Is religion a form of indoctrination?

[Heloin]

Cute, another incel.

So you like tropical values? Do you find Zimbabwe more enjoyable than Rhodesia? What about the United States? Why or why not?

I consider tropical values to be a trainwreck. It lowers production, increases the STD rates and encourages violence.

Anyway let's return to the topic. I think religion is a form of indoctrination that is replaced in a secular world by things such as ethnonationalism and SJ.

P.S. I'm not actually an ethnonationalist. However I'm a Singaporist or Temperatist, that is, I vehemently oppose tropical values.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand. You want me to talk about Zimbabwe make a topic about Zimbabwe.

For your return to topic argument, aside from yes religion is to some degree indoctrination I have no idea what you can mean by replace by enthonationalism and whatever SJ is. Also I'm fairly certain that Singaporist and Temperatist aren't things, least not things I've ever heard of.

[Neutraligon]

Depends on how it is taught.

[-Ocelot-]

Depends on how it is taught.

Pretty sure most big religions today aren't designed to be taught in different manners. You either conform to the dogma, or you don't. However, different people and nations apply different kinds of punishment to people not conforming to said dogmas.

[Soviet Aidonaia]

Obviously, unless you just don’t buy into it.

[Eastern Denmark]

Depends on how it is taught.

Pretty sure most big religions today aren't designed to be taught in different manners. You either conform to the dogma, or you don't. However, different people and nations apply different kinds of punishment to people not conforming to said dogmas.

ive noticed some of the more "modern" and "hip" non-denominational christian churches are much less pushy with the dogma, they say stuff, they dont intrude on your life or your beliefs, and you leave, i went to it as an atheist for many years, at most i just felt awkward and bored and didnt listen.

[Heloin]

It is but it doesn't really matter. So long as people are free to practice their faith and not forcing anyone to stay in the faith it's all good.


Religion came about as explanations for the way the world worked before we had any clue how to even find out how the world worked. A group of people agree on which unexplained thing made all these other unexplained things happen then bam, you got yourself a religion.

My bad. I was talking about "modern" religion, before people were merely trying to understand how the world works. Older religions are so different it just feels wrong to share the same name as abrahamic dogmas ruling over us today.

No problem I get you. I do sometimes think it's kinda weird that such a large amount of the society most of us here live in is essentially based on one man in Canaan talking to God in the Bronze age, if you believe the story.

Take what I say as you will though. I still go to church and sometimes even listen to what the pastor is saying

[Domina Nostra Nova Terra]

This will be my only comment on this thread to avoid getting flustered as I have had little sleep and am very tired.

No it is not indoctrination in the same way a parent instilling their child with discipline is not indoctrination. The reason why we need to be strict and adhere to dogma is because its the bedrock of our morality. Catholicism especially has developed its theology over 2000 years and science and continues to do so. Its fine to ponder the boat you are sailing on but when you start rocking it so as to risk it capsizing something has to be done. You might think this is stupid and not liberal enough but this is how we maintain a society. When we lax it leads to ruin. No my faith is not about just control its about giving humanity a backbone to defeat its failures because we are fallen creatures and require a good strong foundation. When that foundation is weak bad things happen (see Judges 21:25). that's the exact reason why society and the church militant (the church on earth) is in such a state because fewer their faith seriously and thus their morals. The modernists and the ones trying to derail the faith to take it away from the dogma are the ones doing the abuse towards teenage and young boys not the iron hard traditionalists..

Get off 2012 YouTube, read the gospel of Saint john, st Augustine's confessions and at least the Youth Catechism.

If someone wishes to discuss this with me in a more indepth manner I am willing to do so just not today.

[EastKekistan]

I don't even think people of different religions here can understand each other at all. There is no debate as people just talk past each other.

[Jolthig]

I don't even think people of different religions here can understand each other at all. There is no debate as people just talk past each other.

There is a thing called interfaith dialogue.

[Jolthig]

Yes.

With the morality argument being brought up, I pose Christopher Hitchens' challenge again: name me one good that only a theist could do. It's pretty difficult, isn't it? Now name me one evil. Your head has 2 in mind already.

Not an excuse to mistreat anyone though.

Where did he write that reference? Very interesting.

[EastKekistan]

I don't even think people of different religions here can understand each other at all. There is no debate as people just talk past each other.

There is a thing called interfaith dialogue.

Does it really work? Different people really have completely different unstated assumptions.

If Adam believes in Christianity and Bob believes in atheism then to Adam going to the Christian heaven is worth infinite utility points while to Bob it is worth nothing. Adam may also believe that support from the Christian God in his life exists and is reliable while to Bob relying on that is absurd and risky.

[Jolthig]

There is a thing called interfaith dialogue.

Does it really work? Different people really have completely different unstated assumptions. If Adam believes in Christianity and Bob believes in atheism then to Adam going to the Christian heaven is worth infinite utility points while to Bob it is worth nothing.

They can simply not be rude to one another, and acknowledge their good points.

[EastKekistan]

Does it really work? Different people really have completely different unstated assumptions. If Adam believes in Christianity and Bob believes in atheism then to Adam going to the Christian heaven is worth infinite utility points while to Bob it is worth nothing.

They can simply not be rude to one another, and acknowledge their good points.

Sure but that's usually not how dialogue works. It has to start from statements such as "assume that Catholicism is factually accurate" and "assume that Sunni Islam is factually accurate". However almost nobody explicitly states them, let alone use multiple assumptions to understand POV from others.

Say that Adam believes in Last Thursdayism. In this case to Adam "Last Wednesday" is simply fictional and that he may not recognize the validity of any document supposedly written before Last Thursday, including almost all criminal laws. That can cause very serious social trouble. In a society with a large population believing in Last Thursdayism almost all contracts and laws probably need to be signed every Thursday to remain binding for another week. If you do not even try to assume that Last Thursdayism is factually accurate to understand Last Thursdayists then you can hardly understand their actions and speech.

Same for other religions.

[Nova Cyberia]

Yes.

We are all indoctrinated at some point in our lives. Usually by our parents.

[EastKekistan]

Yes.

We are all indoctrinated at some point in our lives. Usually by our parents.

Of course. This is a reason why pure Libertarianism is incompatible with the existence of children.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Any kind of socialization is technically indoctrination, but not all forms of indoctrination are bad. It is important for a child to learn social values that will help them in life.

[EastKekistan]

Any kind of socialization is technically indoctrination, but not all forms of indoctrination are bad. It is important for a child to learn social values that will help them in life.

I think at this point people really have to state their assumptions. People are really just talking past each other.

If X is hellworthy in one religion and irrelevant to seculars then discussion of X goes nowhere using the usual format.

[EastKekistan]

Say for example the Israel-Palestine conflict. Jews say that Jerusalem is really Yerushalayim and inherently theirs due to the Torah. Evangelical Christians support them because of the Bible and Evangelical doctrines. Muslims say that Jerusalem is really al-Quds and it is inherently Muslim due to the Qur'an and Hadiths. Seculars wonder why the hell people care about this Jerusalem place that much and shake their heads.

One fact is clear though. Different beliefs in supernatural beings and cosmetic justice or lack thereof completely change what the word "self-interest" even refers to. People who optimize for entrance into some form of religious paradise and people who optimize for space colonization and tech are so different in terms of outlook that dialogue is extremely hard especially since the very action of assuming that one's religious position is factually inaccurate just for the sake of argument might be blasphemous in many religions. If we use an analogy..different religious views are like different OS and unfortunately most OSs don't even allow people to install virtual machines..

Hell. Seculars who support Ayn Rand and Karl Marx can at least debate because I think both sides at least want to achieve prosperity so there is a shared goal and a shared measure while people only differ in which tool works to achieve the goal and which tool doesn't.

[Ifreann]

Religion is a thing people are indoctrinated into, a set of beliefs that people are taught to adhere to uncritically. It is not, in and of itself, indoctrination.

[Heloin]

Say for example the Israel-Palestine conflict. Jews say that Jerusalem is really Yerushalayim and inherently theirs due to the Torah. Evangelical Christians support them because of the Bible and Evangelical doctrines. Muslims say that Jerusalem is really al-Quds and it is inherently Muslim due to the Qur'an and Hadiths. Seculars wonder why the hell people care about this Jerusalem place that much and shake their heads.

One fact is clear though. Different beliefs in supernatural beings and cosmetic justice or lack thereof completely change what the word "self-interest" even refers to. People who optimize for entrance into some form of religious paradise and people who optimize for space colonization and tech are so different in terms of outlook that dialogue is extremely hard especially since the very action of assuming that one's religious position is factually inaccurate just for the sake of argument might be blasphemous in many religions.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is not and has never been a doctrinal dispute. It's an ethnic conflict over two groups of people who claim ownership of the same bit of land. That's fairly common throughout the world.

As for space travel being incompatible with being religious, I don't even know where you got that idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8_Genesis_reading

[Nakena]

Yes. It is an form of indoctrination.

Specifically a bad one when it is designed and laid out to keep and to enslave Mankind at a permanent, primitive level and in chains while worshipping at the very least dubious entities.

People who optimize for entrance into some form of religious paradise and people who optimize for space colonization and tech are so different in terms of outlook that dialogue is extremely hard especially since the very action of assuming that one's religious position is factually inaccurate just for the sake of argument might be blasphemous in many religions. If we use an analogy..different religious views are like different OS and unfortunately most OSs don't even allow people to install virtual machines.

The idea of a religious paradise is more often (though not necessarily always) based on the idea that in reward for faithful service the subject will be elevated to a higher level. Whether or not this promise holds any merit is with our current knowledge of the universe impossible to determine.

The problem arises when this service involves subjugating Mankind on said primitive level or the likes. Then it is a very bad deal. Technological advance and space flight is the harder way, because, it forces us to work our own way out of our state with relatively primitive methods and means with objectives that are likely not to be archived within our lifetime or only in the far distant future.

[Jolthig]

Any kind of socialization is technically indoctrination, but not all forms of indoctrination are bad. It is important for a child to learn social values that will help them in life.

Exactly.

[Neutraligon]

Depends on how it is taught.

Pretty sure most big religions today aren't designed to be taught in different manners. You either conform to the dogma, or you don't. However, different people and nations apply different kinds of punishment to people not conforming to said dogmas.

I was raised conservative Jewish, but both my parents are scientists who where very open to questions about religion, including Judaism. While I was taught the rituals, I was always allowed to question everything, including the existence of a god. I was also taught superficially about other religions. They where very willing to mention some of the absurdities of Judaism, or to answer I do not know. The answer was never because god says so, but rather let's think about it.

[Jolthig]

Pretty sure most big religions today aren't designed to be taught in different manners. You either conform to the dogma, or you don't. However, different people and nations apply different kinds of punishment to people not conforming to said dogmas.

I was raised conservative Jewish, but both my parents are scientists who where very open to questions about religion, including Judaism. While I was taught the rituals, I was always allowed to question everything, including the existence of a god. I was also taught superficially about other religions. They where very willing to mention some of the absurdities of Judaism, or to answer I do not know. The answer was never because god says so, but rather let's think about it.

I suppose in this case, you weren't indoctrinated, but simply taught traditions.

[Neutraligon]

I was raised conservative Jewish, but both my parents are scientists who where very open to questions about religion, including Judaism. While I was taught the rituals, I was always allowed to question everything, including the existence of a god. I was also taught superficially about other religions. They where very willing to mention some of the absurdities of Judaism, or to answer I do not know. The answer was never because god says so, but rather let's think about it.

I suppose in this case, you weren't indoctrinated, but simply taught traditions.

Hence why I said that it depends how it was taught. Judaism itself has a tradition of questioning our "leaders" to a certain extent. Questioning the existence of god wasn't done, but the interpretation of the Torah was always open to questioning.