should we reconsider early indoctrination?

[Ventos Mustel]

The key is to not isolate children from dissenting ideas, or punishing them for following them.

"Here, this is what I think" is fine


"Here is what WE think, don't we *nudge nudge*" is not

"Here is what we think and if you don't you're not one of us and get out of my house" is completely out

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I think that an early indoctrination into a combined course of comparative religion and morality would serve all children as well as society best.

Children then could learn early on that most religions are not moral and have done a lot of harm to society by fostering homophobia and misogyny and teaching men to discriminate without a just cause against more than half the worlds population.

I can only see good coming out of teaching those truths to children.

Regards
DL

[DaniCatBurger]

It can be good. I does not need to be good.

I think, you do not get a bigot if your learning is done right. Right means here that you understand what you learn (e.g. by reading). I would define understanding as being able to provide yourself with (a) plausible explanation(s) of content. Learning can set free a mind but if we do nothing, we won't be wiser and freer or able to provide ourselves with plausible explanations.

The key is to not isolate children from dissenting ideas, or punishing them for following them.

Would you want your children to read "Mein Kampf" or other introductions to sadism? I would not want insofar I was fine to keep these things away from them.

[Inhuman One]

When taking the bible or koran literaly, they seem even worse than mein kampf. If all its rules actually where strictly enforced and not cherry picked.

[DaniCatBurger]

I am reading a book about geometrical problems and try to get through the examples. I can give explanations for what I am reading, occasionally. That should explain the intent of post 43. Reading is value bound. "Mein Kampf" is an evil introduction to sadism. Why should I bother beside to ignore it? I do not need to explain what is obvious in its effects. Why should I compare it to other very different and unrelated works and their effects? That's one of the reasons for making me think that the "enforced rules" argument could be strange. It lacks differentiation and a clear hint on the application of "enforced rules".

I hope that remark makes sense at least a bit. The philosophical problems connected with these questions are not easy ones.

[fkizz]

When taking the bible or koran literaly, they seem even worse than mein kampf. If all its rules actually where strictly enforced and not cherry picked.

Try to not take Newton Mathematical Formulae too literally then. The way one can compute the numbers necessary to have accuracy in throwing a bomb or a cannonball to a civilian target may be worse than mein kampf aswell.

If all this formulae were striclty enforced in war, who knows what ghastly destruction it could have hypothetically unleashed in war time... Oh wait.

[Inhuman One]

... yes Newton Mathematical Formulae is really something most parents teach to their children and teach them to base their life around.

[fkizz]

... yes Newton Mathematical Formulae is really something most parents teach to their children and teach them to base their life around.

Well speak for yourself, I was heavily pushed in direction of Physics, Chemestry and Biology since fairly early age

Jokes on my progenitors, ended up on Economics area

That said some Newtonian formulae can be surprisingly simple to apply (he already created them, you just need to do the applying) if you are used to solve math exercises. You can check later on lab if the math is translateable to reality or not.

Even in Economics you won't escape Newton's binomial and Calculus (though disputable if that's more from Leibniz or Newton)

High difficulty tier is to apply is Pascal Statistics required later on for Econometrics

[chriscase]

I'd say education is more about the "how" and less about the "what".

How to attack a problem, how to tackle a large body of knowledge, how to entertain an idea without accepting it, how to persevere when a subject gets difficult, how to reconsider one's position when new evidence is introduced against it, the list goes on. These are intellectual skills that are much more important than specific knowledge in a given field. This is principally what education ought to be about in childhood and early adulthood.

[DaniCatBurger]

I think it takes both.

You have to learn the letters.

You have to forget the letters to read.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It can be good. I does not need to be good.

I think, you do not get a bigot if your learning is done right. Right means here that you understand what you learn (e.g. by reading). I would define understanding as being able to provide yourself with (a) plausible explanation(s) of content. Learning can set free a mind but if we do nothing, we won't be wiser and freer or able to provide ourselves with plausible explanations.

Like the fact that all religions are are tribal units and really have nothing to do with any god.

Would you want your children to read "Mein Kampf" or other introductions to sadism? I would not want insofar I was fine to keep these things away from them.

No more than I would want them to read the Bible or Qur'an.

Regards
DL

[DaniCatBurger]

On ne lit que sa lecture.
All you read is your reading.
(E. Jabès, Étranger, 98)

[chriscase]

The great Italian essayist and Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi begged to differ: he said he always kept a copy of Mein Kampf in his library. At some point education has to produce genuinely informed adults.

[fkizz]

There is pro-secularism indoctrination. By abolishing indoctrination pro-secularism ideology would have to be eroded, unless one wants to go full hipocrisy route

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The great Italian essayist and Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi begged to differ: he said he always kept a copy of Mein Kampf in his library. At some point education has to produce genuinely informed adults.

I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quitecorrect.

“The God of the Old Testament isarguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it;a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethniccleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal,filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciouslymalevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth init.


Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day andnight; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from asmany POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.

The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.

You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of theChristian morals.

Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.

I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, isquite immoral for thinking that torturing King David's baby for 6 days beforefinally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil whileChristians think that a good form of justice.

Which group do you think is right?

Regards
DL

----------------

fkizz

There is a huge difference between indoctrination into the law of the land as compared to the law of an invisible guy in the sky.

Regards
DL

[Mayer]

The god of the Old Testament sounds tough, Dawkins sounds like a crybaby.

[Creepcruncher]

I think that you should be able to raise a child according to your beliefs, only if they have an avenue to not follow those beliefs.

Example: It's important to instill the values of law, diplomacy over violence, and respect for others, and that's fine to do.

Example 2: You can raise your child to be Christian, but they shouldn't be able to become a Christian proper until they are 18.

[fkizz]

The god of the Old Testament sounds tough, Dawkins sounds like a crybaby.

Chuckled

There is a huge difference between indoctrination into the law of the land as compared to the law of an invisible guy in the sky.

Regards
DL

Which Religions were at stake in WWI and WWII again?

Why would a "Gnostic Christian" refer to God as an "invisible guy in the sky"?

Makes no sense, for several reasons. One of them being God characteristic of Omnipresence. Saying he is in the literal physical sky is ignoring the 101 teachings

[Inhuman One]

A better wording might be an imaginary friend. Well not really a friend.. more like an imaginary boss telling you what to do or you will suffer.

I bet many fanatic christians, jews and muslims would be into BDSM, it seems to fit them like a glove.

[Sir Adrian]

Chuckled



Which Religions were at stake in WWI and WWII again?

Don't you know? WWI was about Christians fighting over the right to oppress honest peace loving atheists like the communists and the 3rd way movements. WWII was about the Christian oppressors in France and Britain making the peace loving atheists fight among themselves.