God Made Me - A Teachers Guide To Indoctrination

Its quite simple really. The atheistic belief would result in relative morality, and relative morality actually doesn't mean jack squat because it is relative. Anyone can have a different morality which can not be said to be wrong or right even if it is different than someone elses or a groups.

You should definetly. As I explained, I never said the underlying philosophy of morality is atheism. I said the basis for that morality- in which case the 'basis' would be that what underlies the morality, is groundless thanks to Atheism.

A) Your opinion
B) Its quite simple result of relative morality.

I did specify 'authority' not simply the concept of God.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes morality is only relative that's why there's the belief in God Who rewards and allows for morality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

False assumption.
Edit: I do find it "interesting" that someone who remonstrates with others about swearing is so free and easy with euphemisms. "Swearing" doesn't count as swearing if you skirt round it?

Wrong.
I'll quote you again.

And again: the "underlying philosophy" is NOT that of atheism.

Really?

I.e. you specifically stated "god".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, because it isn't considered swearing by the society. 'Kutta' is a swear word in Pakistan, it literally means 'dog'... 'Dog' in america is actually used for some 'cool dude' or even a replacement for 'bro'. So is the word a swear word, depends on society.

I've already clarified my statement. So you would rather continue your misunderstanding instead of accepting a clarification?

In the sentence you quoted both the words 'god' and 'authority' are present. Secondly I said 'Atheism does NOT'... other philosophies which are atheistic do. And again 'god = authority' in theistic religions. So if you have the ability to understand substitution then you should know the statement really was about 'authority'- God is an authority as well.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can lie to yourself if you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that it's a euphemism, and therefore the intent is swearing even if you don't have the balls to actually do it.

You have clarified nothing. Your basic misunderstanding is in the assumption that there is anything atheistic about morals.
You are deliberately obscuring the point.
I'll explain again:

You implied that the underlying philosophy IS that of atheism. This is false. As is the assumption that atheism invalidates the actual basis for morality.

One more time:

I will repeat: atheism doesn't "replace" god with anything. God is NOT "replaced" at all.
One more obfuscation to avoid the point.

 

No the intent was to say it means 'nothing' which is 'jack squat'.. And again if something is not considered swearing by society then it isn't swearing. I don't have to lie myself about it.

I clarified that what I said was NOT that underlying philosophy of morality is atheism- that is the statement I clarified which you have now quoted again and again. 'Clarification' means something- because you don't know what it means. You are saying that I implied by my statements something which I did not intend to imply which is what I CLARIFIED- yet you have not taken those words into account.

I did say atheism 'doesn't'- I said philosophies that are based on it do. And what I meant by 'replaced' is that God is rejected- but the 'authority' that lies with God is given to other things- i.e Humans, reason, logic, science or whatever.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A euphemism is a euphemism. It's a cop-out for saying what you mean.

So by "clarified" you mean "altered completely the intent of your sentence". Yet you repeated the claim in post #59.

One more time: the "underlying philosophy" for morality is not atheism, nor is it anything whatsoever to do with atheism.
It doesn't alter the fact your contention was, and still is, erroneous.
Please:

Tell us what you think the basis actually is. You know, the one that is "groundless" thanks to atheism.

Ah, so when you wrote "replaced" you didn't mean "replaced" you meant something different altogether.

 

Okay.

No, you just didn't understand it the first time, or the second.

I agreed with you and clarified it. You can continuing saying it over and over again.

Lets see, 'basis' can by anything. There is no 'one' basis. Your morals are baseless because you're an atheist. It doesn't have to be particularly named. Humanist atheists, you can continue adding any philosophy as long as they are atheists.

I did mean replace. And giving the authority to something else is still replacing. You don't think it is, I do. I guess its because for you 'god never existed' so you can't replace something non-existent? Right?

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Incorrect. You made a statement and then tried to change the meaning.

You changed the sentence and the intent.

Really? You do know what the word "basis" means, don't you?
Let me clear it up for you:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/basis

That's an assumption. And it's also false. In fact it's a bigoted assumption.

Nope.
God was never a factor so he can't have been "replaced".

 

I wrote:

You replied:

You don't seem to answer, or even attempt to answer, questions pertaining to the topic at hand. I'm trying to discuss the thread topic with you but you continuously prattle on about atheism. Your statement above is so inane that I'm not sure how to further this discussion with you.

 

The teaching of principles / belief systems which history has shown to be corrosive / oppressive toward particular groups of peoples. These issues where the effects are observable in history, should be more easily communicable and agreed upon than those those topics governed by culturally subjective morality.

Slavery, sexism & racism are examples of indoctrination supported by history. If an persons ideals are for progress, freedom and knowledge, then it would appear that these issues can be agreed upon as being indoctrinating should they be taught at school(s). And indeed, few schools teach such principles nowadays (unless, of course, these principles are attached to a particular religious belief system). They've had sufficient time to evolve from being culturally subjective moral issues, to issues which, thanks to an observable history, humans generally agree upon as being 'wrong'.

 

Yes, it is. We see the indoctrinated here and they have lost the ability to think for themselves.

 

I usually go by predefined definitions and don't make them up myself.

 

Because, with humanity, you wouldn't have jack squat to be indoctrinated into you're religion, a religion that despises humanity.

It's a circular thingy.

 

also a circular thingy with you. if not for indoctrination, you wouldn't have a scapegoat for your blindness or your hatred.

 

Incorrect. Its called interpretation. You have the wrong interpretation of my words, which is what I was clarifying yet you refuse to listen.

Sentence is the same, and how can you know the intent when I was the one intending?

Wow. And can there be more than one fundamentals for a foundation. Sure there can.

Thats what you think. If I were an atheist I would think the same, although I would still argue with theists because I don't want to seem that my morals mean anything.

Sure, a-theism by definition has theism in it- thus it was always a factor.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your question was answered. You're asking if something is right or wrong. You don't have to talk about 'children' to make the issue more sensitive. As an atheist you can tell me something is right or wrong- only something is relatively right or wrong. A pedophile may think its all right.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wrong. You made a specific statement (and then repeated it) and claimed that it wasn't what you meant.

The same?

Maybe you need English lessons.

You used the word "basis".

So you still can't back up your argument...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fail. You're still making assumptions about the basis of morality.

 

You have yet to quote me saying that I said the underlying philosophy OF MORALITY is Atheism.

Okay lets requote what I said:

I said the 'basis is groundless'... Morality is not a basis- its is the result. I didn't say that the underlying philosophy of morality directly is Atheism.

If you basis is say Humanism- but the underlying philosophy is Atheism. Then the basis is groundless leaving the resultant morality as groundless.

As I said the equation was Atheism + X = doesn't matter.

The 'basis' is X which is not morality itself. Morality is derived from it.

I don't care if you don't want to understand what I was saying and keep interpreting my words for me.

What is the plural of basis?

I have, you just can see it because you don't see how atheism makes the authority of any other philosophy that is used in conjunction as relative, and relative thus means no need to be followed.

Interesting. So that sentence was about Atheism and God being a factor- but it was a 'fail' because of 'morality'... You just can't give up on argumentation, always want the win eh?

Keep interpreting my words for me, but I'm no longer interested in reading your interpretation.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!