When atheism is no longer atheism.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes um, keep on trucking Diocle eh?

[Diocle]

Yeah.....Denny, the idea was exactly that!.......however, I might be more light, telling you that I find quite strange, annoying, arrogant and disturbing trying to establish when an Atheist ceases being Atheist!

[Denny Crane!]

Err...OK? I think?

[Matthias]

'Atheism' is something of a misnomer in my opinion. Literally all that is signified by this word is either the truth claim that God does not exist, or a psychological lack of belief in God. There is no grounds for a worldview or philosophy in this word, for as some users have pointed out, atheism is a lack of something, rather than a something. If you have an opinion on moral philosophy, you do not hold it as an atheist, you hold it as (e.g an utilitarian) a proponent of that particular philosophy. The meaning of the term atheism really has little relevance to many of the discussions it is applied to, instead, a group of fairly aggressive and propagandist anti-theists have taken the word 'atheist' to represent themselves.

Atheism isn't a misnomer, but it is certainly used incorrectly (especially by theists) all the time. And it has only one definition. A lack of belief in a god. Which means agnostics can fit under that title, and that anti-theists can fit under that title. Quite a few theists fit under that title too, when it comes to specific gods of other religions (yeah, you might want to define what "god" means if you want to define someone by their lack of belief in it).

Yes, that's all it means. And yes, your opinions on moral philosophy don't come from your lack of belief, though your lack of belief will sometimes inform where you draw your opinions from.

As for the group of "aggressive and propagandist" (wtf? Seriously? Hell, many religions make it part of the belief system to activey convert others (aggresive) and are nothing BUT propaganda, starting from childhood indoctrination (being how they recruit most all new members), I mean, this is projection pure and simple) anti-theists, guess what, they can claim the title of atheists, since they are, but they don't speak for all atheists obviously, not that they ever have claimed to. Seems this is just a red herring.

[Tankbuster]

What you are describing is socialization, not indoctrination. I am certain that parents who believe that when they die that they will go to heaven are being honest when they convey that to their children. The fact that you think that is not true doesn't mean they are being dishonest. I do not want to live in a society where someone else decides what is honest and dishonest whether or not I believe in what that truth is or not.

It doesn't really require any state force: it just requires a change in attitude. Just as it's more or less agreed that you don't teach your children to sing the Internationale or recite Ayn Rand from age 5, we could come to an understanding that religion might be a little too complex a topic for kids to adequately deal with.
Many parents already do this.

I'm also less than impressed at the distinction between socialization and indoctrination. There's no clear line between the two, but personally I think any time you're using powerful emotions (like hellfire) to instill ideas into a child, you're crossing the line into indoctrination -regardless of whether your intentions are honest or not.

[Himster]

Atheism isn't a misnomer, but it is certainly used incorrectly (especially by theists) all the time. And it has only one definition. A lack of belief in a god. Which means agnostics can fit under that title, and that anti-theists can fit under that title. Quite a few theists fit under that title too, when it comes to specific gods of other religions (yeah, you might want to define what "god" means if you want to define someone by their lack of belief in it).

Yes, that's all it means. And yes, your opinions on moral philosophy don't come from your lack of belief, though your lack of belief will sometimes inform where you draw your opinions from.

It's a misnomer to describe a group and he's right, it technically is a misnomer to describe a group as it only describes a non-aspect of a non-group. It's not different from calling non-stamp-collectors a group. It's nonsense.

There is/can be no philosophy based on atheism, it's a non-thing. Secular humanism, utilitarianism, buddhism etc are philosophies that may (or may not) include atheism but they're not built on atheism.

[PikeStance]

It doesn't really require any state force: it just requires a change in attitude. Just as it's more or less agreed that you don't teach your children to sing the Internationale or recite Ayn Rand from age 5, we could come to an understanding that religion might be a little too complex a topic for kids to adequately deal with.
Many parents already do this.

I'm also less than impressed at the distinction between socialization and indoctrination. There's no clear line between the two, but personally I think any time you're using powerful emotions (like hellfire) to instill ideas into a child, you're crossing the line into indoctrination -regardless of whether your intentions are honest or not.

We are not discussing extreme cases- the choice is obvious- we are discussing the average family dynamic. I am jut not going to buy into the fact that someone else has the right to dictate to another what they can and can't pass down to their children. If you really can't see the difference then you are really muddying the waters.

----

[Matthias]

It's a misnomer to describe a group and he's right, it technically is a misnomer to describe a group as it only describes a non-aspect of a non-group.

You might want to look up what a misnomer is. Yes, you can have a group that is identified by a lack of belief. Yes, this is rarely done, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, it has been done for a long time in the case of atheists. In the case of religion, where lack of belief (at least for a time) was considered so uncommon, it has a useful distinction.

It's not different from calling non-stamp-collectors a group. It's nonsense.

Not in the context of religious beliefs, for rather obvious reasons, it's a useful distinction.

There is/can be no philosophy based on atheism, it's a non-thing. Secular humanism, utilitarianism, buddhism etc are philosophies that may (or may not) include atheism but they're not built on atheism.

Yes, but once again, whether a philosophy can be built on atheism has nothing to do with whether it is a misnomer or a group. It isn't a misnomer, and it is a group in the sense that it shares a lack of belief on a specific subject. It is useful in the sense that socities for many years (and quite a few still do) have discriminated against and punish those who lack a belief in god. Unlike non-stamp colletors.

We are not discussing extreme cases- the choice is obvious- we are discussing the average family dynamic. I am jut not going to buy into the fact that someone else has the right to dictate to another what they can and can't pass down to their children. If you really can't see the difference then you are really muddying the waters.

You are arguing against a strawman, I'm not arguing that someone else has the right to dictate to another parent what they can and can't pass down, but someone else defintiely has the right to say indoctrinating your own children is harmful, stupid, child abuse and bad for society as well as your children. And no, we are not arguing extreme cases. Parents telling their children they must believe or they will burn for eternity is incredibly common, especially in the developing world. And their peers. And their churches/mosques/whathaveyou.

Personally, I don't think parents have the "right" to indoctrinate their children, and that indoctrination is child abuse. Educate them? Yes. But that means allowing their child, even encouraging their child, to question the values and beliefs they are educated in and to disagree with them. That is not what religion does 9 times out of 10.

The state can't effectively stop parents from indoctrinating their children, so the only real way to combat it is for the state and society to educate children, so at least they're getting educated as well as indoctrinated, and hopefully the education will allow them to fight free of that indoctrination at some point, many years down the road.

[Tankbuster]

We are not discussing extreme cases- the choice is obvious- we are discussing the average family dynamic.

Scaring children with the idea of hell is an extreme case? Sure you want to paint yourself in that corner?

I am jut not going to buy into the fact that someone else has the right to dictate to another what they can and can't pass down to their children. If you really can't see the difference then you are really muddying the waters.

The only one using the word dictating and imagining Stalinist horror stories is you. No one is talking about dictated or forced guidelines on how to raise a family. We're talking about changing people's perception about what is in good taste to 'socialize' your children in.

We already accept that shoving your political positions down a kid's throat is in bad taste and a sign of bad parenting... we didn't need to pass any laws in this regard. In the same time, religion is a serious (and divisive) enough issue that parents could decide to hold off on teaching their kids about it until they're old enough to understand and decide for themselves.

The only reason there's such a huge pushback on this point from the religious, seems to be the (justified) fear that they won't have nearly enough of an easy time getting their kids to believe their religions if they waited. The same reason why efforts to teach comparative religion in schools is so often opposed.

I understand that many parents are very eager to teach their children religion because they imagine that without it, they won't have a sense of right and wrong, or they won't be able to go to heaven, etc... But those reasons deserve to be ridiculed at this point in human history.

[chamaeleo]

My 3 yr old will greet me at the door in less than an hour. If yesterday was any indication, he's quite likely to tell me all about the lasagna he cooked for lunch...which, in reality, consists of a jumble of legos in a coffee can 'cooking' atop his pint-sized table. But I just go along with it, because expressing his imagination and creativity is healthy. I don't need to prove him wrong. Even if he genuinely believes in his imaginary meal, now, I'm comfortable knowing that he'll constantly reassess his beliefs and eventually formulate a more realistic view of his world.

Religious families, with their belief in magic sky deities, do the exact opposite to their children when they force an archaic worldview upon young and impressionable minds. What they proclaim to be reality simply does not jibe with observation. Curiosity is discouraged or even portrayed as temptation, a la Adam's apple of knowledge! It becomes a question of obedience and instilling a willful sense of ignorance. I consider this abuse.

I believe every human being deserves to formulate their own world views based on their own observations, to whatever degree is practical, and if any training is needed it should be well grounded in critical thinking. Obviously no child should be testing the potential effects of stepping out into a busy street. But on the other hand, when kiddo eventually asks me about God I will simply tell him that a lot of people have been brought up to believe in a story, and leave it up to him to decide who is right.

According to the OP, does this make me a True Atheist or merely a dogmatic militant?

[PikeStance]

You are arguing against a straw man, I'm not arguing that someone else has the right to dictate to another parent what they can and can't pass down, but someone else definitely has the right to say indoctrinating your own children is harmful, stupid, child abuse and bad for society as well as your children. And no, we are not arguing extreme cases.

Scaring children with the idea of hell is an extreme case? Sure you want to paint yourself in that corner?
The only one using the word dictating and imagining Stalinist horror stories is you. No one is talking about dictated or forced guidelines on how to raise a family. We're talking about changing people's perception about what is in good taste to 'socialize' your children in.

Religious families, with their belief in magic sky deities, do the exact opposite to their children when they force an archaic worldview upon young and impressionable minds. What they proclaim to be reality simply does not jibe with observation. Curiosity is discouraged or even portrayed as temptation, a la Adam's apple of knowledge! It becomes a question of obedience and instilling a willful sense of ignorance. I consider this abuse.

Interesting. I am trying to narrow the focus to discuss only the normal every day family and I am the one using the straw man. I am also defining the difference between socialization and the more provocative term indoctrination to their true meaning. In other words, I am attempting to see the issue at its true light, rather than through a certain color glasses. This is somehow a straw man.

More to the point: Sure it is reasonable to assume parents do not Indoctrinate, but it isn't unreasonable to allow parents to decide what they consider reasonable. Initially you start off being reasonable. However, stating that religion is fake and that any instruction stating its validity is child abuse is not reasonable.

The idea that belief in a deity or adherence to a specific religious dogma breeds ignorance is false. There are a number of scientist and others within academia that hold religious beliefs and they are far from ignorance. Sure there are creationist out there- but these are the exception, not the rule. I believed in evolution long before I ever question the trinity, much less the existence of God or the validity of the Bible both literally and metaphorically.

Personally, I don't think parents have the "right" to indoctrinate their children, and that indoctrination is child abuse. Educate them? Yes. But that means allowing their child, even encouraging their child, to question the values and beliefs they are educated in and to disagree with them. That is not what religion does 9 times out of 10.

The state can't effectively stop parents from indoctrinating their children, so the only real way to combat it is for the state and society to educate children, so at least they're getting educated as well as indoctrinated, and hopefully the education will allow them to fight free of that indoctrination at some point, many years down the road....Parents telling their children they must believe or they will burn for eternity is incredibly common, especially in the developing world. And their peers. And their churches/mosques/whathaveyou.

We already accept that shoving your political positions down a kid's throat is in bad taste and a sign of bad parenting... we didn't need to pass any laws in this regard. In the same time, religion is a serious (and divisive) enough issue that parents could decide to hold off on teaching their kids about it until they're old enough to understand and decide for themselves.
The only reason there's such a huge pushback on this point from the religious, seems to be the (justified) fear that they won't have nearly enough of an easy time getting their kids to believe their religions if they waited. The same reason why efforts to teach comparative religion in schools is so often opposed.

Religious families, with their belief in magic sky deities, do the exact opposite to their children when they force an archaic worldview upon young and impressionable minds. What they proclaim to be reality simply does not jibe with observation. Curiosity is discouraged or even portrayed as temptation, a la Adam's apple of knowledge! It becomes a question of obedience and instilling a willful sense of ignorance. I consider this abuse.

As noted earlier, the above posted began being reasonable. There is a huge difference between indoctrination and socialization. What influences us changes over time. This why we can grow up in religious dogmatic families and still end up being atheist or irreligious. Indoctrination has deeper psychological hold on us rendering incredibly difficult to change our perception. This is why it is a waste of time to discuss cases of indoctrination because the conclusion obvious.

As a teacher, I have taught in a Christian school. I have also interviewed for Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, non- denominational and Catholic schools. Each time I interviewed for these schools, I read up on their beliefs. (With the exception of one, I was to a professed Christian). Many of these schools do teach comparative religions, including the school I did teach scripture in. Most do not believe that hell is a everlasting fire. Most believe hell means not being near God. So, I honestly do not accept that MOST believe that. I do concede that some do. I also know atheist who grew up where that was believed.

I would also note that many students hold similar or exactly the same political views as their parents. If there is a shift, it takes place in the 11th or 12th grade. The shift tends to be gradual. It is really in their college years that the most radical shift in political views are expressed. College often is the first time many students are exposed to views widely different than their friends, family and community, so it is not at all surprising.

I understand that many parents are very eager to teach their children religion because they imagine that without it, they won't have a sense of right and wrong, or they won't be able to go to heaven, etc... But those reasons deserve to be ridiculed at this point in human history

Why? because you do not share those views? If you want to ridicule it is your prerogative, but then, you have accept it is the parents prerogative to raise their children as they see fit. Most parents do not abuse their children. Most children grow up to be relatively well adjusted- to my knowledge there is no evidence to the contrary.

----

[Tankbuster]

The idea that belief in a deity or adherence to a specific religious dogma breeds ignorance is false. There are a number of scientist and others within academia that hold religious beliefs and they are far from ignorance.

You were expecting a 1-on-1 correlation?

As noted earlier, the above posted began being reasonable. There is a huge difference between indoctrination and socialization. What influences us changes over time. This why we can grow up in religious dogmatic families and still end up being atheist or irreligious. Indoctrination has deeper psychological hold on us rendering incredibly difficult to change our perception. This is why it is a waste of time to discuss cases of indoctrination because the conclusion obvious.

Actually you've never argued why religious education falls under socialization rather than indoctrination. As far as I can tell, it can fall under both depending on perspective. I'm sure your average North Korean parent thinks he's simply teaching their children the views and values prevalent in their society, just as I'm sure the Hitlerjugend came to be seen as a valuable 'socializing' movement at some point.

We recognize them as indoctrination. You've not actually argued why religious education is different; you just keep stating that it is.

And if we're going to go by symptoms and look for a "hold on us rendering it incredibly difficult to change our perception", just look at a map of world religions. It seems pretty clear to me that this is not the way beliefs usually spread.

Why? because you do not share those views?

No, because the view that people who don't share your religion, would be necessarily immoral, is barbaric and hugely divisive.

[PikeStance]

Actually you've never argued why religious education falls under socialization rather than indoctrination. As far as I can tell, it can fall under both depending on perspective. I'm sure your average North Korean parent thinks he's simply teaching their children the views and values prevalent in their society, just as I'm sure the Hitlerjugend came to be seen as a valuable 'socializing' movement at some point.

We recognize them as indoctrination. You've not actually argued why religious education is different; you just keep stating that it is.

Interesting again; your first example is yet another extreme example. North Korea political system is based on a cult of personality. As I already stated, I agree that in extreme cases, there is definitely an indoctrination. I am not sure who would argue with you on this. What you are failing to account for is the difference between North Korean society and Western society (assuming this is what we are actually discussing here).

You are incorrect when you state I have not express the difference between indoctrination and socialization. I have done so from the beginning including in the last response. Socialization has many different agents and as we traverse through life these different agents influences us differently. As we aged, we gain more experiences and value different sources of influences. This effects our perspective on life. When an individual is indoctrinated they would often warp influences around them to fit within their understanding.

Now if you really want to muddy the water we can examine the effects of socialization on the individuals and how over time, an individual may develop a viewpoint in which their position becomes entrench. To move them out of the entrenchment is next to impossible and by doing so, may cause more harm than good. In this case, we are discussing something that goes beyond simple religious beliefs and into more base psychological adjustment. The easy answer to say that they should be left to decide on their own. Well, they will anyway. They will decide to choose a more structured worldview. Ironically, this is the sort of individual who would "indoctrinate" their children. They will see no harm in this obviously; they will assume their children have the same need for structure as they do.

And if we're going to go by symptoms and look for a "hold on us rendering it incredibly difficult to change our perception", just look at a map of world religions. It seems pretty clear to me that this is not the way beliefs usually spread.

Belief system spread in much the same way as ideas and goods and services have spread; conquest, trade, & migration. When it comes to religion, it usually took rulers and/ or aristocracy to adopt for the religion to take hold. There is nothing mystical about it.... it really is that simple.

---

[Lazarus]

I'd be interested to know if there are hordes of them out there clamouring for your own demise and I've somehow missed it.

We hang out at the science lab powered by burning bibles and Satan every Sunday. Swing by and ill buy you a pint of a unicorns tears (it's crying because we killed its baby).

For the actual discussion? You're free to bring up your child however you want. Send him to Sunday school or church or throw qurans at him or make him praise the magic underwear or whatever your religion says that you should do. When your child comes out in to the real world and starts spouting that stuff as fact though, I have every right to laugh in his face and tell him how ridiculous what he believes is. If you have a problem with that, explain to me why I shouldn't laugh at your ridiculous belief.

I've said it before somewhere but I'll say it again. If you believe something ridiculous, I will ridicule you. Ridiculous. Ridicule. Connection?

[chamaeleo]

The idea that belief in a deity or adherence to a specific religious dogma breeds ignorance is false. There are a number of scientist and others within academia that hold religious beliefs and they are far from ignorance. Sure there are creationist out there- but these are the exception, not the rule. I believed in evolution long before I ever question the trinity, much less the existence of God or the validity of the Bible both literally and metaphorically.

Of course, no 'religious family' sees the spreading of their dogma as propagating 'Willful Ignorance'...their personal beliefs are usually comfortable, honest and heartfelt. They merely want others to share in their blissful fate and assert the validity of their worldview. The intellectual conflict only arises when someone shines a light on the belief system, which can reveal:

* a power structure having more to do with defining human hierarchy than divine will,
* a discouraging attitude towards questioning all things, especially: authority, the nature of reality, doctrine, societal fabric, definitions of right and wrong...
* xenophobic attitudes,
* ritualized mutilation of children,
* overt mechanisms that encourage racism, sexism, and some really weird sexual hangups, apparently stemming from deeply rooted insecurity,
* widespread contradictions between divine word and worldly observations, and finally,
* recurring debates that inevitably end with the same head-in-the-sand rejection: "I believe what I believe, no matter how much sense you speak...you cannot tempt me!"

No wonder Eve's apple was so durned scary! Who wants to confront such mindshattering Truth, let alone going solo to look for it outside the warm safety of the flock? It's powerful stuff, something akin to Einstein's realization that the Manhattan Project signified humanity's embodiment of Vishnu the Destroyer!

As noted earlier, the above posted began being reasonable. There is a huge difference between indoctrination and socialization. What influences us changes over time. This why we can grow up in religious dogmatic families and still end up being atheist or irreligious. Indoctrination has deeper psychological hold on us rendering incredibly difficult to change our perception. This is why it is a waste of time to discuss cases of indoctrination because the conclusion obvious.

As a teacher, I have taught in a Christian school. I have also interviewed for Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, non- denominational and Catholic schools. Each time I interviewed for these schools, I read up on their beliefs. (With the exception of one, I was to a professed Christian). Many of these schools do teach comparative religions, including the school I did teach scripture in. Most do not believe that hell is a everlasting fire. Most believe hell means not being near God. So, I honestly do not accept that MOST believe that. I do concede that some do. I also know atheist who grew up where that was believed.

I would also note that many students hold similar or exactly the same political views as their parents. If there is a shift, it takes place in the 11th or 12th grade. The shift tends to be gradual. It is really in their college years that the most radical shift in political views are expressed. College often is the first time many students are exposed to views widely different than their friends, family and community, so it is not at all surprising.

Just because indoctrination doesn't always stick, or has had to be watered down over time (ie, it has EVOLVED) to still be considered socially acceptable, does not make it innately OK...or necessarily bad. It is nothing more than a tool for stabilizing society, for better or for worse. Question it at your own peril, or accept it and the live within its intellectual confines: but do recognize that there IS a choice.

That gradual shift you describe in teenagers is the realization that most children eventually experience, that our parents are not the all-knowing fountainheads of wisdom upon whom we gazed in loving adoration as toddlers. This can even lead to realizing that respect is something to be earned on an individual basis, and not automatically bestowed when certain conditions are met. This idea simplycannot be tolerated in more authoritarian societies.

Everybody is searching for purpose. Realizing that the world just is, due entirely to patterns emerging from chaos across unimaginable spans of Deep Time is both terrifying, and beautiful. "God made it so" is just such a clumsy explanation. Once you start asking questions, you realize how elegantly Nature fits together as a cohesive, consistent and predictable system...and the God hypothesis can be recognized as a mere artifact of Stone-age rationale.

Religiosity is most easily subverted into a tool for exerting Control, and should be mistrusted for this reason alone!

[PikeStance]

The intellectual conflict only arises when someone shines a light on the belief system, which can reveal:

* a power structure having more to do with defining human hierarchy than divine will,
* a discouraging attitude towards questioning all things, especially: authority, the nature of reality, doctrine, societal fabric, definitions of right and wrong...
* xenophobic attitudes,
* ritualized mutilation of children,
* overt mechanisms that encourage racism, sexism, and some really weird sexual hangups, apparently stemming from deeply rooted insecurity,
* widespread contradictions between divine word and worldly observations, and finally,
* recurring debates that inevitably end with the same head-in-the-sand rejection: "I believe what I believe, no matter how much sense you speak...you cannot tempt me!"

You still want to argue the extreme here. The rank and file Christians don't believe in most of what you had written above. I personally, my Christian friends do not ascribe to these criticism.

Just because indoctrination doesn't always stick, or has had to be watered down over time (ie, it has EVOLVED) to still be considered socially acceptable, does not make it innately OK...or necessarily bad. It is nothing more than a tool for stabilizing society, for better or for worse. Question it at your own peril, or accept it and the live within its intellectual confines: but do recognize that there IS a choice.

If indoctrination doesn't stick, then by definition, it wasn't indoctrination.

That gradual shift you describe in teenagers is the realization that most children eventually experience, that our parents are not the all-knowing fountainheads of wisdom upon whom we gazed in loving adoration as toddlers. This can even lead to realizing that respect is something to be earned on an individual basis, and not automatically bestowed when certain conditions are met. This idea simplycannot be tolerated in more authoritarian societies.

Everybody is searching for purpose. Realizing that the world just is, due entirely to patterns emerging from chaos across unimaginable spans of Deep Time is both terrifying, and beautiful. "God made it so" is just such a clumsy explanation. Once you start asking questions, you realize how elegantly Nature fits together as a cohesive, consistent and predictable system...and the God hypothesis can be recognized as a mere artifact of Stone-age rationale.

Religiosity is most easily subverted into a tool for exerting Control, and should be mistrusted for this reason alone!

You are describing one of many theories that explain the cognitive development of children. We are not discussing psychology, we are discussion sociology (which shouldn't be confused with social psychology). We can certainly delve into this topic, but we are still left with explaining group behavior and dynamics. While individuals do react differently within a group, we are still left with explaining the effects of the group on the individual.

---

[Papay]

Of course, no 'religious family' sees the spreading of their dogma as propagating 'Willful Ignorance'...their personal beliefs are usually comfortable, honest and heartfelt. They merely want others to share in their blissful fate and assert the validity of their worldview. The intellectual conflict only arises when someone shines a light on the belief system, which can reveal:

* a power structure having more to do with defining human hierarchy than divine will,
* a discouraging attitude towards questioning all things, especially: authority, the nature of reality, doctrine, societal fabric, definitions of right and wrong...
* xenophobic attitudes,
* ritualized mutilation of children,
* overt mechanisms that encourage racism, sexism, and some really weird sexual hangups, apparently stemming from deeply rooted insecurity,
* widespread contradictions between divine word and worldly observations, and finally,
* recurring debates that inevitably end with the same head-in-the-sand rejection: "I believe what I believe, no matter how much sense you speak...you cannot tempt me!"

What you do actually is blaming religion of all evils inside a society. I remember once an atheist here on these forums wrote that Christianity supports slavery. To justify his opinion he took some phrases from the Bible in which the author writes about how a slave must be treated. This was written 2.500 years ago when slavery existed everywhere not only in the Middle East but never mind. As a militant atheist i can jump to the satisfying conclusion that Christianity supports slavery.
Who cares if the key reason why slavery lost its influence in Europe as a practice was Christianity?Who cares about the fact that when the New testament was written 1 to 3 people in Rome were slaves?We like to translate events in a certain way.We pick the events we like and promote them in a way to say "oh look evil Christians"

* a power structure having more to do with defining human hierarchy than divine will

All things have hierarchy and organization. Even the simplest ones. Yes sometimes the "earthly" matters seem more important but this is how society worked and will work. A priest is not a creature from Mars, he lives here and he behaves in the same way as the rest of the society

* a discouraging attitude towards questioning all things, especially: authority, the nature of reality, doctrine, societal fabric, definitions of right and wrong...

The discouraging attitude existed in order to prevent divisions inside the church. From the begining there were different opinions on the meaning of Jesus's life. Even Paul and Peter disagreed on certain issues. So to prevent divisions inside the church criticizing christian dogma was discouraged( we are talking of course about middle ages not about present day). Note that the people who criticized Christian dogma DID NOT did that because they didnt believed but because they disagreed on details( the nature of Jesus, the political role of the Pope etc). There are very few examples of the church attacking science (Galilleo affair being the most famous of them). That religion suppressed science is an urban legend. The only universities that existed for centuries in Europe were monasteries.the suppression existed only when you messed with Christian dogma in a way that it seemed heretical

* xenophobic attitudes

I would say quite the opposite. Christianity always thought that it was a better religion compared to others so it has a history of proselytizing. Personally i find this tactic to be to imperialistic for my taste

* ritualized mutilation of children

I believe that you are referring to human sacrifices. Obviously a barbaric tactic but blaming religion again is an oversimplification. Spartans threw from the mountain their weak children but that was not because of religion.It has more to do with the local culture. The prisoners that were sacrifized by the Mayas would be killed anyway

* overt mechanisms that encourage racism, sexism, and some really weird sexual hangups, apparently stemming from deeply rooted insecurity

This has to do with the fact that right or wrong religions dont change easily for the reason i explained at the begining. While it sounded normal for a woman to obey to a man 1000 years ago today it sounds like repression. Again though you use religion as a scapegoat and try to convince that things like racism or sexism are amplified by religion. You are wrong. In fact religion as an ideology has played a very positive role in fighting racism and promoting equality. The problems start when religion messes with politics

* widespread contradictions between divine word and worldly observations, and finally

The problem is that we can not go back in time to prove or reject many of these stories.If you have convincing proof that Jesus never existed, well, you are free to present it.Regarding the church what do you expect church to do? Excommunicate the unknown author of Noah's story? Do you think the Pope knows who wrote these stories?No.But we do know that these stories are part of the tradition of church for 2000 years.I would really be astonished if the Bing Bang theory manages to survive for so long time

* recurring debates that inevitably end with the same head-in-the-sand rejection: "I believe what I believe, no matter how much sense you speak...you cannot tempt me!"

Yes.And this includes atheists, agnostics etc

[PikeStance]

* xenophobic attitudes

I would say quite the opposite. Christianity always thought that it was a better religion compared to others so it has a history of proselytizing. Personally i find this tactic to be to imperialistic for my taste

Xenophobia is the fear of outsiders or foreigners. For some reason the original poster believes that Christians have a corner on the market.

* ritualized mutilation of children

I believe that you are referring to human sacrifices. Obviously a barbaric tactic but blaming religion again is an oversimplification. Spartans threw from the mountain their weak children but that was not because of religion.It has more to do with the local culture. The prisoners that were sacrifized by the Mayas would be killed anyway

It is not referring to "sacrifice" but mutilation. I presumed it was referring to the ritualistic mutilation of male and female genitalia. While practice by Abrahamic religions, the practice itself predates it. Most parents that continue to practice this ritual do it out of tradition. However, more and more parents are choosing not to continue the tradition.

---

[Matthias]

You still want to argue the extreme here. The rank and file Christians don't believe in most of what you had written above. I personally, my Christian friends do not ascribe to these criticism.

Have you been in developing countries? You know, where most "Christians" live? You'd probably be a little uncomfortable, to say the least. Anyways, it's irrelevant, because it's still indoctration, just of a kinder, gentler sort (haha). You know, if you don't belive in God, you just won't be near God (as you said many of the schools you intereviewed with believe). Well gees, that's not indoctrination, right? I mean, telling a child they'll be separated from the Creator of the Universe, all knowing, all powerful, perfect and loving and kind, and their parents will be up there probably, so they'll be separated from them too... yeah, you don't even realize that your watered down version is some ed up .

If indoctrination doesn't stick, then by definition, it wasn't indoctrination.

Uhh.... no. People break from indoctration or even reject it all the time, and it's still indoctrination. Children have a bit harder of a time of it though, hence religion's almost sole reliance on them for recruitment. Indoctrination simply means:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2]

Now, religious dogma has had to adapt to survive. That means, in the developed world, some of the most heinous beliefs of major religions have been watered down (this also exposes the original beliefs for the fallacies they are, but getting back...). But not only has religion watered down their dogma to survive in the cultural setting hey are in (believe me, go to the developing world and you'll see religions engaging in some stone age beliefs, and, funnily enough, being much more consistent with their religious texts than in developed nations), they have developed a whole apologia philosophy in more developed nations.

So, if someone DOES question or critically examine what they have been taught, however falteringly, well, there are ready-made apologetics, filled with bad logic and poor evidence, but convincing to those who know little of logic or evidence. It is said that the "issue" was solved by these apologetics long ago, they got the answer, and now, run along, no more need to look into your beliefs, it has been done, and, oh yeah, we were right

Course, in developing nations, or theocracies, people rarely even get to this step. There is the whole uncomfortable fact that religion/the state are one and the same in many societies (even developed ones), so questioning religion comes at HUGE social costs, including your life. So there are lots of factors at play, but that surely makes indoctrination all the more effective, and boy is it ever, just look at how religious of a society Iran is Why, I've been told there are no homosexuals there! Indoctrination.

There are some religions that don't indoctrinate, though they are few and far between, though maybe they wouldn't fit into a traditional definiton of religion. You can't have a coherent system of belief if you are willing to question every single one of those beliefs and subsitute it for something else.

[PikeStance]

Have you been in developing countries? You know, where most "Christians" live? You'd probably be a little uncomfortable, to say the least.

Yes! I lived in Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) for two years. I even taught the son of a Christian prophet. I also lived in the same country with Peace Corps.

Since most countries are LEDCs. There is also an unofficial "third" group that are considered to be "developing countries." These countries are characterized by having an unusually high economic growth rate, as well as the development often industrial based economy. It would make sense of most of any religion would exist in this area of the world since it between 1/3 to 3/4 of the countries of the world.

Apart from my experiences living in a LEDC, I also lived for three years in Dubai, UAE. While Shari'a is liberally interpreted in the country, the country is culturally Islamic. In any event, I would agree that this is a red herring.

Anyways, it's irrelevant, because it's still indoctrination, just of a kinder, gentler sort (haha).

You mean, socialization?

You know, if you don't believe in God, you just won't be near God (as you said many of the schools you interviewed with believe). Well gees, that's not indoctrination, right? I mean, telling a child they'll be separated from the Creator of the Universe, all knowing, all powerful, perfect and loving and kind, and their parents will be up there probably, so they'll be separated from them too... yeah, you don't even realize that your watered down version is some ed up .

1. You do realize I am not a "Christian," but an agnostic/ atheist?
2. The punishment is pretty benign in my book. What exactly does it mean? I have heard a different answer each time. This is a significant differences from the burning of one's flesh for eternity.

Uhh.... no. People break from indoctrination or even reject it all the time, and it's still indoctrination. Children have a bit harder of a time of it though, hence religion's almost sole reliance on them for recruitment. Indoctrination simply means:

The majority of Christian grow up well adjusted. There are exception to rule. I know quite a few ex- Christians (as well as myself and my wife) and I can say with certainty that we are well adjusted from our childhood.

So, if someone DOES question or critically examine what they have been taught, however falteringly, well, there are ready-made apologetics, filled with bad logic and poor evidence, but convincing to those who know little of logic or evidence. It is said that the "issue" was solved by these apologetics long ago, they got the answer, and now, run along, no more need to look into your beliefs, it has been done, and, oh yeah, we were right

So what? Have you ever consider that maybe religion serves a purpose for the human psyche? There will always be people who have that need. I also know people who bounce from Church to church, synod to synod looking for the perfect belief system. Personally, I think it sort of defeat the purpose "pick" a religion. The answer I hear is God is guiding them. The problem is this- If there is only true way; what about the people on the other churches that you had rejected. He found himself busy after that. Anyway, as we get older there are other factors that can impact how we view the world. The first question that someone ever says to me when I state that I am not Christian/ religious is; "what do you think will happen when you die?" That doesn't sound like indoctrination, but fear.

Course, in developing nations, or theocracies, people rarely even get to this step. There is the whole uncomfortable fact that religion/the state are one and the same in many societies (even developed ones), so questioning religion comes at HUGE social costs, including your life. So there are lots of factors at play, but that surely makes indoctrination all the more effective, and boy is it ever, just look at how religious of a society Iran is

Yes, this is mostly true, but this isn't indoctrination, but intimidation. In any event, we are discussing the average family- You keep bringing up extreme examples. What does Iran's Theocracy have to do with the average family?

There are some religions that don't indoctrinate, though they are few and far between, though maybe they wouldn't fit into a traditional definition of religion. You can't have a coherent system of belief if you are willing to question every single one of those beliefs and substitute it for something else.

In Roman Catholicism they are allowed to question. I know this because I taught religion in a Roman Catholic school (Hebrew and Christian Scripture). I also have known clergy of other faith to almost invite questions about faith. Some of the most enjoyable conversations I can recall involved a minister and an atheist that belonged to a re-enacting group that I had belong to. Apologetics do not just exist to debunk statements by skeptics and atheist, but to answer questions and concerns within the community of believers. You see this as a bad thing; but this is exactly why I am NOT a believer today.

---