the laws of human thought to give any ultimate rational explanation of the phenomena of external experience and of internal consciousness — in other words to synthesize the data which the actual universe as a whole supplies (and this is the recognized aim of philosophy) — unless by admitting the existence of a self-sufficient and self-explanatory cause or ground of being and activity, to which all these phenomena may be ultimately referred.”

“In the universe we observe that certain things are effects, i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and these again on others; but, however far back we may extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause that is not itself an effect, in other words to an uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the ground and cause of all being.”

IRT:
"Biologists understand in great detail exactly how this works, and so cannot logically claim that there is a beginning to life. Only the ignorant find it convenient to say that life begins at some point such as birth or conception."

ANS:
I have just shown, in the previous post the most astute and eminent Microbiologists, Embryologists and Eugenicists in the world say “Life begins at conception.” What is ignorant, is to say you had no birthday or no beginning. Maybe you can explain where you existed before you were conceived.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SPENCER1 :
THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE:

IRT:
“The question as to when human life begins has a simple and obvious answer: Human life never begins!”

ANS:
It has been said, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Hence, according to you, you’ve always existed, and never had a birthday. That leaves a problem; how does the population keep growing? Are all the nurseries in the world hallucinating? Are people not dying, they just think they are? So you think you’ve always existed? There is a truck load of 1999 New York Times you can pick up at half price you might want to buy. You’re a perfect candidate for that bargain.

IRT:
Every event in nature proceeds continuously from an earlier state or stage. Biologists understand in great detail exactly how this works, and so cannot logically claim that there is a beginning to life. Only the ignorant find it convenient to say that life begins at some point such as birth or conception.

ANS:

Thus, the greatest scientists in the world are ignorant according to you. Dr. Lejeune, “The Father of Modern Eugenics,” the winner of the Kennedy Award, winner of the Allen Award, the highest award in Eugenics in this field, is ignorant, not to mention from the multitude of Embryologist, Micro-biologist and Eugenicist like Hymie Gordon, the retired Chairman of Eugenics at Mayo Clinic are ignorant? I wonder who you thing isn’t ignorant, maybe pro-abortionists?

"The Father of Modern Genetics’ Testifies”

“Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

“Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

"Dr. Lejeune also pointed out that each human being is unique -- different from the mother -- from the moment of conception. He said, 'Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique.'

"Dr. Jerome Lejeune died on April 3, 1994. Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years.

"Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.

"He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris. Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and Argentina, The Pontifical Academy of Science and The Academy of Medicine in France."

background and indoctrination of the species.

the very baisc biological and sociological reality of the species is,

every species came to this life bare back ,bare mind,bare in every thing except that every species is indoctrinated (like it or not) by their creator ,not only indoctrinated but every species were none and void until created by the creator.

the above is the concret ground fact reality every scientific and unscientific species need to bank on.

species need to digg further than their parentology and self/egology.

so the reality is ,
every specie is indoctrinated,and every specie is indoctrinated by the creator of the species ,this is the real background of the species that no body died on the cross for it nor any one ^brain^ busted for it.

species every where are indoctrinated by the creator not the creation ,where your brain,psych and soul is a creation.

DANIEL12

Quit whining. Timmy is here, like me, for fun and amusement. Like SCHAUM said, "In the end, nothing matters," and we have Timmy's recent semi-eulogy honoring SCHAUM for his agreement with him.

That's how we atheists are. Believing in nothing, we believe in anything we like, day to day. It works in the act.

D12

There are many religions in the world. Many of them do not have the kind of built in brainwashing (loosely used) doctrines that are built into the Christian and Muslim faiths, namely eternal hellfire for disbelief and the idea of heretics, apostates and so on. I am separating out these religions from the rest and I am not even saying that all of their adherents are either brainwashed or indoctrinated. I am only talking about children who have had those particularly manipulative doctrines mentioned above drilled into their heads long long before they ever have a chance to think for themselves or socialize outside of their home.

Helpless children were the only ones I referred to as being indoctrinated and I was only referring to one particular religion and only certain doctrines within that religion. This is not "all religion" by a long long shot.

Yes those children grow up to be adults and can then chose for themselves. But my personal belief is that because 80% of people believe in this particular faith, and it is designed to perpetuate itself, it is very difficult for any of these children who were indoctrinated to really get over that indoctrination, given that there is no societal pressure to do so and so much brethren in the faith. I have no doubt that these people get much good out of their faith, but I do not believe that it is their chosen faith. I do believe that they become addicted to it, and this is where that void that Persiflage talks about comes into play.

But I feel that this void is not really a void because I think that they do not need to lose their faith. I just think they could place it in better hands than the Christian Church. Namely, themselves and their fellow humans. The words of Jesus were written by a man. (or two or three or nine) I find that much more inspiring that thinking that they could only have been written by a god because we are corrupted creatures. Christians and Roadrunnin are trying to sell us this garbage and I'm sure as hell not buying it. Anyway I digress now, but I do not worry about "the void". Nor am I looking to take anyone's religion away. I'm just adding my voice to the din.

I have also stated already that there is nothing that the government can do or should do about this. It's no one's place to interfere with what a parent wants to teach their child religion wise. All I can use to help those helpless children is speak my view and hope that others do as well and that the problem will get better as people do. For these reasons I feel that it is important for atheists or anyone really to be vocal about these things because free speech is all we have to affect change for the better as we see it.

Yes I am butting into others people's business. Don't we all. Anyway I hope that my word count here will make you be nice to me again. It seems to have a positive affect on you when I use a lot of my words and none of yours.

D12,

Timmy, stop giving us the BS. You want to play games of "I never said all religion is indoctrination" but you have millions of Americans in their Christianity considered indoctrinated"

American Christianity = all religion?

"Tell me, if you have millions indoctrinated what precisely do you not consider religious indoctrination?"

Who said I didn't consider it religious indoctrination?

Do you understand that American Christians are not "all religion?" I need to hear you say that you understand this.

"And the fact is whether I misstated YOUR position or not does nullify the value of my reasoning process"

Of course not. If there are atheists out there who say that all religion is brainwashing, then your reasoning process applies fully to them. But I am not one of those so it does not apply to me, so I did not read it. I'm sure it was excellent though. It's just not about me and I think you intended it to be.

"You used the term brainwashing to explain what religions do to people"

Only some religions to some people. I need to hear you tell me you understand the difference between some and all.

"Timmy, I hate to say it but I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are obviously out for blood"

Really? who's blood am I out for? I'm not mad at or even criticizing the indoctrinated I see them as victims. I do not want their blood I want for them to stop getting indoctrinated into a religion before they can even speak. Daniel, do you not believe that people should choose their religion rather than have it chosen for them by their parents and beat into their head before it is even fully solid?

"Well, I am ready to give blood in return"

Prepare for return fire. I knew you were just having an upswing the other day when you tried to call a truce. I knew it wouldn't last.

"I should just point out how ready you were to agree with me a few days ago when I was simply polite to you"

So go back to being polite and stop misstating my position. And I do not agree with people because they are polite to me. But I can be agreeable. I can be civil and nice if you can. You drew first blood by misstating my position.

"Apparently all it takes is being polite to you to get you to
consider something"

All it takes is not misstating my position.

"Your petty vanity is more important than the truth. What a miserable lowlife you are"

Blow me.

"Please. If you call so many Americans brainwashed, locked in cult thinking, I think we can say you consider religion period equal to brainwashing"

No you can not say that because it is not true. Back to D12 the lying liar. Soon I'll get the old "I would have no problem shooting you Timmy!"

"You have a very loose and wide conception of the word "cult"

Perhaps in your view. But you probably still think that I think that all religion is a cult because you are dumb and can not read.

"Persiflage repeatedly pointed this out"

Persiflage is not always right. Persiflage has also confused my comments about one religion in one country in one era for all religion of all time. You both need to read more carefully.

"Then you turn right around with respect to me and get all huffy about my saying you consider all religion indoctrination and brainwashing"

I didn't get huffy I just told you that it wasn't true because it is not. It is you who is getting all huffy.

"But maybe you can explain why all religion is not brainwashing at the same that you old that millions of Americans are brainwashed in their Christianity"

Sure that one is easy. American Christians are not "all religion"

In fact not even close. Why do you not get that? You're just mad that you can't make me fall into the parameters of the kind of atheist you like to criticize. It's the same problem NAVIN1 has.

"these millions of Americans who work in a variety of fields which require independent thinking"

One can think independently in all other ways except religion and function quite well in society. But it does tend to screw up their voting and that's a little annoying.

"Why not read the rest of his post?"

In case you hadn't noticed the pattern of D12 posts the first line sets up the premise for the whole "essay." He is also very long winded and as Lion's Den says, his posts can give one an ice cream headache, so If I know that his essay is based on a false premise, I'm not going through that for no reason.

"and you enjoy so much being the schoolmaster"

I'm so confused right now, I thought for sure you were the one who enjoys so much being the school master. You know, with your 72 years of having experienced it all.

Hoh heh HaH.

Oh man tat was way off script. I'll never get the job.

Timmy, stop giving us the BS. You want to play games of "I never said all religion is indoctrination" but you have millions of Americans in their Christianity considered indoctrinated. Tell me, if you have millions indoctrinated what precisely do you not consider religious indoctrination? Some pet form of Buddhism or something? And the fact is whether I misstated YOUR position or not does nullify the value of my reasoning process. You used the term brainwashing to explain what religions do to people. I pointed out the very dichotomy you use of brainwash/non-brainwash originated in religious thinking of enlightenment versus ignorance...Timmy, I hate to say it but I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are obviously out for blood. Well, I am ready to give blood in return. I should just point out how ready you were to agree with me a few days ago when I was simply polite to you. Apparently all it takes is being polite to you to get you to consider something. Your petty vanity is more important than the truth. What a miserable lowlife you are. Here is Timmy right after calling millions of Americans brainwashed: "You misstated my position Daniel by saying that I say all religion is brainwashing, therefore I did not read your piece". Please. If you call so many Americans brainwashed, locked in cult thinking, I think we can say you consider religion period equal to brainwashing. You have a very loose and wide conception of the word "cult"--Persiflage repeatedly pointed this out. Then you turn right around with respect to me and get all huffy about my saying you consider all religion indoctrination and brainwashing. Right Timmy. Right. But maybe you can explain why all religion is not brainwashing at the same that you old that millions of Americans are brainwashed in their Christianity--these millions of Americans who work in a variety of fields which require independent thinking....

NAVIN1

"So are you now narrowing down the definition of indoctrination to parent forcing you not to think?"

No. Still going by the dictionary definition, binary minded fool that I am.

"Does society at large, that is not a single individual, indoctrinate people?"

Does society at large attempt "to teach (a person or a group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically?" Because that is the definition I am using. So if you think that society at large can be so conniving as to attempt to teach a person or a group to accept a particular set of beliefs uncritically, then I guess by your thinking that would mean that everyone is indoctrinated?
But I don't see how society at large can do that. I think the word you are looking for is "influenced". Is that the problem? Do you think that "influenced" and "indoctrinated" mean the same thing? That's pretty weird. But I can understand why you would need to make that stretch to confirm what you read in your Hindu Book of Hinduism.

"If so, by what mechanism would you suggest society does this?

This is what I have been trying to get out of you because it is your theory. How about an example of how society at large has indoctrinated me.

"It is quite possible I am be too liberal and that you are being to rigid, arguing about words rather than meaning"

What is quite possible is that you don't like me calling indoctrination on Christians because they are theists like you and I am an atheist and you don't like atheists so you pull out this old "well aren't we all brainwashed when you thin about it" garbage to try and defend your theist brothers from the big bad atheist.

"I suspect when it comes down to brain washing, my liberality with the concept of indoctrination is more comprehensive than someone overtly forcing you to believe"

Yeah, see, I was talking specifically about how parents in partnership with Christian doctrine overtly force their children to believe in God by telling them that not only is it so, but you will go to Hell if you doubt it for a second.

"I believe there is strong evidence in marketing and economics about covert manipulation of belief systems. Please do inquire"

No one can manipulate your belief system. They can only influence them, Unless you are an infant and you have, say, Christian parents. Once you are a teenager (when kids first start learning history, or an adult They can only try to influence your belief system. While I believe it is possible to indoctrinate an adult or a teenager, it is obviously much easier, and much more permanent when this practice is put to infants and children by their parents.

"To apply your new and improved criteria would be to show me a specific individual who admits that they were forced to not be critical about what they were believing. Otherwise no one is indoctrinated but those that say they were."

This is a hilarious and enlightening sentence. It doesn't matter what someone admits to, it only matters what happened to them and how their beliefs were formed. So tell me what happened to me and give examples of how you think my beliefs were formed by indoctrination just as I have given you many examples of what happens to Christian children and the doctrines that they are taught at such an early age that constitutes indoctrination in my opinion.

You can only win argument by pointing to specific doctrines that were pressed into my brain by such overpowering influences as to match the overpowering influences of parents telling their children that they are going to Hell if they do not believe.

I know you can not do that so I suggest you give it up. But I'll keep trying to set yo straight if you want to keep talking nonsense.

"Seems like a cop out. Kind of like my religion is better than yours because my books say so"

What book? What religion? Is everyone religious now too? Everyone is religious and indoctrinated to you? Is that it? You are welcome to look at it that way but I do not see it that way.

Timmy:

'NAVIN says you and I have been indoctrinated because everybody has. Just curious about your thoughts on that.'
______________

That would, in my opinion, be an incorrect understanding of the process of socialization.....a pretty much universally accepted concept of how humans become humans.

Taken from wiki:

Agents of socialization are the people and groups that influence our self-concept, emotions, attitudes, and behavior.

1. The Family. Family is responsible for the youth and, among other things, determining one's attitudes toward religion and establishing career goals.

2. Education. Education is the agency responsible for socializing groups of young people in particular skills and values in society.

3. Religion. Religions play a major role in socialization.

4. Peer groups. Peers refer to people who are roughly the same age and/or who share other social characteristics (e.g., students in a college class).

5. The Mass Media.

6. Other Agents: Work Place, Public institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization

http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_1.htm

This is a major core area of study found in doctoral dissertations in the various social sciences .... not to mention the shelves full of textbooks, research monographs, and popular works.

Indoctrination is something else altogether - alhough may be part of the socialization process.

Why not read the rest of his post?

If in the first sentence you found something to correct, and you enjoy so much being the schoolmaster, why not look for continued enjoyment?

Oh, maybe you do understand, and practice, renunciation -- a delayed gratification type thing. Good boy!

"In the script, it's heh heh heh"

What script. I was doing my own thing. You follow a script? What are you, indoctrinated?

You are fun.

Heh Heh Heh

and here's an extra one to really go off script and drive you bonkers, Heh

Besides, as a comic, they never expect us to stick to the script. That's why they hire us.

Hah Hah Hah, or is it ha ha ha?

We should find out because it matters so much. ;)

Persiflage,

"Timmy, I don't know a single, solitary thing about you or your education, or your early experiences with religion - and that's the honest truth. I swear to God :^)"

Congratulations that's the right answer. And clearly neither do Runnin, NAVIN or D12.

But I wasn't really asking you to tell me if I was indoctrinated, I was just wondering if you buy into this "well aren't we all indoctrinated really? Aren't we all brainwashed, really?" argument. Do you? NAVIN says you and I have been indoctrinated because everybody has. Just curious about your thoughts on that.

And if one wants to use such an exceptionally mild form of the word indoctrination, what are we to call it when a child who can barely speak is told by the most powerful authority figure in their life that God created them and the whole universe and that Jesus is the only way to heaven and disbelieving will get you sent to Hell and even hanging out with disbelievers is dangerous in the eyes of your god, and then all the church and Christian camps and the lies about miracles to support the validity of the texts. All of this going on to a human who will believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause and anything else their parents tell them. Only unlike Santa, the kid is never let off the hook. And when he comes home with stories from school (if he is not sent to a private Catholic school) of other kids who do not believe in God he is told that those kids are going to Hell with their families, and he better stay away from those kids.

If we are going to call education in reading writing math and history (note that history is not taught until kids are almost adults) indoctrination, what word do we reserve to describe what I just described above with the 4 year-old and the hellfire?

D12

"To Timmy from Daniel. You--and Dennett--more than implied all religion period is brainwashing, that one is under a spell"

No, Daniel. I did not imply anything of the sort and neither did Dennett. No where did either he or I use the words "all religion". And we did not use those words for a very good reason. Once again I did not read the rest of your post because once again it is based on a false premise that I ever implied that all religion is brainwashing. When you start a post with a line that is not misstating my position, i will read the whole thing.

Harium

So are you now narrowing down the definition of indoctrination to parent forcing you not to think?

Does society at large, that is not a single individual, indoctrinate people? If so, by what mechanism would you suggest society does this?

It is quite possible I am be too liberal and that you are being to rigid, arguing about words rather than meaning. I suspect when it comes down to brain washing, my liberality with the concept of indoctrination is more comprehensive than someone overtly forcing you to believe. I believe there is strong evidence in marketing and economics about covert manipulation of belief systems. Please do inquire.

To apply your new and improved criteria would be to show me a specific individual who admits that they were forced to not be critical about what they were believing. Otherwise no one is indoctrinated but those that say they were. Seems like a cop out. Kind of like my religion is better than yours because my books say so.

hariaum

In the script, it's heh heh heh. See the undertone desired was sort'a suggested by the writer to the voice performer, and the director evidently agreed, and the performer went along with that desire, and didn't have a celebrity hissy fit about the whole idea.

Good thing, for peace, they didn't ask you to do the performance, I guess.

Timmy:

'How about you, Persiflage? Was I indoctrinated and is it comparable to the indoctrination of Christian Children into the God cult? Were you indoctrinated?'
_____________

I always had the wrong constitution for indoctrination of any kind, and apparently can't be hypnotized either. I was average at best in group situations - which I now avoid like the plague.

One can't always avoid being 'in' groups, but being 'of' groups is another matter. Not my cup of tea, and this all now makes for the quasi-solitary lifestyle.

Even ordinary learning did not always come easy. I feel that I'd have done much better in high school after I turned 50 - but they wouldn't give me a second chance.

Timmy, I don't know a single, solitary thing about you or your education, or your early experiences with religion - and that's the honest truth. I swear to God :^)

To Timmy from Daniel. You--and Dennett--more than implied all religion period is brainwashing, that one is under a spell. Only now, after I have clearly shown that in virtually every religion--from Shamanism to Christianity--there are concepts which point to the belief in the possibility of becoming awakened from a state of ignorance do you backtrack and find your easy dichotomy of religion equals brainwashing, atheism equals non-brainwashing called seriously into question. Stop trying to pretend that you are not calling all religion brainwashing. Even the Hindu Navin and Buddhist Persiflage are taking issue with you on this problem. You have not stepped forward with clear examples of non-brainwashing in religion as you have criticized religion for being brainwashing. You have simply been criticizing religion. I have not seen a single defense of religion in your characterizations on the brainwashing issue.

As for the education you received not being brainwashing in comparison to religion, perhaps you can come up with an original thought then or at least demonstrate your education was all in favor of thinking originally. The educational system not brainwashing? The more intelligent people have railed for years against the educational system. I myself dropped out. It was neither a solution to religious brainwashing nor clearly a state free of brainwashing. In fact a person is compelled to observe that it was brainwashing, for even if we strive to overcome brainwashing our thoughts are limited due to what we have achieved being all we can achieve. A startling example of the previous is that it has been observed that the vast majority of people can have their musical tastes known to a researcher simply by telling the researcher what years they lived in between the ages of five and twenty five. For all freedom given by music, one is brainwashed in such and prefers the music one grew up with as a youth. Timmy, no one need give an example from your education that is brainwashing for all learning except original thinking is brainwashing, is learning everyone else can know. We are always born into ways of looking at the world we must free ourselves from. There is no clear method which can be taught to everyone which is something of a device that automatically works at freeing a person from brainwashing. Or to put it more simply, there is no clear method which anyone can learn which enables one to think for himself.

We are born into the limits of our capacity to reason, and although some of us are more enlightened than others and can free others, there is no clear method which can be taught to people which assures everyone rises to the same level of insight--because neither are people the same intellectually nor is the method of self-cure from brainwashing in existence.

And as for you not having read my piece...right....

NAVIN1

Taking another stab at dodging the burden of providing evidence for you assertions I see. This one is no better.

"Yet if they believe that jesus saves them from hell, which neither they not Timmy know of actually existing or not, then they are indoctrinated while Timmy who does not believe is not indoctrinated"

No silly. They are not indoctrinated simply because "they believe that Jesus saves them from hell". You want that to be true because it makes me wrong. An example of indoctrination (I am assuming you are now looking up the world "example in the dictionary right now because you do not seem to know what one is) is when a child's parents tell the child that God created them, and that not believing that will get them an eternity of burning in hellfire.

In your example, you did not specify why the child believes that Jesus will save them from hell. Did they come to that conclusion on their own or was it planted in their brain before they could even speak by the most powerful authority figure in anyone's life, and told that disbelief would earn them a trip to eternal hellfire?

Now, it would be up to you to give an example of my indoctrination by doing what I just did. To back up my assertion of indoctrination, I gave a specific example of a doctrine that Christian children are taught before they attend any school or socialize with anyone outside of their family. This particular doctrine along with many others they are taught is designed to keep them from questioning the doctrine even for a second.

Now you give an example of a doctrine that I was taught that is comparable to this. Why I ask I do not know, because I am fully convinced at this point that this is an impossibility for you or you would have done it by now.

"And this is supposed to be an example of forced creation of a belief system?"

Not the example you gave, but yes to the example I gave.

"Timmy, frankly, you've got it all wrong. Each of us is indoctrinated"

Not by the definition that I am using. It requires the attempt to keep a person from thinking critically about the doctrine. Like telling them that they will go to hell for questioning it for a moment when they are only 4 years old.

"If you are aware of indoctrination going on, say the tenor of a history book describing the westward expansion of white people over the Americas and the schools that natives were admitted into, then you can fight it"

What tenor? Can you get specific? What indoctrination? How is your example above an indoctrination. Sounds like just book learnin to me. Was I ever told that questioning my history books would get me an eternity in hell or even just listening to others who question the book will cause my creator, God, to be angry with me? Was I given instruction of any kind not to question the book or what my teacher was saying? Was I told to be wary of those who question the book. Was I told of the ultimate reward of eternal life in heaven with God and all of my family and friends if I just never question the book?

What a pathetic comparison. Especilly without details.

"If you are not aware of the idoctrination, suppose you actually believe certain authorities (you are in a cabin that is flying around the world), and don't or can't confirm / disaffirm the stated fact, then your belief system is in that authority"

So believing explorers and scientists and pilots that the world is round is indoctrination? Man you have a weak definition of indoctrination. Can it be deciphered from the definition of the word "teaching" or "learning?." Besides, from my plane window, I can see the curvature of the earth. 35,000 feet is a long way up. But perhaps I was just indoctrinated to think that I was in a plane. lol.

"Now you may find this surprising, I am also an empiricist"

Why would I find that surprising, I already pointed it out?

"But I also know how that evidence is interpreted by my brain is weighted by the affective and non-semantic part of my brain that carries with it the social context by which to interpret that data (indoctrination)"

So do I. Like I said before, you and roadrunnin have some affliction whereby you think that you are the only ones who can see through the BS.

But I just looked on line and can find no definition of indoctrination that matches what you just said above. I'm pretty sure the problem here is that the definition of indoctrinate is different in the Hindu Book of Hinduism than the one we have in our dictionaries. You seem to feel free to refer to any cognitive experience as indoctrination.

"you don't want to see how you have been indoctrinated"

Oh yes I do. I have been begging you to give me an example but you can not.

"you just want to put down belief systems with which you disagree"

Kind of like you do with atheism and empiricism, right? We're both the same. We just choose different belief systems to put down.

Runnin,

No sir. It's Heh Heh Heh. Get it right!

Timmy, it's not "Heh Heh Heh." It's heh heh heh.

Sara Sara Baraquitter
Needs no second baby sitter
Bristol is a double mother
Trig is Trippy’s younger brother

OK, so a member of a family believes that jesus is their savior. They, like Timmy, don't have access to the truth whatever that is. Yet if they believe that jesus saves them from hell, which neither they not Timmy know of actually existing or not, then they are indoctrinated while Timmy who does not believe is not indoctrinated. And this is supposed to be an example of forced creation of a belief system?

Timmy, frankly, you've got it all wrong. Each of us is indoctrinated. If you are aware of indoctrination going on, say the tenor of a history book describing the westward expansion of white people over the Americas and the schools that natives were admitted into, then you can fight it. If you are not aware of the idoctrination, suppose you actually believe certain authorities (you are in a cabin that is flying around the world), and don't or can't confirm / disaffirm the stated fact, then your belief system is in that authority.

What you call a judgment call is a method of validating your belief system.

Now you may find this surprising, I am also an empiricist. Show me. Evidence is awesome. But I also know how that evidence is interpreted by my brain is weighted by the affective and non-semantic part of my brain that carries with it the social context by which to interpret that data (indoctrination). So evidence is not that simple thing of what I see. This after all is the power of the scientific method. It looks for a counter example (re the null hypothesis) against what I believe.

Of course since your construct of indoctrination keeps shifting (from a dictionary definition to

"Where are the instructions in my school text books to be wary of heretics?

Where are the threats of eternal hell fire for disbelieving what is written?

Where is the reference to the overlord who knows all and will smite me if I disobey or even just disbelieve?

Where is the instruction to believe without evidence.

Where is the instruction to not blaspheme?

Where are the lies about miracles to prove the infallibility of the texts?"

then of course you would be giving us evidence that you don't want to use dictionaries, you don't want to see how you have been indoctrinated, you just want to put down belief systems with which you disagree - your beliefs v theirs (no truth statments, no sticking to dictionaries, no judgment calls but what you arbitrarily (rather are indoctrinated to) choose.

hariaum

The question as to when human life begins has a simple and obvious answer: Human life never begins! Every event in nature proceeds continuously from an earlier state or stage. Biologists understand in great detail exactly how this works, and so cannot logically claim that there is a beginning to life. Only the ignorant find it convenient to say that life begins at some point such as birth or conception. One can easily argue that allowing a viable human egg to remain unfertilized is murder. The horror - many billions of murders every year.

I thought "life" began long before conception. Didn't it start in some primordial ooze long long ago?

But seriously folks, life beginning at conception is a perfectly logical starting point. There are a few other starting points that cases could be made for as well. It's quite subjective if one thinks about it but it is kind of moot to the discussion I think.

The issue before us is wether or not we want to live in a world where we jail women for terminating their pregnancies. What that will say about us, how that will affect our psyche and how much better we think living will be in that world.

In a democracy everyone gets to have their own opinions and vote their conscience but we always have to take into account the world that will be produced by our decisions. I myself think that conception is the most logical place to put a start date on the life of a human. I could not argue with anyone making that case, and I an fact could make that case. But now I have to ask myself if I want to call abortion murder, and try to enforce women bringing their pregnancies to full term and giving birth, and do I want to live in a society where women in desperation are seeking back alley abortions (because it will happen. A lot) and where some of those women are getting away with it and some are going to jail for murder. And I have to imagine if that world will have more suffering in it than the current one, and then I have to make a decision on which way to vote.

I believe that life begins at conception, or at least I can definitely see that argument as valid. And I vote to keep the current laws in place on the matter. For better or for worse, I have decided to cast my vote based on minimizing suffering in general. I'm not sure what else to base my vote on so I'm going with that. I don't want to live in that other world. And I don;t mind admitting that this is a selfish attitude.

I was always with Schaum on altruism. Our best evidence leads us to see that it is actually a form of self interest. Oh Schaum. I hope daily that you are okay somewhere in Austria. God be with you. ;)

"ABORTION IS MURDER"

http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html

When Does Human Life Begin?

Doctors Testify to U.S. Senate

Many internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question: When does human life begin? Following are testimonies from two of the doctors who testified:

1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

THERAPEUTIC ABORTION IS MURDER:

Murder is the unjust and intentional taking of an innocent life; in abortion, it is the unjust taking of an innocent defenseless life.

All who support therapeutic abortion are complicit with murdering these defenseless children now totaling over 52 million. Worldwide, 43 million unborn are murdered every year. Jesse Jackson once call abortion Black Genocide. Seventy percent of Black pregnancies are conceived outside of Marriage and some 55 percent of them are terminated by abortion according to Bill Cosby.

If you can approve of murder, be careful, someone may justify murdering you.

http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html

"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Lejeune also pointed out that each human being is unique -- different from the mother -- from the moment of conception. He said, "Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune died on April 3, 1994. Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years.

Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.

He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris. Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and Argentina, The Pontifical Academy of Science and The Academy of Medicine in France.

Yeal 9

Do you favor making abortion illegal and following it through by jailing women who have abortions?

YEAL9:

I think Bill Clinton was "adopted" by his stepfather, who married Clinton's widowed mother. That is not exactly the same as being adopted by one or more people who are unrelated to you.

Runnin,

"But still, it does not explain why everyone else in the world, especially Christians in the USA, are not doing enough to make me happy"

Why do Christians need to make you happy? Can you not find happiness in your own misanthropic philosophy? Christians are not responsible for your happiness. Only you are, silly.

And why are you not happy? All that money.

Not only can they not come up with an example from my education that constitutes indoctrination but they can not even answer the question of why they can not do this.

Did I say "clowns"?

I meant pathetic clowns.

NAVIN1

"So we have now established that Timmy has a belief system, his opinions, validated by his empirical data gathering"

Not just the empirical data gathering, but from all data gathering. Just like you. What faculties are you using to gather information that I am not? I know, it's another stumper for you.

"Now how do we know if Timmy's belief system is better than anyone elses"

It's a judgement call.

"After all, the assertion is that others are indoctrinated but he is not"

Not all others, I was only referring to children in American Christian families who've been taught from birth that God not only exists but will sentence them to eternal hellfire if they disbelieve. They can murder and rape and steal and go to heaven but they can not disbelieve and go to heaven. If they disbelieve they go to hell.

There, I've just given you one example of the indoctrination of these children. See how easy it is to back up one's assertion with an example? Now you try. Now the ball is in your court again, and it is up to you to come up with a similar example from my education where I was indoctrinated in a similar way, which we have already established you can not. Haven't we?

It's so funny to watch you scramble to save face after telling me that I need to see a doctor for my amnesia when it is now clear that your amnesia is far far worse. What was in my text books again? Can't remember? Do you have an internet connection? Look it up. Why do you have nothing? Stumped?

lol

clown

Why do I hear the Baby Elephant March every time I read a Road Runnin post?

Heh Heh Heh

Still got nothin huh? Thought so.

So we have now established that Timmy has a belief system, his opinions, validated by his empirical data gathering. Now how do we know if Timmy's belief system is better than anyone elses. After all, the assertion is that others are indoctrinated but he is not.

hariaum

D12

"One of the biggest problems atheists have in characterizing all of religion as brainwashing"

I did not read the rest. But I might if you tell me who said that all religion is brainwashing?

Persiflage,

"It's a pretty extensive treatment of the concept of indoctrination"

The only thing that really matters is now you all know what definition I was using which is the most common definition and the one that most people would assume when they hear someone refer to the indoctrination of Christian children.

And the only other thing that matters is that neither NAVIN1 or MR Runnin are capable of backing up their claims to my indoctrination from my school text books by citing just one example of anything at all that they think might have been in just one of my text books that would qualify as indoctrination.

It's really funny how easy it should be given their conviction on the matter and they also seem to portray themselves as quite knowledgeable about my education and what was in my text books. You'd think that they would have no problem backing up their oh so certain claim that I have been indoctrinated by my education with a little insight into what I was taught that has indoctrinated me into missing certain realities.

The obvious conclusion is that both NAVIN and MR Runnin were talking out of their asses and still are.

How about you, Persiflage? Was I indoctrinated and is it comparable to the indoctrination of Christian Children into the God cult? Were you indoctrinated? Are you still blinded by that indoctrination? Can anyone back up this desperate claim that my education in reading and writing and arithmetic and geography was an indoctrination similar to the indoctrination of children into Christianity? Can anyone name the big point that I am missing due to my indoctrination?

Clowns

Well, DANIEL12, that explains that.

But still, it does not explain why everyone else in the world, especially Christians in the USA, are not doing enough to make me happy.

heh heh heh

One of the biggest problems atheists have in characterizing all of religion as brainwashing, or that religious people are "under a spell", is that such characterizations still use schema, language, conceptualizing that arose in religious ages and therefore call into question the validity of the dichotomy atheists would like to set up.

For example, for millenia have we had in various religions the dichotomies of lightness/darkness, sleeping/awakening, concealed/revealed, ignorant/enlightened and so on. In other words, within every religion there is an understanding of psychology to the point of speaking of people as awakened or sleeping and so on.

Virtually every religion is aware of stages of thought, of thoughts encompassed in larger views and in turn encompassing smaller views. But atheists in their blanket dismissal of religion act as if the process of awakening from ignorance does not exist if one is thinking in religious terms. Atheists put all of religion on one side of the balance and label it "ignorance" then put their views on the other side and label such "non-brainwashing", "awakening from delusion" and so on.

But in doing so they are borrowing from religious ages the entire binary distinction between sleeping/awakening and so on! It would be understandable if atheists invented the binary distinction elaborated above--we could understand all of religion placed on one side of the scale--but atheists have precisely not invented this distinction. Religous people invented this distinction.

And precisely because religious people have invented this distinction there must be various levels of awakening in religious thinking--which is to say within the religious tradition there is plenty of awareness of the concept of "brainwashing", "indoctrination" and so on. These concepts did not arise by atheists considering religion with respect to their own views. These concepts arose by religious people thinking about the transformations in their own lives.

Religious people had experiences by which they called other people who had not had such experiences "lost", "in the darkness" and so on. In other words, deluded, brainwashed, indoctrinated, routine, simple. Man has always been awakening in other words and we cannot consider religious man in his entirety as brainwashed in distinction to atheism. There were levels of enlightenment in religious thinking. And presumably such in atheism. Or is atheism the definitive awakening, the one which places all of religion on the other side of the scale as ignorance? If atheists think so, that is still another problem for them--for they are taking their thinking as the high water mark of human thought when all of history demonstrates levels of thought and no low water mark let alone high water mark.

In fact we should say atheists are in danger from using this timeworn dichotomy that they do. They both overlook change within religion and the possibility of future change in themselves. In fact they sound quite religious and dogmatic themselves--all of religion characterized as brainwashing and themselves as the grand awakening. If that is not religious thinking I do not know what is...Atheists need to pay attention to their words.

'Thanks for the links.'

Always glad to be of service.

'On Indoctrination: How deep did you have to dig for such a mild definition.'

I didn't provide a definition - I provided a link with more than one definition, including the one that you prefer. It's a pretty extensive treatment of the concept of indoctrination.

See the wikipedia definition, and below that, 'religious indoctrination'.

Here it is again.

http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

Back to the topic once again:

Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience our lives???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

With respect to saving the life of a mother vs that of her and her husband's child"

With modern technology, that situation is a rare event. When it does occur, the decision should be a made by the mother and father of the child. With no father in the picture, the decision should be left to the mother or her parents if the mother is incapacitated.

And it is very, very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fertilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and insect species but give no legal protection to our developing young ones.

Again, some famous adoptees:

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

Not bad, not good -- not bad for one writing in what is obviously his second langauge.

Is imitation and copycatting still the insincerest form of flattery?

Timmy, you lost it completely, with the snake snark, and put frosting on it with the "we."

"We" are amused.

heh heh heh

Indoctrinate

"to teach (a person or a group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"

Where are the instructions in my school text books to be wary of heretics?

Where are the threats of eternal hell fire for disbelieving what is written?

Where is the reference to the overlord who knows all and will smite me if I disobey or even just disbelieve?

Where is the instruction to believe without evidence.

Where is the instruction to not blaspheme?

Where are the lies about miracles to prove the infallibility of the texts?

If you want to try and compare my education in reading and writing and math and geometry to the indoctrination of children by their parents into the cult of Christianity then you better come up with better evidence than "people once though the world was flat because they were indoctrinated to see it that way."

Clowns.

Persiflage,

Thanks for the links.

On empiricism: If I am an empiricist everyone is. There are no faculties at my disposal that I disregard in seeking knowledge. Unless self delusion is a faculty.

On Indoctrination: How deep did you have to dig for such a mild definition. Here is the most common definition. #2 is the one I have been using when referring to Christian children and their indoctrination.

in·doc·tri·nate   [in-dok-truh-neyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object),-nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach (a person or a group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Further down the list is the definition you provided. I've never even heard of that definition. can't decipher that definition from the definition for the word "teaching".

NAVIN1

"This statement is the example of your indoctrination"

How so? can you ever get specific? Just more eluding?

"Your ideas on what religion is over and over"

Can you elaborate on my ideas on what religion is? And then tell me exactly how I came to be indoctrinated to believe it? No you can not apparently because all you need to do is give one specific example and you can not.

"Do you think the muslim about to blow him or herself up thinks they are zombies"

No. Am I a zombie? Have i ever tried to blow anything up in the name of God or anything else. How exactly am I just like a muslim terrorist?

"I have tried to show you your indoctrination"

No you have not. You have eluded and given no specific data. Do you need to see a doctor about your amnesia? Why do you have trouble recalling information from school text books? Go see a doctor for your amnesia.

"You refuse to believe it like any other zealot"

No I do not refuse to believe it. Do you think that everything people do not believe is because they refuse to believe it? You don't believe what I am saying. Is it because you refuse? Are you a zealot because you do not believe that I am not indoctrinated when I keep telling you that I am not? Is that how it works? People who do not believe your assertions are zealots?

I'm looking for just a little more than your assertion that I am indoctrinated and that is all I have so far is your assertion. Not only can you not provide any examples from any of my text books, but now you can not eve answer the question of why you can not give any examples from my text books. Amnesia? Do you need help from a doctor?

"The binary minded atheist"

How could I be binary minded? I meditate and seek the transcendent every day? Could it be that you are just in the habit of calling all atheists binary minded or empiricists? Can you back up this statement that I am binary minded with some sort of example or quote where I show binary mindedness? Why are you all assertion and no back-up?

"You are attempting to trivialize it away from this very straightforward example."

What example? Did I miss the example? You mean the world is flat example? It's no good because no one can get into the mind of those people to see why they thought the earth was flat. Why no examples from today that can be verified? Amnesia? See a doctor.

"The evidence to the common day person that the world is flat or round is the same as it was hundreds of years ago"

This does not work bub. I've flown around the world many many times. I've seen pictures from space. Those people never even stepped foot on a boat. I have tons more evidence than they had. What a stupid stupid example. Completely out to lunch. You purposely give an example that is unverifiable because you can not give one that is verifiable. From today. From these school textbooks you claim to know so much about but can not quote one line of indoctrination from any of them. Not one single line. Why bring up textbooks so confidently if you can not quote one line from any of them that backs up your baseless assertion?

"Very few people have the evidence to prove otherwise other than society telling them so"

What year do you live in? You really sound like an insane person right now. There is endless evidence today that the earth is definitely round that did not exist back then. Society tells no one that the earth is round. Explorers told us 700 years ago and Billions of explorers since have confirmed this. Anyone alive today can hop on a plane and fly around the world in three days. But you, insane person that you are, are trying to convince rational adults that the people 1000 years ago had the same evidence we have today with which to determine if the world was flat or round? Dude. Stop embarrassing yourself. And this is your dodge away from quoting a text book that you thought might work? I am literally shaking my head in disbelief right now.

"I suspect you may not have that evidence either, that depends on your education, geometry, and a couple of tall pillars). Yet they believe differently due to their indoctrination, your indoctrination"

Kuckoo. Kuckoo.

"Free choice, give me a break, you actually believe that, now that is a superstition"

When did I say that? You are really a moron, it was you who told me that I was using my free choice to believe against what you believe because I was indoctrinated by what words or people you can name. I do not believe in free will. I also do not believe that free will does not exist. Just like everything for which there is no evidence (aesthetic or otherwise) I do not know if there is free will or not. Just like "absolute truth," with very good reason, I believe that no one knows if we truly have free will or if we truly do not. You accuse me of believing in free will? You are spinning out of control now. But I do tend to have that effect on cult members.

"Not an empiricist, come on, you just argued about evidence as determining wrongness and rightness of an opinion"

Including the aesthetic I said. I use all of the faculties that you use sir. Intuition, all of it. I do not operate in a binary way. You need to believe that I do to make yourself feel good.

"As the vedas say, there is one truth, we call it by different names"

So? Do they "know" this? These Vedas? Or is it just their opinion.

"You choose your level of ignorance, I choose mine"

I choose? With what, my free will that you mock the existence of? Spinning out of control you are.

"I see your constructs as elementary word play"

I see that as a line you learned from the Hindu book of Hinduism.

"You see mine as delusion and fraud"

Fraud? If your are not claiming to be a seer or a knower of the absolute truth of reality, then you are not a fraud. Like I said I was pretty sure you were claiming to be those things. But as for delusional? I'll put it this way, I believe that you believe that you know things that you do not really know. This is evident to me. I have a long list of evidences for this that I will gladly get into if you like. But it's all circumstantial. I could be wrong. I could always be wrong, about anything. That's how I roll.

"Yet you tell me that you do not make truth statements"

Only I know if I believe that what I say is the absolute truth. And I am telling you that I do not. Your are welcome to disbelieve me as you have been indoctrinated to do.

In the spirit of a level playing field:

http://www.answers.com/topic/empiricism

http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

"How can it be a choice if it has been indoctrinated into me? Are you saying that I was indoctrinated to choose for myself what I believe? You make no sense at all when you say that I CHOOSE to see what I have been INDOCTRINATED to see."

This statement is the example of your indoctrination. What you have said over and over. Your ideas on what religion is over and over. Do you think the muslim about to blow him or herself up thinks they are zombies. I have tried to show you your indoctrination. You refuse to believe it like any other zealot. The binary minded atheist. You are attempting to trivialize it away from this very straightforward example. You misdirect from your decision not to read the scriptures of the world to your presumption of an open mind. blah blah blah.

The evidence to the common day person that the world is flat or round is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. Very few people have the evidence to prove otherwise other than society telling them so (I suspect you may not have that evidence either, that depends on your education, geometry, and a couple of tall pillars). Yet they believe differently due to their indoctrination, your indoctrination.

Free choice, give me a break, you actually believe that, now that is a superstition.
Not an empiricist, come on, you just argued about evidence as determining wrongness and rightness of an opinion.

As the vedas say, there is one truth, we call it by different names. You choose your level of ignorance, I choose mine. I see your constructs as elementary word play. You see mine as delusion and fraud. Yet you tell me that you do not make truth statements.

But that too is ok. As a Hindu, as a worshiper of truth, I accept your truth in word play for you. I seek truth beyond that. I could be wrong.

hariaum

The Questions:

Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances? Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?

My Comments:

If there is an official set of rules, beliefs, or behaviors one must follow in order to qualify as a feminist, then it would seem that one who claims the label should follow the rules. If there are no such rules it would seem a woman would have considerable freedom to support or oppose a number of policies and actions and still claim to be a feminist.

The second question currently poised for discussion is a poor question because faith comes in many forms. Faith is not singular but extremely plural. Thus, the answer to the question as stated can only be YES and NO. If the question is intended to reference only people with some kind of religious based faith then the answer is still YES and NO.

Some ‘people of faith” sincerely believe that abortion is wrong in all circumstances; other “people of faith” believe that in some circumstances abortion is the right thing to do.

I have an opinion as to what the answer to the question SHOULD BE, but the question does not ask what I think should be.

Having responded to the two questions I now will express a few other thoughts that seem germane:

1. Sara Palin may or not be a feminist. I really don’t care. But Sara Palin is most certainly an opportunist and is potentially dangerous. Her stand on abortion is somewhat unclear. What is abundantly clear is her opposition to freedom of religion.

2. The leaders of the Catholic church (any church) can apparently impose all kinds of crazy rules and behaviors on their members, and there are a great many people who will abide by the crazy rules - the price they are willing to pay for membership in good standing. But the leaders of the Catholic church (and others) are eager to extend their influence and impose their rules and beliefs on the larger society. These group[s are opposed to freedom for religion (except for themselves) and thus they a are danger to the rest of us.

3. The decision as to whether to have an abortion should almost always be entirely the pregnant woman's decision because (a) she more than any other person except the fetus will have to live with the decision and (b) no other individual or entity would be better at making the decision (not doctor, church, or government).

4. The freedom of a woman to have an abortion should be limited to the early stages of the pregnancy, perhaps within the first three months. Any abortion after the specified time should be permissible only for health reasons (mother’s or fetus) or perhaps because of other serious medical reasons or because it has been determined that the unborn is seriously deformed or otherwise seriously handicapped.

In addition there are a few women who should not be allowed to unilaterally make this decision. This group would include most women who are seriously mentally handicapped and most women who are minors.

5. Abortion is NOT a violation of a law of God (if there are such laws) and is not a sin (whatever that is).

Most abortions have some negative impact on somebody, but it may well be that from time to time abortion is the right thing to do because it may be the smallest of the evils that seem to be coming out of the particular pregnancy.

NAVIN1

"we each see things that others do not"

No we all see the same things it seems to me. We draw different conclusions on what we see but our eyes all work pretty much the same. Same goes for all of our senses with the exception of certain anomalies and birth defects.

"for a long time people saw the world as flat because they were indoctrinated to see the world that way"

How do you know why they saw it as flat? Were you there? How come you can come up with an example from ancient times but you can not come up with one example from just one of my textbooks?

"They thought they were using rational and evidence based thinking but they were simply seeing what they were indoctrinated to see"

Who indoctrinated them? Do you have text books from back then that shows that people were taught to see the world as flat? My guess is that they were going on the best evidence and observation at the time. Nothing irrational or indoctrinated, just using their best evidence at the time.

"And yes, what you choose to see has been indoctrinated into you (and likewise to me)"

How can it be a choice if it has been indoctrinated into me? Are you saying that I was indoctrinated to choose for myself what I believe? You make no sense at all when you say that I CHOOSE to see what I have been INDOCTRINATED to see.

Why is it so difficult for you to just give one example that is not hundreds of years old. You said that I must have amnesia with regards to me text books. This can only mean that you know something that was in my text books that I can not remember. So just mention one thing. Can you not? Why not? Is it bs? Is that why?

"to be intellectually honest you need to be open to and explore data"

Oh I am. I am really really open to see anything transcendent. You simply can not make this accusation with me. I want to see what you say you see. I want to know and feel the transcendent. I really really do. But do you not see how old and sorry this whole "you do not see because you have a closed mind" thing is. Every religion and their brother uses that old line. It's what you say when you have nothing to verify your claims of seeing what others can not. It's so hack, and it has never worked on anyone that I know of. But in my particular case, it really does not fly because I want what you believe to be true to be true and I do search honestly for it.

"I particularly enjoy reading various atheist writers and critically looking at how they make truth statements of the state of nature"

Your mistake. You are obsessed with absolute truth so everything everyone says is a statement of absolute truth to you. Your hang up not theirs.

"I guess a believer in atheism would also read with disbelief"

There is no such thing as a believer in atheism. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods. They all have different reasons for not believing. But there is no "atheism" to believe in. There are no books outlying this thing you call "atheism" and what it's beliefs are. Atheism is a term invented by non atheists to try and make it look like a religion.

"then you have criteria for establishing wrongness"

Yes. It's called evidence.

"Once you have criteria, then you have to justify that criteria - most often done as to best evidence etc => empiricism as a way of knowing truth."

I am not an empiricist. Do you think that all atheists are empiricists ? Maybe this is your mistake. Maybe this is why you think that all atheists make truth statements. Hopefully this clears things up for you. Atheists are not automatically empiricists.

"Sorry, there is a truth and we are all trying to get to it"

Don't be sorry, I agree 100%

"It is not enough to say yea or nay, for me anyway"

When you vote, you can only say Yea or nay. Keep it legal or make it illegal.

"There is, to me, a principle not a random choice"

Who said anything about random? The choice is keep it legal, or make it illegal. It's not me that's making it simplistic, it's our democratic system that needs to make a decision one way or the other.

"Thus I do support the "pro-choice" position as fundamental to being human"

How hard was that? You vote to keep abortion legal.

I already said that the question of when life begins and abortion is a complex and difficult one. But our vote to keep it legal or to make it illegal is not complicated. We can not tell a woman what to do with something growing inside her own body so it's an easy call. Vote to keep it legal. I'm glad you made the right and easy choice.

"But I recognize the "pro-life" position as valid"

So do I. I struggle with the abortion issue like anyone. When life begins is not a religious issue. It's a human issue.

"For clarity note the difference of I support v I recognize"

Noted.

"So, you may call this a cop out but I think it is a reasonable position"

Me too. Still, the choice of which way to vote on it is an easy decision.

"but I recognize abortion as taking a life (again, like going to war, creating policing, over consuming resulting in impoverishing others...)"

It is taking a life, but it is not like any of those examples you gave. IMHO.

"Superstition, btw, is to believe what is not evidently true"

Good thing I am never guilty of that. Wether you want to admit it or not, at one time, in the absence of technology, the world was evidently flat. There was nothing irrational or indoctrinate about that belief. It was what the best evidence at the time and it led one to believe, until further evidence came along, that the world was flat.

But seriously, just one example, NAVIN1. Just one thing from any of my textbooks, or one thing that my teachers taught me that would have indoctrinated me away from seeing any truth that is out there. Can you do it? Or do you need to see a doctor for your amnesia? By your comments, it should be very easy for you to provide many many examples, and here I am only asking for one. Face it, you are stumped. You got nothing. My guess you will attempt once again to get away with eluding instead of providing one simple example, or eve a complex one. Or maybe you will come up with another 800 year old example that no one can verify and hope that it flies. It won't. Get some help for your amnesia and give me an example.

"I can believe something to be true without knowing for a fact that it is. This is the simple concept you can not grasp."

Hindu texts call that bhakti, often translated as faith. Superstition, btw, is to believe what is not evidently true.

I grasp what I grasp, You what you. I don't deny the value of faith to those that don't want to bother to prove everything they believe. It is rather convenient until it gets up and tries to kill you. But then you know, guns don't kill people and neither to cigarettes...

hariaum

1) we each see things that others do not.

2) "How exactly does one choose to see what they were indoctrinated to see? You either see it of your own choice or you are indoctrinated to see it. Unless you are saying that I am indoctrinated to choose my own beliefs? What are you saying?:" for a long time people saw the world as flat because they were indoctrinated to see the world that way. It was even useful. They thought they were using rational and evidence based thinking but they were simply seeing what they were indoctrinated to see. And yes, what you choose to see has been indoctrinated into you (and likewise to me).

"I need to read the entire indoctrination manual?" to be intellectually honest you need to be open to and explore data. To practice reduction of indoctrination, I recommend attempting to read simultaneously from your own critical perspective and from a believer's perspective. I found the Torah to be particularly enlightening in that fashion. The new testament is rather dull and disorganized no matter how you read it. The Koran is clearly divisive; us v them. The Gita is clearly universal. The Dhampada is also universal. The book of the Hopi, the Mainstalk, the Aman Cara, etc recognize tribal sources but are again universal in their recognition of the value of the personal experience with the divine. I particularly enjoy reading various atheist writers and critically looking at how they make truth statements of the state of nature (I guess a believer in atheism would also read with disbelief). Of course you don't have to work this hard to hold a belief, it is a path I have chosen.

"I have had many opinions in the past that have turned out to be wrong." then you have criteria for establishing wrongness. Either wrongness exists or it exists in the negation of Truth. Once you have criteria, then you have to justify that criteria - most often done as to best evidence etc => empiricism as a way of knowing truth. Sorry, there is a truth and we are all trying to get to it.

"So keep abortion legal? That is what you vote for? Just trying to get clarification." It is not enough to say yea or nay, for me anyway. That is too simplistic. There is, to me, a principle not a random choice. That principle is that the source of "human rights" is in being "human." Any violation of my humanity is a violation of my human rights. Recognizing the problem with definitions of these loose words, I accept that others may interpret and rule on laws differently than I (or my society). Thus I do support the "pro-choice" position as fundamental to being human. But I recognize the "pro-life" position as valid as ahimsa (non-harming) is a "good" restraint on freedom that promotes freedom. For clarity note the difference of I support v I recognize. So, you may call this a cop out but I think it is a reasonable position: I support the right to do with my body as I choose (including abortion) but I recognize abortion as taking a life (again, like going to war, creating policing, over consuming resulting in impoverishing others...). Sometimes a killing is ahimsa, sometimes a killing is himsa. The simple act in itself is not enough to decide.

hariaum

NAVIN1

"when did I say I was a seer? I said I was a mystic"

You certainly did say that you are a mystic. But you also have referred to yourself as a seer or at the very least you claimed to be able to see things that others can not. But this is real simple, if you are not claiming to be a seer and are not claiming to "know" truth, then I have misread you. My bad.

"I also said I have the tools of science, math, etc and like any tool I can use them"

Same here.

"You choose to see what are indoctrinated to see, you chose to be the seer"

How exactly does one choose to see what they were indoctrinated to see? You either see it of your own choice or you are indoctrinated to see it. Unless you are saying that I am indoctrinated to choose my own beliefs? What are you saying?

"Do you need to see a doctor? Your amnesia of textbooks is revealing"

Amnesia? You know something about what was in my text books that I am not remembering? Is this your assertion? Please do be specific and tell me what was in my text books that I am forgetting. "Hindus are nothing but cow worshipers who you should never listen to?" Was that in one of my text books? Why do you elude instead of getting specific. I mean I know why, but I want to hear you say it.

"Oh well, have faith, I am sure you will seek. Did you read a whole book on Hinduism, cool!"

No not the whole book. I guess that's my problem with not believing you. I need to read the entire indoctrination manual? Apparently if I read the whole Bible I'll see things the Christian way too. Well i did that and no go. I'll try to get through all of the Hindu scriptures one day. But from what I've read so far, I think it's pretty cool, but also much like other religions in it's attempts to claim knowledge of ultimate truth. "You won't see what we see until you let go of your ego because it is getting in the way" blah blah blah. Same old same old.

"Truth statements are of the like: you are delusional (this implies that you know what is true and the other person's perspective is false)"

Nope. That's also the form that opinions and theories take. It is your choice to see it as an absolute statement. It is my opinion that you are delusional based on the evidence I have seen so far which includes all of my religious studies, your words, and my intuition. (aesthetic?) I could be wrong. You may not be delusional. But I still hold that opinion pending further evidence. Aesthetic or otherwise.

Me: "I always know that my observations may be flawed,"

You: "how can something be known or even known to be flawed if there is no Truth"

Who said there was no truth? I just said that I don't know it and I don't believe that you do either.

"how can anything be wrong if it is just an opinion"

Since when are opinions immune to being wrong? I have had many opinions in the past that have turned out to be wrong. I once had the opinion that the God of Abraham existed and that I might go to hell. Man was I wrong.

"Whether you like it or not, whether it fits your model of yourself or not, you are making truth statements"

Nope, just giving opinions and stating what I believe. I can believe something to be true without knowing for a fact that it is. This is the simple concept you can not grasp. You want to force truth statements upon me. You want me not to be able to give my opinion or state my beliefs unless I have absolute certainty that I am right. Sorry, bud. I'll give my uncertain opinions and state my non-absolute beliefs any time I feel.

"When you say you can not make a truth statement, you are making a truth statement"

There you go again. Right back at it. Let me correct you one more time. When i say that I can not make a truth statement, that means that I do not currently know "the truth" and that is true (to the best of my knowledge) I do not know the truth. So how can I make any truth statement if I do not know the absolute truth? I would have to be lying and I'm not into lying. So while I currently believe that I can not make truth statements, I could be wrong. Maybe I am capable of making truth statements and I just don't know it for some reason. Perhaps I do know ultimate truth and I am somehow unaware of it and only think that I am incapable of making truth statements.

"You are stating what you truly believe about the state of knowing"

Now you got it. Not "the truth" but what I truly believe at the moment the statement is made.

"It is not my obsession with the absolute, it is your obsession with the denial of the absolute that stops you from seeing it"

I do not deny an absolute. Only that I do not know it and I don't believe that you do either. Not because of my conditioning but because of the things you say.

"My own take: I would not want someone else, a religious group, a government, etc telling me what to do with my body. So long as something is within my body, the property rights are mine solely. I suspect no one else would want the government taking property rights over their organs (I need you liver for a political friend. you there, I am taking your heart for my grand kid...). " It seems to me that this is a direct answer to the posed question"

So keep abortion legal? That is what you vote for? Just trying to get clarification. If this was clear in your post I apologize, I missed it.

Timmy

when did I say I was a seer? I said I was a mystic. I said I have a tool in my seeking for knowledge that includes mystical processes. I also said I have the tools of science, math, etc and like any tool I can use them. You choose to see what are indoctrinated to see, you chose to be the seer. As you say, quote it or stuff it - of course I reserve my right to paraphrase.

Do you need to see a doctor? Your amnesia of textbooks is revealing. Oh well, have faith, I am sure you will seek. Did you read a whole book on Hinduism, cool!

Truth statements are of the like: you are delusional (this implies that you know what is true and the other person's perspective is false), "I always know that my observations may be flawed," (how can something be known or even known to be flawed if there is no Truth), "Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Experience teaches us all of that No one has ever taught me how to tell right from wrong. We all learn this on our own." (how can anything be wrong if it is just an opinion). Whether you like it or not, whether it fits your model of yourself or not, you are making truth statements. When you say you can not make a truth statement, you are making a truth statement. You are stating what you truly believe about the state of knowing. It is not my obsession with the absolute, it is your obsession with the denial of the absolute that stops you from seeing it.

Funny, I don't remember meeting but it is good that you no longer think in black and white terms of Hindus and christians. I am glad I could help.

"My own take: I would not want someone else, a religious group, a government, etc telling me what to do with my body. So long as something is within my body, the property rights are mine solely. I suspect no one else would want the government taking property rights over their organs (I need you liver for a political friend. you there, I am taking your heart for my grand kid...). " It seems to me that this is a direct answer to the posed question.

You must not be able to read the full post, that's ok.

hariaum

NAVIN1

"I simply point out that a state or a society has an interest in assigning rights and that legitimizes the debate. It does not legitimize a particular answer"

Typical cop out. Tell us how you would personally vote on it. We're all aware that decisions need to be made. What's yours? Keep it legal or jail women who have abortions? Will you share your vote with us?

"If I use Pythagoras to suggest the Pythagorean theorem is correct does that make me a Pythagorean mystic brain washed by a pentagon on my hand?

Who would ever use Pythagoras to suggest the Pythagorean theory is correct? Even Pythagoras himself didn't use his own person to prove himself right. Besides, a simple calculator found on any digital wristwatch is all you need to prove Pythagoras right.

"by christo-islamists and atheists who believe all religions are the same because they have been socialized to believe it"

Ahhh is this your specific example? I have been socialized to believe that all religions are the same? That's funny. I've never thought that Hinduism or Buddhism were even remotely similar to the monotheisms nor do I recall any socialization that would have taught me this. It's really funny you being so annoyed by people confusing the two and yet you insist on calling your thing God and you choose to side with the Christians over the atheists who are closer to believing what you believe than the Christians are. Good work. Excellent choice of bedfellows.

"Hinduism is quite different than what you are implying"

"I worship truth. That does not mean you have to"

Yes I know. But you can not hear a single word I say without assuming that I think it's the absolute truth. It is because you have absolute truth on the brain. You insist on holding everyone else to the same absolute truth standards as your religion. You don't seem to understand the concept of not believing that one knows the absolute truth.

"Most people in the world do not worship Truth"

But everything they say is a truth statement none the less? No it is not. So stop pretending that it is. It confuses the argument. But I think you like the argument to be confused. Just like you like the confusion between your faith and monotheism. It helps you in your fight against those who do not believe tat you are a seer.

"They worship pleasure (kama), wealth (artha), some knowledge (gyana), and rare few true liberation (moksha)"

Oh they do, do they? Did you read that in your Hindu book of Hinduism?

"You continue to mistake me with a sadhu who knows as opposed to a mystic who is trying to know. I suspect that has to do with your indoctrinated bias against Hindu thought (that superstitious group of cow worshipers that you learned about in your social studies books that seemed so objective). "

Ahh another failed attempt at a specific example of what I was taught in school. I don't know what they teach in the USA but in my school, we never learned a thing about Hindus or cow worshipping. I knew nothing of Hinduism at all until I bought a book on it long after leaving School. So where's my indoctrination against your religion? What a crock. I mistook you for "one who knows" becasue you call yourself a "seer" and you sure as hell act like you "know" what ultimate truth is. If you are now claiming that you do not know what ultimate truth is, well that's good, because I really did think that you thought you "knew" that. But not because of any indoctrinating, because of your own words. But you'd just love to pass the blame to my indoctrination.

"I am but another fool trying to grasp what is beyond what I can grasp"

No that is me. You are claiming to know what's out there. At least that is how you come off.

"That is why I say I worship it"

Worship what? That thing you just a moment ago claimed that you did not "know"? I donlt know what lies beyond but I am going to worship it whaetver it is?

"I know full well that I can not grasp it"

You do? Just one moment ago you told me that I mistook you for someone who "knows" when in fact you are someone who is trying to know and now we're right back to you knowing again. My head is spinning.

"I know full well that it is beyond anything I can Know"

How do you know that? Because you see it? What?

"as my arbiter of morality and justice, of my guide to life, being, and bliss (satcitananda)"

How can an unknown thing guide you morally?

"I don't demand that you worship it, but I know you are a part of it even while you deny it"

Gee how ever did I mistake you for someone who "knows". Must be my indoctrination. lol.

"2+2= whatever I want it to be"

IC

"You have presumed a scalar math. 2+2=2(sqrt(2)) in a Euclidean plane as vector addition at 45 degrees"

No I'm just trying to add up my grocery bill. There is no presuming. If I have 3 items that cost $2 each it will cost me $6 to buy them. That's all they teach you in school. No math teacher ever told me that math was the ultimate truth to the universe and I bought it hook line and sinker. They just gave me information to help me do my taxes and I appreciate it. Math helps me quite a bit in my day to day life. And because I do not believe that it is some ultimate truth, it hinders me not in any way from knowing anything or seeking anything.

"In a non-Eucledean plane I can make 2+2 equal anything I want it to be and in that I end up defining the space in which I operate - for example the cognitive space of multidimensional matrices"

I'm so proud of you. That's amazing. But I've got news for you. I can also make 2 plus 2 equal anything I want. But generally I go with 4 for my grocery shopping.

"Stretching has not been proven to benefit you before exercising. There is contradictory data on this cultural myth"

Funny when I stretch before tennis I usually do not pull a muscle but when I'm lazy and do not stretch I usually do. But thanks for the tip, maybe I'll skip my next yoga class based on thid new information.

"You have stated all religions are delusional"

Quote it or stuff it. You lost paraphrasing privileges with me long long ago. I have never stated that all religions are delusional. Religions aren't capable of being delusional, only people are.

"That is a socially created mind set to which you were trained"

What is. That thing I never said? Nice try bud. You have failed in every attempt to prove this socialized mindset that has indoctrinated me. I judge you and your religion based on your own words and what I have read about it from it's own sources.

"After you read history and the primary scriptures you will see that is a false construct that someone fed you"

Been there, done that, and I still think you are full of it. Hinduism is one of my favorites of all of the religious traditions. There's a lot of good stuff in there. I have never had any negative feelings about Hinduism, but since meeting you, I have discovered that some Hindus are as delusional as some Christians.

"Queen Victoria Regina, is that you?"

That's what they say. They say it, trust me, I heard them say it. Who is they? The authorities, that's who. They say they say they say.

"It allows one free of thinking everybody else should live only to make me happy"

Aw, am I not making you happy with how I live? And you are just fine with that? Well praise the lord!

Heh Heh Heh

Persiflage,

"Timmy, another link for you on spiritual crisis.."

Jesus, Persiflage, did you read these links yourself? Neither describe a problem with a person waking up from their religious belief. These were all to do with real world losses like death of a loved one or dealing with one's own immanent death and having that cause a "spiritual crisis" because the person's faith had them convinced that they had some control over things or that God was a loving being who would not let this happen to them, being good faithful religious people that they are. Nice try, but people suffering a "crisis of their faith" over the death of a loved one is not people suffering "dire circumstances" at having simply lost their faith in God. The "loss" referred to in this article was in every case referring to the loss of a loved one or the news of one's own death, and the "spiritual Crisis" is not "dire circumstances" caused by a loss of their faith but a crisis ABOUT their faith caused by a death. Keep looking if you like but I doubt you'll find anything on simple loss of faith crisis that brings on dire circumstances simply by noticing that you no longer believe in God.

"Timmy, the Out of Africa theory is not settled science by any means..... I wouldn't be surprised to see this theory overturned with additional fossil evidence from Asia"

Ah, so it wasn't a blurt so much as you were predicting the future. I see. I was the one who initially made the comment that we all came out of Africa as one species, and you felt the need to counter my argument for some reason with a ten year old wrong article and now you are telling me that that was okay because you predict that the article you quoted will be right again one day in the future? Just drop it, Persiflage. You were wrong to counter my statement of actual current science with a ten year old link that you did not take any time to vet, and now your excuse is that you think that ten year old article might be found to be right again in the future? Would you please.

I have no interest in being adversarial with you Persiflage, I like you and I come here to this blog specifically to read you and others, and I almost always enjoy your links. But sometimes you can be more than a little condescending to me and when you start doing it with false facts and blurts about non existent "dire circumstances" I'm not just going to take it.

"There are elements within contemporary Christianity that show cult-like aspects, particularly among fundamentalist/evangelical Protestants and more than a few Catholics – I could give examples. Some could definitely use the services of a de-programming center"

And I say it goes deeper than that. Have you given any thought to my hypothetical about children not being exposed to religion until their teen years and then being taught everything about them and left to their own choice or non choice? How many would become Christians and believe that the God of Abraham is real? 80% like now? Less than 80%? Far far far less than 80%? Is it your contention that childhood indoctrination into Christianity is not a contributing factor to the popularity of Christianity in American today?

"My considered opinion - ‘Christianity today’ remains a religion, and fails to meet the standard definition of a cult"

Wow. You got me on a technicality. Good one. Praise the Lord.

Timmy
clarifications:

I do not believe anyone has property rights over my body parts. Thus I do not believe anyone has property rights to anyone else's body parts (the government saying you must or must not have abortions). If you give up your property rights to your body, ie to a religion, to your children, etc, that's up to you.

I simply point out that a state or a society has an interest in assigning rights and that legitimizes the debate. It does not legitimize a particular answer.

NorthUP. I guess you were misdirecting us.

My coming to Hinduism. Can you prove what you assert as to my belief there. If I use Pythagoras to suggest the Pythagorean theorem is correct does that make me a Pythagorean mystic brain washed by a pentagon on my hand? I came to Hinduism the hard way. I was raised secular. I was a vocal atheist by the time I was in 4'th grade. I just happened to see a great deal of wisdom in the ancient texts that is often overlooked (by christo-islamists and atheists who believe all religions are the same because they have been socialized to believe it).

Hinduism is quite different than what you are implying. As a Hindu, I have no claim on your view to the universe. As a Hindu, I salute the divine within you that is on its personal path to the total divine of Tat Sat. As a Hindu, I know that Brahman pervades all this and all that. I do not believe that I am unindoctrinated. That is your sloppy reading. I said we are all indoctrinated, you changed that to make your argument, or perhaps because it does not fit with your indoctrination of the facts about yourself. I worship truth. That does not mean you have to. Most people in the world do not worship Truth. They worship pleasure (kama), wealth (artha), some knowledge (gyana), and rare few true liberation (moksha). We each yoke (yoga) ourselves to certain ways of seeing the world largely based on our internal nature, some fixed, some not fixed. That internal nature is selected for in our genes and in the society to which we are born (particularly parents). Some people need a simple lesson on how to do morality. Some people need a more nuanced approach. The former find for themselves a book or a cult to follow. The latter investigate either externally or internally for greater gyana. You continue to mistake me with a sadhu who knows as opposed to a mystic who is trying to know. I suspect that has to do with your indoctrinated bias against Hindu thought (that superstitious group of cow worshipers that you learned about in your social studies books that seemed so objective). I am but another fool trying to grasp what is beyond what I can grasp. That is why I say I worship it. I know full well that I can not grasp it. I know full well that it is beyond anything I can Know. Yet, I bow before it as my god as my somum bonum, as my definition of the divine, as my arbiter of morality and justice, of my guide to life, being, and bliss (satcitananda). I don't demand that you worship it, but I know you are a part of it even while you deny it.

2+2= whatever I want it to be. You have presumed a scalar math. 2+2=2(sqrt(2)) in a Euclidean plane as vector addition at 45 degrees. In a non-Eucledean plane I can make 2+2 equal anything I want it to be and in that I end up defining the space in which I operate - for example the cognitive space of multidimensional matrices.

Stretching has not been proven to benefit you before exercising. There is contradictory data on this cultural myth.

You have stated all religions are delusional. That is a socially created mind set to which you were trained. After you read history and the primary scriptures you will see that is a false construct that someone fed you.

hariaum

DANIEL12.

"Weighing in on whether all of religion, etc.")

Quite so. I have found living life as a non-thinking atheist is caring about family, a few friends, what the government I've chosen to live under, and accept, has decided for me to do -- if I can't find a safe way out of it -- and that's about it.

And, of course, lots and lots of playing Golf.

On the topic, as a man I cannot have an abortion, I can only pay for the consequences of having sex. I merely don't like paying for the consequences of others having sex, but I go along to get along. Whatever works. Make a lot of money, and it's no problem, one way or another.

Runnin on empty is fun. It allows one free of thinking everybody else should live only to make me happy.

heh heh heh

Weighing in on whether all of religion and not just obvious cults of several hundred members can be characterized as "brainwashing" or that a "spell" has been put on people, I dislike these terms for the simple reason that it implies that a lack of being "brainwashed" in religion or having been been "released from the spell" of such is a state of obvious and definitive awakening to be starkly set against religion--and of course being an awakening or cleansing of mind or release from a spell it must be a view of the world vastly superior and with great coherence and psychological satisfaction to it. And notice how it does not allow for any concept of enlightenment in religion let alone levels of such--no revelation, no "opening of the mind's eye", and so on--even as it steals from religion the entire dichotomy of darkness/illumination, sleeping/awakening, brainwash/non-brainwash, etc. Which is to say, it was in religious ages that the previous dichotomies were set forth, and here they are used to place the entirety of religion on one side of the balance, and on the other, well, what exactly is on the other side, what exactly the world is without religion, has not been at all acutely described. We are to just take it as awakening from a spell or something of the like. Same language as in religious ages used and same vague awakening. Or are we to take the non-religious as clearly awakened in comparison to the non-religious? Dennett the leader out of the cave?

Rush Limbaugh and other right wing Republicans have often ranted about the evils of feminism and yet one of the top right wing Republicans in the nation now claims the title of “frontier feminist.” Is Sarah Palin really a feminist?

The concept of feminism generally refers to the idea of gender equality. This concept causes a bit of a contradiction for politically active Bible literalists like Sarah Palin. On the one hand in her speech to the Susan B. Anthony List, Palin talks about how women can be professional and still be mothers. This message is very much consistent with the ideals of feminism. On the other hand, the Bible has numerous verses about the role of women to be submissive to their men. Women are often treated as property in the Bible.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:

http://www.examiner.com/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m5d19-On-Faith-Sarah-Palins-feminism-faith-and-abortion

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

'Before I pointed out to you that the information was 10 years old and wrong, you stated it as fact. "There are two competing theories" you said. But their weren't. and you weren't going to check your facts until I pointed it out. I call that a blurt, yes.'
___________

Timmy, the Out of Africa theory is not settled science by any means. There's plenty of controversy. As usual, the best links are blocked without a paid membership.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this theory overturned with additional fossil evidence from Asia. The recent 2008 reported find in China just below is already casting considerable doubt......

Timmy:

‘Who ever said religion is a cult? Not me. Pay attention to details please. They are important. Why, when I say the word "Christianity today" do you hear the word "religion?"’

The distinction is probably lost on me and countless others that may be reading this. There are elements within contemporary Christianity that show cult-like aspects, particularly among fundamentalist/evangelical Protestants and more than a few Catholics – I could give examples. Some could definitely use the services of a de-programming center.

My considered opinion - ‘Christianity today’ remains a religion, and fails to meet the standard definition of a cult.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1958908/posts

http://www.eutimes.net/2008/01/chinese-skull-find-puts-%E2%80%98out-of-africa%E2%80%99-theory-in-question/

REF: Possible dire effects of losing religious faith.

Timmy, another link for you on spiritual crisis....note where it says that spiritual crisis or spiritual emergency is a distinct psychiatric disorder noted by the American Psychiatric Association.

http://www.deathreference.com/Sh-Sy/Spiritual-Crisis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

"Tell us specifically what we bought that you did not, man."

Queen Victoria Regina, is that you? Another life? As a comedian?

What did you do?

heh heh heh

Persiflage,

I read your latest links. Good reading. I'm not too convinced by the twins experiment, but the interview with Smart was great. He's a wise man. But it only confirms my belief that free and open minded spirituality that kind of cherry picks from all of the religious traditions will take over for the cultified tribal religions of today and yesteryear. It's already happening. That is what will fill this void you seem so concerned about. I don't see it as a void. I have the very same spiritual spirit as any religious person, it's just that mine has not been hijacked by a cult. They will not lose that spiritual spirit, they will just have it released from the hijackers.

Like Smart, I dig me some Jesus, and some Buddha, and some Brahma, and some confucius, and I keep trying to talk my wife into a little Mormonism, but no luck so far. ;)

I think that's the way it will go. Down with divisive religious cults and up with educated individual spirituality. I know you think people will still want to have their spirituality in encouragement groups but I think those will be much smaller and fringe compared to todays massive god cults.

NAVIN and Runnin both suffer from the same affliction I've seen in a number of people whereby they think that everyone has bought the bullsh!t but them. They see through all the marketing and education and propaganda, man, but the rest of us have bought it all, suckers. I have whole bit about these people in my act. It's one of my biggest crowd pleasers. It gets the "it's so true" laugh. (Note to NAVIN: There is no such thing as the "it's certainly absolutely true" laugh btw)

Note though how neither of these two can give any specific examples of the things we've bought into that they have not. For example, neither could answer the challenge to name one specific thing that I was taught in school, that I bought hook line and sinker, and that is not true. Or can they?

2 + 2 actually = 5 ? Arthur Miller did not write any tragic plays? Germany is not in europe? The American revolution did not occur? Stretching muscles before athletic exercise is not a good idea? A before O or up you do not go?

Tell us specifically what we bought that you did not, man. I'd sure like to be enlightened.

"Funny, I don't know of one psychiatrist who would agree with that statement"

What that I take everything I've ever been taught with a grain of salt? How would a psychiatrist know that without talking to me? One thing I do not doubt though is that you have much experience with psychiatrists.

"The ego is formed long before one learns from experience, they say"

They say They say. They say. They say. No, they really do say. I've heard them say it. They say we're all just believing what we've been told. The experts say that. So you might think that you are not affected by everything that you've been told, but they say that you are. I heard them say it. That's how I know it's true. Because they say it is.

heh heh heh

Persiflage,

"I'm just putting two and two together"

Me too. But I'm not accusing you of getting emotional satisfaction out of putting two and two together. Grow up.

"I'm generally not blurting out anything, but rather I'm expressing an opinion that I support with various kinds of evidence"

I have asked you for evidence to support your "dire circumstances" assertion and heard crickets. It was a blurt without thought. You have not backed up this statement with any evidence. I have been waiting for you to do so.

"If you don't like my age-worn links, provide something superior"

I generally read and like your links. But if you are going to get snippy with people that you are debating because you think they haven't read you links, which you do regularly, I suggest vetting your links better, or don't be so insistent that people you are having discussions with read them. If there was another blogger here who spoke with links as often as you do I'm sure you would not read all of them either. But seriously, I do read most of your links.

"I recall the 'origins of modern man discussion' and finding the more recent 'out of Africa' links in a couple of minutes. And now you're claiming that incident as one of my 'blurting out' moments?"

Before I pointed out to you that the information was 10 years old and wrong, you stated it as fact. "There are two competing theories" you said. But their weren't. and you weren't going to check your facts until I pointed it out. I call that a blurt, yes.

"Start with providing some supporting evidence from subject matter experts that religion is really nothing more than a process of being brainwashed by cults"

Why would I provide evidence to back up something I never said. You keep wanting to turn this into a conversation on why humans are RELIGIOUS in the first place. I have told you several times that I was dealing with the question of why CHRISTIANTY is STILL popular TODAY in The United States Of America. Do you not see that these are two completely different things? I am talking about one very specific religion in one country in one era. You are talking about all religion all time for all people. In that argument, I am much in agreement with your theories and the theories of the professors you quote.

"The religion as cult discussion hasn't got any more steam as near as I can tell"

Who ever said religion is a cult? Not me. Pay attention to details please. They are important. Why, when I say the word "Christianity today" do you hear the word "religion?"

Timmy:

'That's right. Children born in Saudi Arabia are just following their own genetic programming, just like all believers. That's all religion is.....'

I guess that comment was made facetiously, but I'm pretty much committed to the idea that humans learn religion just like everything else - however, the article below mentions research with identical twins that points toward a genetic component in religious tendencies.

I think we have to differentiate the general processes of 'learning' from the methods and purposes of 'indoctrination' when it comes to all behavior.

And more on the future of religion from an eminent scholar of the discipline.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147

http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/smart.html

Persiflage,

Imagine we could somehow keep religious teaching from children born in the united States until the age of 15. Then they are taught everything about religion that is available knowledge wise. They are taught the complete history of it, as Daniel Dennett and I strongly advise is done today.

Ask yourself honestly, how many of them would gravitate to Christianity and fall for it hook line and sinker. 80%? Less than 80%? Far far far less than 80%?

How we got here is complicated and deep, you are correct about that. Why it continues is simple. Not simple minded. Just simple.

It's a cult, stupid.

"Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Experience teaches us all of that No one has ever taught me how to tell right from wrong. We all learn this on our own. Sure people have attempted over the years to tell me what IS right and what IS wrong, but I always took it with a grain of salt and decided for myself. I think most people do. At least most atheists"

Funny, I don't know of one psychiatrist who would agree with that statement. The ego is formed long before one learns from experience, they say. Affectations -- as the word is used in psychiatry -- rule, they say. And once the ego is formed, its affectations inform the individual what each experience means to that individual.

In treatment for neurosis, that is what is being treated -- experiences the affectations of the ego is reckoning to the sufferer's detriment.

Sometimes an individual not in treatment merely attempts to inflict his neurosis on others.

heh heh heh

"This is way too simple-minded, although a very emotionally satisfying position for atheists with an attitude"

______________

Timmy, the brainwashing and religion idea is all yours, as far as this discussion goes. I say it's a simple-minded view, and you say that you're satisfied with it. I'm just putting two and two together.

I'm generally not blurting out anything, but rather I'm expressing an opinion that I support with various kinds of evidence. Criticize away, but start providing some support for your own positions. If you don't like my age-worn links, provide something superior.

I recall the 'origins of modern man discussion' and finding the more recent 'out of Africa' links in a couple of minutes. And now you're claiming that incident as one of my 'blurting out' moments? The conversation is taking an unproductive turn.

Start with providing some supporting evidence from subject matter experts that religion is really nothing more than a process of being brainwashed by cults. Really, I'd like to read it.

Religion is not the Scientology that you mention, or Stalinism, or Maoism, or the Moonies, and so forth. These are all personality cult movements, with no deities in evidence.

There are plenty of examples of cults with and without divinities, and yet no serious student of religion reduces religion to a status of so many cults. Religion is a completely integral part of society, and this has always been the case - except where it's been outlawed and replaced by various personality cults.

The religion as cult discussion hasn't got any more steam as near as I can tell.

An example of a religiously inspired cult below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

NAVIN1

In a nutshell, your obsession with absolute truth blinds you to the fact that there are people out there, lots of us, who are not obsessed with absolute truth and certainty. We still speak our minds, but we are never absolutely certain that what we are saying is the truth. It's our best assessment based on all input including the "aesthetic". Most atheists I know are atheists precisely because they are agnostic. One can not be agnostic and believe in God, so agnostics are automatically atheists. Some don;t admit it because they think it sounds rude, but all agnostics are atheists, however not all atheists are agnostic. But most are and I am. Unfortunately for you, you are not dealing with any non agnostic atheists here on this blog. Or at least I've not seen any. They are actually quite rare which is unfortunate for you because your argument only works against them.

What you want to do, but you may not do, is hold us agnostic atheists to the same standard you set for yourself via your religion in only dealing in absolute truths.

I do not know the absolute truth about anything nor have I ever thought that I did. I understand how certain I can sound when I give my opinions. That is because I am saying things that I believe to be true based on a lot of evidence, research and intuition. But "believe to be true" and "know to be true" are two completely different things. I always know that my observations may be flawed, or information that I have may be wrong, or the conclusion that I have come to may be flawed logically or in some other way. And the best way to find out if that is true, is to put these beliefs based on evidence, research and intuition, out there for others to vet and scrutinize and give me counter arguments etc. Then I can reassess. But even then I will still not know the absolute truth, I will just have a new latest theory. That's the best I can do not knowing absolute truth.

With this in mind, it should be quite obvious to you that I question everything I have ever been taught in school, or told was true by anybody, and I even question my own drawn conclusions about the things that I observe. Always. You may continue to believe that I am an indoctrinated human, and I will continue to believe that you are just reciting lines from your Hindu book of Hinduism like the good truth worshipping loyal Hindu that you are. At least until I see some evidence to the contrary. Aesthetic or otherwise.

It's funny, you want me to question everything I've ever been taught, which I do constantly, but when I question your assertions suddenly I am only being skeptical because I have been taught to be skeptical.

We humans probably learn skepticism before we ever learn a single word. We learn it from experience, not from our math teachers.

The question of when life begins is a complicated one. Therefore the question of wether or not to have an abortion is a complicated one. But the question of wether or not we can, as a society can outlaw abortion does not seem too complicated to me. However you feel about when life begins, you have to look at how our society works and ask yourself "can we force women to bring their pregnancies to term" or do we really want to be putting women in jail for having abortions?

I wonder if the advocates for outlawing abortion here, Navin included, have followed through their thinking to a world where we are jailing women for terminating their pregnancies. I wonder if they really care so much more about those fetuses than the suffering that will ensue in such a world. The black market back alley abortions that will replace the current regulated clinical system. It will happen. Do they not know that? It will be ugly and horrendous the suffering of the women who go to jail, the women who act out of desperation and go to the back alley, and their families. Certain suffering and lots of it. The only suffering I see going on now due to abortion is the suffering of all of those religious people who think their God has been offended.

Are you really advocating jailing women for terminating their pregnancies. Why would you want to live in that society? Will it be better than this one? For who? God?

NAVIN1

"And yes, of course that is the sign of how well indoctrinated you are"

Of course. It makes perfect sense. If you believe that you have not been indoctrinated according to all of the evidence you observe, well obviously this means that you have been indoctrinated. This is clearly laid out in the Hindu book of Hinduism, silly.

"A simple objective concept as up and you can't see that up does not equal north"

I can't? Who says? You? The Hindu book of Hinduism? I'm not buying any of it, seer man. Apparently you couldn't see that I was mocking you with the "up" thing. Some seer you are.

"You might even wonder if maps are contrived to represent certain hegemonic principles of dominance"

No I do not wonder. I know for a fact that it is true. Maps are most definitely biased. Your problem is thinking that everyone buys everything but you somehow see though the marketers and the propaganda unlike the rest of us saps. It's a superiority complex that makes perfect sense coming from a self proclaimed seer.

"When you give up your ideology as being certainly true for you are certainly unindoctrinated"

I guess I am unindoctrinated then. When have I ever believed my ideology was certainly true? You are projecting again. Man you do that a lot with this thing you call absolute truth.

"then can you begin to think freely"

I began doing that long long ago. You are not the only one. Your mistake is believing that only Hindus can do this. The reason you believe that, is because you learned it in the Hindu book of Hinduism.

"But you are certain that I am wrong. What more need be said"

How about something that is not a lie, like. I am not certain that you are wrong. That's just what I believe at this current juncture. You are the one who is obsessed with certainty and absolute truth. I am not so deluded.

Persiflage,

"This is way too simple-minded, although a very emotionally satisfying position for atheists with an attitude"

Emotionally satisfying? You are an atheist with an attitude. Are you emotionally satisfied by it? I think you said that you are not satisfied by it, so i guess that means that it is not emotionally satisfying to all atheists with an attitude. So you must be specifically referring to me in which case I would ask you to elaborate on exactly what emotionally satisfies me about believing that people have been brainwashed into a cult? What a bizarre statement. Sometimes I think you speak without thinking it through. Like when you said that people losing their faith can bring "dire consequences." I don't think you thought that through much before you blurted it out like it was fact and I think the same goes for this "emotional satisfaction" you seem to think that I get out of believing that people have been brainwashed by a cult.

I am in agreement with DITLD on the issue of belief. We do not choose what to believe, we believe what seems true to us. So if it seems true to me that the reason for the popularity of Christianity is childhood indoctrination, how does that make me emotionally satisfied? Think before you blurt.

"Nowhere is religious/theocratic indoctrination more thoroughly practiced as a social norm than in Saudi Arabia. Now you're talking real indoctrination coupled with coercion......."

Are you sure you don't just believe that because it gives you emotional satisfaction? Or is it the evidence that points to it being true that makes you believe it.

"In the end, religion meets human needs for active believers, even in extreme cases"

In the end heroin meets certain needs for active users, even in extreme cases.

"The actively religious only infrequently become non-religious"

Yes, the active scientologists only infrequently become non scientologists. Brainwashing is an amazingly powerful thing.

"according to the stats. Believers may simply be following their own genetic programming in some subtle way"

That's right. Children born in Saudi Arabia are just following their own genetic programming, just like all believers. That's all religion is. Not a brainwashing cult, it's genetic in some people. And what a coincidence that it seems to be more genetic in people who's parents indoctrinate them than in people who's parents did not indoctrinate them. What a fluke. Oh wait, it's hereditary?

"See the link below for yet another theorem.....in particular the puzzle of the non-religious minority. We don't seem to fear hell, for some peculiar reason"

Hmmmm.... some reason .... Hmmmm.... Not indoctrinated to fear it as a child? I feared hell for years after becoming an atheist. And I was not indoctrinated by my parents as a child. That is just from societal pressures and one summer of Sunday School. The built in brainwashing techniques of Christianity got to me over one summer. I can not even imagine the power infantile indoctrination would have had. Or rather I can. And it leaves me with no mystery as to the popularity of this cult.

I'll take a look at your link though. Is this one outdated and wrong like some of your links? Never mind, I'll check for myself. Remember when you told us about the 2 currently competing theories on the out of Africa thing and then you backed up your statement with a link to a ten year-old article that was wrong?

"Regarding the origins and functions of religion, he's another theorist that abides by the concept that religion and humans just naturally go together, from time immemorial"

From time immemorial, okay. And still? I think not. That is why religion world wide is dropping and has been ever since the invention of the printing press.

"this is not an absolutist construct."

What "is not an absolutist construct"?

"When we pass laws and enforce them, we create a system of coercion."

OK...

"Even if deterrence is not 100%, the presence of jails deters some from breaking laws."

Perhaps...

"Likewise, if we pass laws that charge women with murder if they abort, we as a society, are enforcing a woman's behavior."

No, we are forcing women to give birth against their wills.

"We can and do argue about how much coercion we use in our society to manipulate a person's body integrity."

I don't.

Timmy

Abbott's Flatland had a point being. You might find a picture of yourself.

Of course you think you are in control. Of course you think no one indoctrinates you. Of course you think you were a skeptic before people taught you to be skeptical to others. Of course you think I am wrong. And yes, of course that is the sign of how well indoctrinated you are.

In ancient chinese maps North is down. Oh that doesn't count. Wait a minute, if you put the map on the floor, up is outer space. If you flip it over, up is still outer space. A simple objective concept as up and you can't see that up does not equal north. I wonder if that might be a sign of your indoctrination. You might even wonder if maps are contrived to represent certain hegemonic principles of dominance. You might even find out that the projections used are constructs themselves. You might even see that there are maps that look quite different when trying to be true to geography (whatever that might mean). Then you might wonder how it is that social differences in mathematical understanding can be exist. Then you might wonder how social constructs of right and wrong are formed in the social history and the social psychology. Then you might just wonder what lies outside of cave of shadows that Plato so well described to us.

Of course I am wrong, no one cares what I say. Nor should they. Words are models. if the words we use are models created by someone else, we limit or cognition to what they want us to think words mean. (so may universities require multiple languages - so you can see other models of how to use words and ideas.) Only when you can get past the words, down to the being of a person, an idea, a logic, do you understand it. Dhyana = cha'an = Zen.

When you give up your ideology as being certainly true for you are certainly unindoctrinated (just as the islamic martyrs of EP are so certainly unindoctrinated in their own minds while they are certain that you are), then can you begin to think freely. But you are certain that I an wrong. What more need be said.

hariaum

'Meanwhile, an Arizona nun was "automatically excommunicated" for agreeing with a Catholic hospital's ethics committee's decision to allow an abortion to save a mother's life.'
________

There are times when I almost agree with Timmy regarding the Catholic Church and it's cult-like nature. The Catholic Church demonstrates a form of extreme irrationality and knee-jerk inhumanity with this kind of unreason.

Catholicism, like the majority of religions, is patriarchal and all too often ruled by celebate(?) men that have no direct knowledge of the domains that they attempt to govern - either by subtle or blatant intimidation. Religion can get ugly.

I propose a natural law - women are the naturally given solitary authorities over their own reproductive life.

Further, societies and nations can't be viewed as legal stakeholders when weighing the reproductive rights of women.

For the time being, women still have these legal protections with Roe v Wade.

The Arizona nun above made the mistake of choosing humanity over insanity - and see where that got her.

psolus

this is not an absolutist construct. When we pass laws and enforce them, we create a system of coercion. Even if deterrence is not 100%, the presence of jails deters some from breaking laws. Likewise, if we pass laws that charge women with murder if they abort, we as a society, are enforcing a woman's behavior. We can and do argue about how much coercion we use in our society to manipulate a person's body integrity.

hariaum

NAVIN1

"And so society teaches you the value of skepticism"

Flat wrong. Trial and error does.

"romanticism, what makes you laugh, the value of looking up logical systems, the experts you believe, the persons you don't, consumerism, ...."

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Experience teaches us all of that No one has ever taught me how to tell right from wrong. We all learn this on our own. Sure people have attempted over the years to tell me what IS right and what IS wrong, but I always took it with a grain of salt and decided for myself. I think most people do. At least most atheists.

"Forget the marketing experts manipulating your value system"

No one manipulates my value system but me. But this "he says" "she says" thing will continue until you GET SPECIFIC. Sinply tell me one specific way in which I have been indoctrinated into anything.

"forget the politico and book sellers trying to get your vote..."

I'm guessing by now that you believe that all suggestions are indoctrinations. At least this is how you are coming across. Every time someone tells me something, I have been indoctrinated according to your list of indoctrination examples.

"If you can't see that your choice of coffee"

Yes the coffee makers have indoctrinated me. Walk/Don't Walk signs are also forms of indoctrination, right? Peer pressure is indoctrination right? All suggestions people make to me are indoctrination right? Heck can anyone name anything that is not indoctrination? Why does the definition of indoctrinate not just say, "anything that anyone ever tells you or suggests to you is called indoctrination, in fact by reading this definition, you have been indoctrinated."

"you can't see that their will is imposed on you from birth... "

Who's will? BE SPECIFIC. JUST ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF INDOCTRINATION. PLEASE.

"Then I certainly should not expect you to see that I did give specific examples"

Really? Can you repeat just one of them? Humor me. One specific example of me being told how to determine truth is and what to believe.

"If you don't know how your mind is made up for you by others"

This is what you say. But it is just not so. This is why you can not give me one example of someone making up my mind for me about anything. Can you?

"I apologize for you limited education"

Apologize for your grammar first. Then note how the above statement is meaningless given that all of our education is limited.

"A theory of knowledge, a study of empirical reasoning (science), a priori reasoning (mathematics), logic (linguistics and grammar), are fundamental pieces of an education"

Funny, somehow I made it all the way through high school without being taught any theory of knowledge or empirical reasoning. I have since studied these things on my own through the internet. Let me guess, this is indoctrination too just like everything else. It's all indoctrination right?

"North is not up. Look it up"

I'm looking at a map right now. Trust me, North is up. Oh wait, I just turned the map upside down. Whoa! I can't believe what just happened. You are right! I was lied to. North is down! Thanks for setting me straight.

"Long before you were born, a school board designated by the governance structure of your society sat down and decided what information you would receive and what you wouldn't"

So information = truth? I don't think so. Are you sure you are not projecting your own obsession with absolute truth onto our education system? I think you are. Remember when you tried to tell me that all of my opinions are truth statements? You were wrong, they were just my current opinions. The information I received at school was never put to me as the absolute truth. Nor did I take it as such. I was skeptical long before anyone could teach me to be skeptical. I remember always being skeptical about what I was being taught in School.

"They fundamentally set out to decide the intellectual space in which you would cognize the world"

Oh yeah? Who told you that? Perhaps you were indoctrinated into believing that.

"Those that liked what they taught you were called teachers"

Why are there two different words for "teaching" and "indoctrination". Could it be because they are not the same thing? Our words have definitions for reasons. But maybe I was just indoctrinated into thinking that communication was important.

"Then you were taught what is a legitimate argument and what was a legitimate source"

Is this you being specific? It sounds extremely broad and generalized to me. I don't recall being taught any of those things. I was taught math, reading, writing, geography, history, shop, gym, and music. In which one of these classes was I taught about empiricism or what constitutes a legitimate argument. I simply do not recall being taught any of those things. When I tell you that you need to get specific, this is not what I meant. I mean SPECIFIC. Tell me exactly what I was taught about truth. Just one example.

"Eventually (about the age of 5 or so) you could not get evidence for the answers they were giving you so you stopped thinking and started reciting"

And who taught you this? I think they were having you on. I think you have been duped. I never stopped thinking.

"After adolescence, or thereabouts, someone told you that there are alternatives and you began abstracting"

lol. I was calling bs on my teachers and parents long before adolescence. Still no specifics huh? It sounds like you are reciting. It really does.

"based on the initial guidance (indoctrination) of those that got you going"

Aha! Guidence = indoctrination. Got it.

"You self selected those you agreed with and continue on that path that is a self affirmation of what you believe yourself to have believed"

This sounds like something recited from the Hindu guide to Hindusm.

"those who say they know, know not"

Thank you for reminding us that you know not.

"But my point was that in a society, a cohesive group of individuals, we enforce certain norms that tend to define how we operate in the world as a group."

How do we "enforce" that all women bring their pregnancies to term, irrespective of their choice? Do we tie them down until they finally give birth?

How do we "operate in the world as a group" with regard to a woman's pregnancy? Do we take turns carrying the fetus? Do we flip a coin to determine which one of us actually gives birth?

"If it were only a question of individual liberty..."

It is exactly a question of individual liberty. There is no reason to change that.

Timmy, this old religion professor of mine would get quite a kick out of the 'brainwashing' hypothesis, I think.

Regarding the origins and functions of religion, he's another theorist that abides by the concept that religion and humans just natually go together, from time immemorial.
______________

'Professor Ernest Thomas (Tom) Lawson is a research scientist at the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen's University Belfast.

He is the executive editor of the Journal of Cognition and Culture (JCC) and co-founder (with Dr Luther Martin and Dr Donald Wiebe) of the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR).

He is a founding member and has served as the first President of the International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion (IACSR).

Professor Lawson is widely considered to be the founder of the Cognitive Science of Religion field. He has published the books Religions of Africa: Traditions in Transformation (1984)[1] and, with Robert N. McCauley, Rethinking Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture (1990)[2] and Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Ritual Forms (2002).[3]

He also played a leading role in the establishment of departments of religion at public universities in the United States during the 1960s. A festschrift in his honor, Religion as a Human Capacity: A Festschrift in Honor of E. Thomas Lawson, was published in 2004. He is Emeritus Professor of Comparative Religion at Western Michigan University.

In addition to his research activities Professor Lawson is an avid painter, traveler, science fiction reader, and bird watcher.'

It will be so wonderful if a time comes that Sarah Palin's name appears nowhere in the media! I would have nothing against her once that became the case, but the obsession with Palin (especially when dominating headlines of articles purporting to be about important topics, like faith) makes me miss such at-last deservedly-obscure personas as Blago, Paris Hilton, even Joe the Plumber.

psolus

I think I get your point. Yes every moral decision comes down to an individual choice. But my point was that in a society, a cohesive group of individuals, we enforce certain norms that tend to define how we operate in the world as a group.

If it were only a question of individual liberty, we could stop at that point. But as a society we engage as a group - pass laws etc. Those laws are a shift in the rights of individuals (we give up the personal right for vigilante justice so that we can be free from that threat but at the same time give that right to the state to enforce on our behalf). This tension (individual v group) is what creates the debate.

hariaum

Unfortunately our young babies aka our fetuses aka our growing offspring cannot defend themselves but we can as noted by our constant war against terror and tyranny:

To wit:

Our War on Terror and Tyranny:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror, tyranny and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops 3,482 killed in action, 912
in non-comabat, 95,888 – 104,595 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 745, 210 killed in non-combat situations as of 04/17/2010. en.wikipedia.org/.../Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present reported that 13,372 - 32,969 Afghan civilians have been killed by direct and indirect armed conflict through 2009.

11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.

Other elements of our War on Terror and Aggression:

- Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

- Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

- Libya has become almost civil. Recently Libya agreed to pay $1.5 billion to the victims of their terrorist activities Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they have threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! Or is he???

- North Korea is still uncivil but is contained.

- North Korea was taken off the terrorist country list recently.

- Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

- The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords. Unfortunately the Annapolis Peace Conference was not successful. Unfortunately the recent events in Gaza has put this situation back to “square one”. And this significant stupidity is driven by the mythical foundations of both religions!!!

- Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

- Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghanhistan and Pakistan.

- Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

- Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

- Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

- Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

- The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

- And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Timmy:

'So 80% of Americans have the right character for religion, but you do not?'
____________

That seems to be what the stats say. But even so, I'm not persuaded by the 'brainwashed by a cult' hypothesis.

This is way too simple-minded, although a very emotionally satisfying position for atheists with an attitude.

We can certainly find religious and/or political indoctrination themes embedded in cultures and societies. Nowhere is religious/theocratic indoctrination more thoroughly practiced as a social norm than in Saudi Arabia. Now you're talking real indoctrination coupled with coercian.......

In the end, religion meets human needs for active believers, even in extreme cases. The actively religious only infrequently become non-religious - according to the stats. Believers may simply be following their own genetic programming in some subtle way.

See the link below for yet another theorem.....in particular the puzzle of the non-religious minority. We don't seem to fear hell, for some peculiar reason.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hunt_19_3.html

"The abortion issue keeps coming up. It is a legitimate issue because a group of people have to make decisions..."

Wrong - only one person has the right to make the decision.

The abortion issue keeps coming up. It is a legitimate issue because a group of people have to make decisions as to when and why we feel it is appropriate to kill or not to kill.

The problem with the question is far deeper. Perhaps this is not the place to discuss these types of questions: What defines life? What defines human from non-human (95% genetic homogeny, 99.99%?, the ability to reproduce with another member of the species?..) What defines consciousness (a fetus does respond to its chemical environment but so do paramecia)? Who has the right to decide / property rights over a fetus? On what bases are property rights established?

Feminism is a movement to empower women. Though I certainly support that movement it should not be a denial of empowering men (or those in between).

My own take: I would not want someone else, a religious group, a government, etc telling me what to do with my body. So long as something is within my body, the property rights are mine solely. I suspect no one else would want the government taking property rights over their organs (I need you liver for a political friend. you there, I am taking your heart for my grand kid...).

As to society killing, we do it all the time. I see no simple difference in the act of killing a child or that of killing an enemy soldier - both being killed for an expected gain. (Though that gain is the complexity that shifts the argument for in it lies the ego.)

If you really believe that killing for gain is wrong, then you need to stop supporting a country with a military, a police force, and any kind of support for end of life care, let alone abortion.

Both the catholic church excommunication and SP's foray are demonstrations of clout - might makes right. Nothing more, nothing less.

hariaum

"cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions"

Timmy: "As for Christianity, we are in complete agreement. Brainwashing by both parents and society."

And so society teaches you the value of skepticism, romanticism, what makes you laugh, the value of looking up logical systems, the experts you believe, the persons you don't, consumerism, ....

I suppose you want a secular nun hitting you on the head before you decide you were indoctrinated. Forget the marketing experts manipulating your value system. forget the politico and book sellers trying to get your vote...

If you can't see that your choice of coffee, you subjective construct of aesthetics and truth are all presented to you by what Thaler calls "choice architects," you can't see how well you have been indoctrinated, you can't see that their will is imposed on you from birth... Then I certainly should not expect you to see that I did give specific examples. If you don't know how your mind is made up for you by others, how can you discover your own indoctrination except that you must denounce other's indoctrination?

I apologize for you limited education. A theory of knowledge, a study of empirical reasoning (science), a priori reasoning (mathematics), logic (linguistics and grammar), are fundamental pieces of an education. It is good to see that you are attempting to learn what your society chose not to teach you (and thus controlled your thoughts and ways of knowing).

North is not up. Look it up.

"And please be specific about exactly how I was taught how to know truth." Long before you were born, a school board designated by the governance structure of your society sat down and decided what information you would receive and what you wouldn't. They fundamentally set out to decide the intellectual space in which you would cognize the world. Those that liked what they taught you were called teachers. Those that disliked it were called jobless. Then you were taught what is a legitimate argument and what was a legitimate source. Eventually (about the age of 5 or so) you could not get evidence for the answers they were giving you so you stopped thinking and started reciting. After adolescence, or thereabouts, someone told you that there are alternatives and you began abstracting - based on the initial guidance (indoctrination) of those that got you going. You self selected those you agreed with and continue on that path that is a self affirmation of what you believe yourself to have believed.

I don't deny the validity of what you believe for yourself. But some of us know we have been indoctrinated and some think they have free minds. The latter are mistaken, in my experience. (those who say they know, know not)

It is because of this almost universal process of indoctrination into a society that for millenia people have said to look deeper, to go beyond the allegory of the cave, to look behind the curtain, to ask fundamental questions. It is because of this that Arjuna demands of Krishna over and over, show me.

don't get me wrong, I suspect you are less indoctrinated than most as you are questing. But that doesn't really mean much when you worship the truth - to be 10% from infinite is not much different that being 50% from infinite.

hariaum

PSOLUS

Good idea. I think I will go and suggest to my wife that we have a little afternoon out of control mutual masturbation session (Yeal9's term for sex that is not intended to make a baby)

Works for me.

CCNL

"A baby dies without nourishment. There is no difference"

Fetus's don't cry. Babies do. There's at least one difference. I think there are many more.

"And it is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control"

Really? Out of control? According to the law or just in your opinion. I'm pretty sure the latter is true. And there's not much you can do about it is there? Regulate sexual activity? Is that what you propose?

If your faith, your moral grounding, tells you that abortion is taking a life, then you should oppose it with as much vigor as you oppose murder.

That said, abortion is a grey area for most people. I think it is safe to say that almost everyone would oppose abortion one day before the due date and a large majority would find abortion a few days after conception acceptable. Between those extremes lies politics and the law.

As to whether you can be a feminist and oppose abortion, that entire depends on defining the nebulous term "feminist".

Oh, here we go again. Quoting the half-governor of Alaska on abortion, like she's some kind of expert. Sarah had the LEGALLY-PROTECTED CHOICE not to abort her Down's Syndrome child. Her daughter had the LEGALLY-PROTECTED CHOICE to have her out-of-wedlock child. What Sarah and her ilk want to do is to deny this legally protected choice to millions of other American women.

I have had friends who had unwanted pregnancies. One had an abortion. The other one did not believe in abortion, so she kept her child. Both of these women had the right to their own choices. (BTW, the one who did not have an abortion was on The Pill at the time, but it was rendered less effective by her being on antibiotics) The moral is, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Just understand that it needs to be a legally protected option for other women.

"Once again, some observations about taking the life of a young baby aka abortion:"

Abortion is not taking the life of a baby, young or otherwise.

"And it is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control..."

Speaking of which, it's just about time for some out-of-control sex.

Once again, some observations about taking the life of a young baby aka abortion:

Abortion boils down to one simple question, when does human life begin? And one paramount observation/law: There is basic human morality that goes beyond the OT and NT. A fetus dies without nourishment. A baby dies without nourishment. There is no difference.

And it is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. (Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, 4/18/2010 described them as anti-desire pills).

And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And so a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection?

Talk about having no respect for human life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

With respect to saving the life of a mother vs that of her and her husband's child.

With modern technology, that situation is a rare event. When it does occur, the decision should be a made by the mother and father of the child. With no father in the picture, the decision should be left to the mother or her parents if the mother is incapacitated.

And again, some famous adoptees:

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

This one is really really simple. If your religion does not allow abortion then you may not have abortions according to your religion.

As for other people having abortions, your religion is moot. Only theirs matters.

NAVIN1

Continued from the last thread.

"so you never went to school?"

Yes I did. I don't remember "learning how to know truth" class though. Remember when I asked you to be specific? This is why?

"Never studied history out of a text book?"

Yes. In it I learned history, not "how to know truth". Remember when I asked you to be specific about how I was taught to know truth? Why are you not being specific?

"Never studied the foundation of empiricism?"

On my own, yes, I was never taught this in school. But studying the foundations of empiricism (which I did on my own as an adult) is not someone teaching you how to know truth. Is it? Is me looking at what others have written about empiricism on my own time being indoctrinated? Remember when I suggested you look up the world indoctrinate? I guess you did not.

"Never learned the method of formal logic?"

Again, not in school. I studied this recently on line. No where in my reading though did I get instruction on how to know truth.

"An empiricist believes what s/he has seen. Are you among the rare that have proven for themselves that the world is round, that religion is always bad, that the earth has an ellipitical orbit, that F=ma, that E=mc2..."

I am not an empiricist. You make way too many assumptions. You should ask people more question instead of assuming things about them.

"If you trust someone who carries a certain title (scientist, author, atheist par excellance..., say) then you have been indoctrinated to see it that way"

Once again, you need to look up the world "indoctrinated" because you are flat wrong. Words have definitions for reasons.

"Is North up?"

Yes it is according to our DEFINITION of the world "North". Is a ball a ball? The answer is yes it is a ball, according to the definition of the world "ball". You might not like words, NAVIN but you do have to live with our definitions if you want to be able to communicate.

"The word Truth, what does it mean?"

This is your obsession not mine.

"What is humor?"

That which makes you laugh.

"How did you come upon that?"

Dictionary. We have definitions for words so we can communicate. Otherwise we would not be able to.

"What is a valid method of knowing?"

You tell me. Welcome to epistemology 101.

"only empirical, no room for aesthetic knowing"

Aesthetics are not empirical? Aesthetic Knowing? What?

"what is a beautiful day?"

Subjective. Now you're just being obtuse.

"What is a good husband/wife? How do you raise children..."

These are all subjective questions. I can only give you my personal opinion on these things. You have a truth about them do you?

"As to christianity, did you miss the economic self interest argument? A powerful argument, I think"

I told you, we are in complete agreement on that one.

"So you continue in your attempt to win arguments (which of course in your own mind you have already won because you are indoctrinated to think your skepticism is right)"

One more time. I am out to challenge my beliefs and ideas and have them heard and vetted. I am not out to win any argument. I can and have on many occasion had my beliefs changed and altered through such debates. I'm sorry that you have been unable to accomplish this yourself but I assure you it is not because I am close minded.

And once again, you need to look up the world "indoctrinated". We have definitions for words so that we can communicate. Please look up that world so we can communicate. And please be specific about exactly how I was taught how to know truth.

"Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances?"

I don't see why not.

"Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?"

I don't see why not.

Persiflage,

Continuing from the last thread.

"I don't have the right character for religion at all"

So 80% of Americans have the right character for religion, but you do not? What is that characteristic that 80% have but you do not? Or what is the characteristic that you have that 80% do not?This makes no sense at all. I suppose all children born into muslim families in Saudi Arabia just happen to have been born with that same characteristic just like 80% of American children were?

Religious belief is about what kind of character you are born with?

No. It's a cult, stupid. Stop looking for more complicated answers. (again, I'm not really calling you stupid so much as borrowing from that popular phrase "It's the economy, stupid") The intended meaning of that phrase is to inform someone that they are making things more complicated than they really are.

I know we are not going to agree on this, but Dennett put a lot of thought into using the word "spell" in his title. If he thought that religion was at all natural for humans, there would be no "spell" to break. I'm with Dennett. I'm not so sure that you are, based on reading his book and reading your comments. I don't remember Dennett saying anything about any dire consequences or voids that need to be filled when the spell is broken.