butterflyl1on:


I believe you know what a synonym means and you saw chemystery when he mentioned synonym and you can clearly see TEACH in my synonym.

Please for the last time stop disrupting.

You clearly read where I said the main definition says to brainwash.

All these brain dead atheists

butterflyl1on:


Of course another ad hominem attack when an argument is already lost.

To school means to teach. Doc in inDOCtrinate means TO TEACH. indoctrinate was derived from Latin and it's Latin source means TO TEACH.

Nobody is talking about its Latin source. Even the document you posted says clearly that it's meaning has changed since the 19th century. It's contemporary meaning is what we are talking about not it's Latin origin.

Dalam0n:


You clearly read where I said the main definition says to brainwash.

You clearly saw that my response which you jumped on was a response to chemystery SPECIFICALLY since he talked about SYNONYMS

People are dishonest sha.
When an atheist or any religious sect accuse someone of a different religious sect of being indoctrinated we all know what is meant by that. And it is definitely not just "to teach".
The meaning of a word is undergirded by the context in which that word is used.

Dalam0n:


Nobody is talking about its Latin source. Even the document you posted says clearly that it's meaning has changed since the 19th century. It's contemporary meaning is what we are talking about not it's Latin origin.

If the Latin source is not acceptable then take out the DOC from inDOCtrinate. The DOC there is a reference to its source so the true meaning cannot be ignored.

butterflyl1on:


Of course another ad hominem attack when an argument is already lost.

To school means to teach. Doc in inDOCtrinate means TO TEACH. indoctrinate was derived from Latin and it's Latin source means TO TEACH.

How is pointing out someone is lying ad hominem?

You and lies! Butterfly-lie-on

NPComplete:
People are dishonest sha.
When an atheist or any religious sect accuse someone of a different religious sect of being indoctrinated we all know what is meant by that. And it is definitely not just "to teach".
The meaning of a word is undergirded by the context in which that word is used.

Indoctrination is guided by what aspect of knowledge anyone is being exposed or taught.

Indoctrinate as a word is not isolated to anything in particular but is for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING taught, trained, exposed to, views, opinions etc

NPComplete:
People are dishonest sha.
When an atheist or any religious sect accuse someone of a different religious sect of being indoctrinated we all know what is meant by that. And it is definitely not just "to teach".
The meaning of a word is undergirded by the context in which that word is used.

He should carry his mentally ill dishonest brain and go.

He knows very well the context used when someone says that people are indoctrinated into their various religions but he dishonestly wants to claim that the Latin origin which means to teach is what it really mean.

chemystery:
How is pointing out someone is lying ad hominem?

You and lies! Butterfly-lie-on

You are trying too hard. Ease up on your pain for a crushed thread.

If you could understand simple English you wouldn't still be typing anything but the fact that you still are shows understanding is a struggle even with the screenshots and synonyms and source of usage.

butterflyl1on:


Indoctrination is guided by what aspect of knowledge anyone is being exposed or thought.

Indoctrinate as a word is not isolated to anything in particular but is for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING taught, trained, exposed to, views, opinions etc

This remains your own lies and spin.

So when I learn about the human digestive system I am imbued with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle, abi? Well done.

Dalam0n:


He should carry his mentally ill dishonest brain and go.

He knows very well the context used when someone says that people are indoctrinated into their various religions but he dishonestly wants to claim that the Latin origin which means to teach is what it really mean.

The thread is about indoctrination and from an atheist view he says religion does that.

I as a theist says Atheism ALSO carries out indoctrination.

You have a point of view or context as an atheist which I did not deny (read my very first comment).

I as a theist have my own point of view and context.

What you are trying to do is claim I DENIED the context when I did not but I accepted it in my very first comment.

My view is a rebuttal which shows that indoctrination is done in EVERY aspect of KNOWLEDGE dessimination and acceptance and is a major foundation for atheistic beliefs and ideologies.

butterflyl1on:


If the Latin source is not acceptable then take out the DOC from inDOCtrinate. The DOC there is a reference to its source so the true meaning cannot be ignored.

We are talking about its contemporary meaning. The document you posted clearly says it's meaning has changed. You don't want to accept it. To indoctrinate the contemporay sense simply means to brainwash.

someone is trying to be clever by half. Please stop digressing from the real meaning of indoctrination. There's no need for this antilogy Mr B.

butterflyl1on:


The thread is about indoctrination and from an atheist view he says religion does that.

I as a theist says Atheism ALSO carries out indoctrination.

You have a point of view or context as an atheist which I did not deny (read my very first comment).

I as a theist have my own point of view and context.

What you are trying to do is claim I DENIED the context when I did not but I accepted it in my very first comment.

My view is a rebuttal which shows that indoctrination is done in EVERY aspect of KNOWLEDGE dessimination and acceptance and is a major foundation for atheistic beliefs and ideologies.

You DENIED the context by twisting the definition and saying that it means to teach. It doesn't, indoctrination in this context means to brain wash. And that I'd what religion does. If you agree that atheism also brainwashes then you can debate on that and show how it does .

butterflyl1on:


Indoctrination is guided by what aspect of knowledge anyone is being exposed or thought.

Indoctrinate as a word is not isolated to anything in particular but is for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING taught, trained, exposed to, views, opinions etc

Hey Jesus o.
Guy calm down. Acknowledged the connotation of that word this thread is talking about and easy peasy you guys can continue your discussion.
You are allowed to deny u didn't claim atheist are indoctrinated based on that meaning though and then there won't be the need for all this argument. The thread will be closed since it means Jackbizzle misunderstood u.

Maybe it's your natural need to antagonize that's at play here though. If not, I don't see why that definition is even a problem.

When everybody sees through your dishonesty and you remain adamant then the best thing is to let you wallow in your hard headedness.

KingEbukasBlog who I believe is a more honest person should come and take over and let there be a honest debate if there will be one.

Kingkyle1:
someone is trying to be clever by half. Please stop digressing from the real meaning of indoctrination. There's no need for this antilogy Mr B.

You are trying to be smart. My position remains unchanged. Simply because you pick out a word like UNCRITICALLY you feel that is all INDOCTRINATE is all about?

I believe To TEACH appears in both definitions from two different dictionaries

butterflyl1on:

So let me break it down for you

Indoctrination simply means TO TEACH!

In no place did I say religion is not indoctrination (belief through teaching) what I said was that atheism is ALSO caused by indoctrination.

False. As many have pointed out, "indoctrination" means the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

You have already started failing. Please, stop using an outdated and archaic definition. Thanks

butterflyl1on:


A major causal factor of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation". A generation being found in each individual. For example, a man becomes an atheist and from him a future generation would spring forth so this man who is the first atheist represents a generation. He in turn would begin TO TEACH (indoctrinate) about what and how he arrived at being an atheist.

In 2013, a study found that academia was less likely to hire evangelical Christians due to discriminatory attitudes which in turn aided the indoctrination of atheism in schools.


https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/06/10/suspicions-confirmed-academia-shutting-out-conservative-professors-n1616406/page/full

Some of this indoctrination was carried out through force as declared here by the university of cambridge

I am dismissing your link. It is from an unreliable source and it doesnt point to a study, just describes some book that has claims of discrimination in academia against conservatives.

Furthermore, if even it were true, one of the hardest places to indoctrinate people is in the university. The students there are mostly adults who have freedom to do what they want.

Compare this to religious indoctrination of children.

butterflyl1on:

From the immediate past to today, Atheists have focused considerable efforts on the public schools in order to indoctrinate young people into atheistic beliefs.

The new atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss claim that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-the-government-needs-to-protect-children-from-religion-and

Here is an extract from the website



In a nutshell what Dawkins said is that we need to teach (indoctrinate) our children with science over the Bible despite his first saying THERE SHOULD BE A BALANCE.

We have seen atheists even here on nairaland who hold firmly to evolutionalism over creationism simply because THEY HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO DARWINISM.

Pure rubbish. Teaching science is not indoctrination. Science can be challenged. It can be tested. For instance, if you disagree with gravity,one can test it by jumping up and down.

How do we challenge that god exists in a sunday school without receiving punishment from the religious teacher?

butterflyl1on:
Indoctrination is not a religious thing but indoctrination is found in ALL AREAS OF life including atheism. Just as I started off saying, indoctrination simply means TO TEACH and when one is not allowed to be taught a certain thing he or she would be thought something else as a replacement and in this case, atheism speaks of science, philosophy, etc and some are self indoctrinated while some are third party indoctrinated.

Pure nonsense. Indoctrination does not simply mean "to teach". This is the 21st century and not the 18th century. My guy update your dictionary.

You are right that indoctrination is not a religious thing. Yes, indoctrination can happen anywhere if people are taught things as fact without critical examination. The unfortunate truth is that religion, especially christianity involves a lot of indoctrination.

butterflyl1on:

To further buttress my point, right here on nairaland a thread was opened talking about an atheist convention. Here is the thread


https://www.nairaland.com/4099120/official-announcement-board-atheist-society

In that convention a certain bill flavell (a white man) has been specially invited to help TEACH (INDOCTRINATE) Those who would attend and I believe that the reason a white man was specifically invited is because the host believes he knows something they do not know or he is more enlightened so needs to come and pass on the knowledge aka TEACH aka INDOCTRINATE about ROAD TO REASON.

so anyone who claims atheism is not indoctrination is simply deceiving his or herself

Nonsense. Therefore every intelligent or qualified white man who hosts a convention is indoctrinating nigerians.

butterflyl1on:


You are trying to be smart. My position remains unchanged. Simply because you pick out a word like UNCRITICALLY you feel that is all INDOCTRINATE is all about?

I believe To TEACH appears in both definitions from two different dictionaries

I can see you are being unnecessarily intransigent when you can actually see the fact staring lucidly at you. Sorry Jack,we are now more interested in the word indoctrinate.

JackBizzle:


False. As many have pointed out, "indoctrination" means the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

You have already started failing. Please, stop using an outdated and archaic definition. Thanks




I am dismissing your link. It is from an unreliable source and it doesnt point to a study, just describes some book that has claims of discrimination in academia against conservatives.

Furthermore, if even it were true, one of the hardest places to indoctrinate people is in the university. The students there are mostly adults who have freedom to do what they want.

Compare this to religious indoctrination of children.






Pure rubbish. Teaching science is not indoctrination. Science can be challenged. It can be tested. For instance, if you disagree with gravity,one can test it by jumping up and down.

How do we challenge that god exists in a sunday school without receiving punishment from the religious teacher?





Pure nonsense. Indoctrination does not simply mean "to teach". This is the 21st century and not the 18th century. My guy update your dictionary.

You are right that indoctrination is not a religious thing. Yes, indoctrination can happen anywhere if people are taught things as fact without critical examination. The unfortunate truth is that religion, especially christianity involves a lot of indoctrination.






Nonsense. Therefore every intelligent or qualified white man who hosts a convention is indoctrinating nigerians.

I believe this was your opening comment

As discussed earlier, Butterflyl1on and I are going to have a debate on the topic;


Atheism VS Christianity, Which One Is A Result Of Indoctrination?


I believe that there is steep indoctrination in christianity while Butterflyl1on believes it is the other way around. So, let the debate start.

Please, no insults

You have already broken Your Own rule right at your second comment. An apology is required before we proceed.

Plus ask your goons to stop disrupting. I believe this debate already has its known participants.

No need to debate again.

I am leaving this thread if the other participant wants to lie and be dishonest. How can one maintain that indoctrination simply means to "teach". That definition is outdated mennn.


Butterflyl1on, do you accept that you have the wrong and outdated definition?

butterflyl1on:



I believe this was your opening comment





You have already broken Your Own rule right at your second comment. An apology is required before we proceed.

Saying that a sentence is Nonsense/rubbish is rubbish?


Ogbeni, thread closed. You want to lie this night. Good night.

#unfollows

JackBizzle:
No need to debate again.

I am leaving this thread if the other participant wants to lie and be dishonest. How can one maintain that indoctrination simply means to "teach". That definition is outdated mennn.


Butterflyl1on, do you accept that you have the wrong and outdated definition?

You are leaving because your thread has been trashed. Simple as ABC.

From the very first screenshot you see where it says ITS MEANING ISN'T ALWAYS NEGATIVE and not WASN'T always negative Before it went on to talk about source.

This shows what you call ARCHAIC isn't. Saying it means brainwash TO MANY PEOPLE does not mean TO EVERYBODY. This is what the source says which is why they said IT ISNT always negative and not IT WASN'T always negative.

You can cop out if you like. After all your thread is a no brainer.

JackBizzle:


False. As many have pointed out, "indoctrination" means the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

You have already started failing. Please, stop using an outdated and archaic definition. Thanks




I am dismissing your link. It is from an unreliable source and it doesnt point to a study, just describes some book that has claims of discrimination in academia against conservatives.

Furthermore, if even it were true, one of the hardest places to indoctrinate people is in the university. The students there are mostly adults who have freedom to do what they want.

Compare this to religious indoctrination of children.






Pure rubbish. Teaching science is not indoctrination. Science can be challenged. It can be tested. For instance, if you disagree with gravity,one can test it by jumping up and down.

How do we challenge that god exists in a sunday school without receiving punishment from the religious teacher?





Pure nonsense. Indoctrination does not simply mean "to teach". This is the 21st century and not the 18th century. My guy update your dictionary.

You are right that indoctrination is not a religious thing. Yes, indoctrination can happen anywhere if people are taught things as fact without critical examination. The unfortunate truth is that religion, especially christianity involves a lot of indoctrination.






Nonsense. Therefore every intelligent or qualified white man who hosts a convention is indoctrinating nigerians.

Read your comment in red and then read my first comment then ask yourself why you opened this thread. Your comment in red supports my first comment where I said indoctrination is ALSO an atheistic thing before I began mentioning SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY.

Your Own comment ended Your Own thread since we both agree.

And you wonder who then should be calling the others post Rubbish and Nonsense

Dalam0n:
When everybody sees through your dishonesty and you remain adamant then the best thing is to let you wallow in your hard headedness.

KingEbukasBlog who I believe is a more honest person should come and take over and let there be a honest debate if there will be one.

First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there is indoctrination(to accept something uncritically ) in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism .

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

butterflyl1on:



You are leaving because your thread has been trashed. Simple as ABC.

From the very first screenshot you see where it says ITS MEANING ISN'T ALWAYS NEGATIVE and not WASN'T always negative Before it went on to talk about source.

This shows what you call ARCHAIC isn't. Saying it means brainwash TO MANY PEOPLE does not mean TO EVERYBODY. This is what the source says which is why they said IT ISNT always negative and not IT WASN'T always negative.

You can cop out if you like. After all your thread is a no brainer.

You can't even read. The meaning in the 17th century was "to teach". It then changed to "brainwash" in the 19th century.

Now, oga, are you so dishonest that you fail to realise that we are in the 21st century?


Ogbeni, move on. Your lies are too much.


Lie Mohammed
Nelson ManDeyLie
suLIEman
Carolus LIEnus
Okonjo IweLIE.

Your lies are too much.

KingEbukasBlog:


First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there indoctrination in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism .

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

Good. I'll get back to you later when am free.

JackBizzle:



You can't even read. The meaning in the 17th century was "to teach". It then changed to "brainwash" in the 19th century.

Now, oga, are you so dishonest that you fail to realise that we are in the 21st century?


Ogbeni, move on. Your lies are too much.


Lie Mohammed
Nelson ManDeyLie
suLIEman
Carolus LIEnus
Okonjo IweLIE.

Your lies are too much.

This is simple English and I am seriously holding back from calling you your title.

Indoctrinate simply means "brainwash" to many people(NOT TO ALL PEOPLES) . But its meaning isn't(NOT WASN'T) always so negative. When this verb first appeared in English in the 17th century, it simply meant "to teach"-a meaning that followed logically from its Latin root. The "doc" in the middle of indoctrinate derives from the Latin verb docēre, which also means "to teach." Other offspring of "docēre" include "docent" (referring to a college professor or a museum guide), "docile," "doctor," "doctrine," and "document." It was not until the 19th century that "indoctrinate" began to see regular use in the sense of causing someone to absorb and take on certain opinions or principles.

( BUT BECAUSE ISN'T WAS USED INSTEAD OF WASN'T MEANS THE USAGE NOW IS NOT ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE AS IT APPLIES TO SIMPLY CONTEXT AND NOT TRUE DEFINITION BASED ON SOURCE).

you can keep deceiving yourself

KingEbukasBlog:


First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there is indoctrination(to accept something uncritically ) in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism .

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

How are children taught about religion in schools and churches (sunday school)

Have you forgotten the christian history? What happened to heretics in the early centuries? What about the times where the common man couldnt even own a copy of the bible?

Ogbeni, I like how you ignore all the troubling parts of your religion to blow big grammar in a nonsensical defense of your religion

Dalam0n:


He gave a dictionary definition that defines it as brainwash yet he is still shouting to teach.

It's called Humpty Dumptyism. ‘When [he] uses a word,’ ‘it means just what [he] chooses it to mean — neither more nor less'.

Makes discussion impossible, but Paul advocated the same thing when he wrote:

"I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9

He'll say anything to win.

JackBizzle:


How are children taught about religion in schools and churches (sunday school)

I was once in the system . Most of the childhood , I was a deeper life member . And you know what that means . I spent enough time in Sunday School . There was no where we were taught not to question what was taught . We asked questions as children and our teachers never discouraged us from asking questions .

JackBizzle:

Have you forgotten the christian history? What happened to heretics in the early centuries? What about the times where the common man couldnt even own a copy of the bible?

Ogbeni, I like how you ignore all the troubling parts of your religion to blow big grammar in a nonsensical defense of your religion

You are making my point bro . If Christianity called for uncritical acceptance of beliefs there wouldn't be heretics . In short , I think I've made my point . I gave you myriads of reasons why you are wrong about indoctrination in Christianity . There is no shred of evidence for that .

In addition , there are Christians who accept evolution while taking the allegorical view of the creation story . And what could be the reason ? Oh yes ! Skepticism .