“moral panics” are subhuman:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/11/27/fran_keller_dan_keller_no_this_woman_was_not_performing_satanic_rituals.html

Some woman and her husband were basically ‘railroaded” back during the “Satanic ritual abuse” bullshit back in the 1980s.  She was (finally) released some years ago — having been imprisoned for nonexistent “crimes” — because self-proclaimed “vigilant parents” were gullible as fuck, engaged  in a “witch-hunt”, and ended up victimizing these people, as a result.

I offer this up as a “cautionary tale” to anyone (including Karl) who may be stupid enough to actually believe that the “Monarch Project” actually exists.

“Fritz Springmeier” and “Cathy O’Brien” are both — most likely – undiagnosed schizoprenics who have (somehow) managed to remain semi-“functional”, because their particular “subculture” is unusually compatible with their specific brand of delusional idiocy.

Karl (of course) is a die-hard believer in such things.

 

THIS is an impressive summation, in itself:

To state it plainly, indoctrination means to heavily influence someone into believing a particular set of ideas, whether they are political, cultural, or religious. Most often, this is done when the individual is particularly young, when he or she lack the ability to reasonably conclude whether or not a statement is true. Those who’ve experienced heavy indoctrination may be unaware of competing theories, alternate hypotheses, or even whether the ideas hold any merit at all; those ideas are simply believed and held dear for an unknown period of time.

I’d never advocate for one to indoctrinate their child with strong atheist ideas either; I think it’s very important that we teach children how to think, not what to think. I attended a religious institution as a young boy, around the age of 11 or 12. Up until that point, I will say, I wasn’t too concerned with religious beliefs. I rarely attended church services with my family, occasionally took part in religious traditions, and prayed now and then; I was far from a firm believer and I don’t think my parents ever were either. We were simply doing what everyone else was doing. That was, I think, the most important part of my experience as a child; I was never taught these things to be true by those whom I respected the most.

Since I was enrolled in this religious body, I do have firsthand knowledge regarding the practices of indoctrination. The pre-kindergarten class was heavily populated; the surrounding school district had a reputation of holding poor pre-kindergarten class, leaving this particular school the only option for many parents. We as older children often read them Bible stories, rehearsed prayers with them, taught them Christian hymns, and so on and so forth. What bothers me about it now was that I gladly took part in it. These poor children had no choice in the matter. They were being taught by their authorities that these particular sets of religious beliefs were true, without a chance of error.

And most of these children would stay in this particular school system, as most who had attended were my age. Almost all would tell you they knew God was real, Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, rose from the dead, was resurrected and ascended into heaven on the third day; to them, all of these things were as real as you or I. Never did they entertain the idea these things might not be true and neither were they influenced to challenge those beliefs. They weren’t taught about other faiths and why other individuals find those to be true. It was a terrible environment for a child to have been brought up in and I sincerely hope I am not the only one to have escaped from the information they forced on everyone. I even refrained from challenging out of fear I’d be mocked or punished; in a way, I indoctrinated myself into thinking religious beliefs were off the table to debate.

So what age are children most vulnerable to indoctrination? Children are typically open to believing almost anything told to them, without question. During early childhood, children are most receptive which is why education is most important during this period of time. Learning comes faster, the memory is crisp, and children are generally open and willing to accept new information without inhibition. The age of reason is typically considered to be around 6 or 7, when the child begins to have the capabilities to weigh options and reach conclusions. This is when we must be vigilant when trying to help them develop the how to think approach. The Socratic Method effectively helps the child develop the critical thinking skills needed to maintain a healthy thought process. This period of time hasn’t gone unnoticed by those who seek to mold the mind of the young for religious reasons.

Most Christian church organizations heavily involve children in many different events. Sunday school, summer Bible camps, wilderness retreats, catechism or confirmation, plays, and musical ceremonies top that particular list. These organizations are quite aware how impressionable children are and it appears as though they’re taking full advantage of that. Some evangelical Christian organizations fully and publicly acknowledge what they’re doing.

In Islam, indoctrination is taken a bit more seriously. From a very early age, Muslims are taught to memorize the Koran; sometimes, this often holds importance over studying other more earthly curriculums. This has two significant disadvantages. Firstly, this has a long lasting effect on the child’s cognitive development, as it’s primarily based on one particular source. Secondly, as a result of that, they will learn to reject other sources of knowledge simply because it deviates from what Islam teaches. This then, as I state previously, creates an “us” versus “them” frame of mind, completely carrying the Muslim believer further from enlightenment; never questioning and always accepting, brainwashing at its best. The very same can be said for most of the orthodox Jewish population. Anywhere religious instruction exists, expect indoctrination to take place.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/15/childhood-indoctrination-religions-greatest-weapon/

 

The above is just about the best summation of the topic that I have encountered so far.

Why “geography of religion” matters:

One of the potential excuses which could be invoked to excuse the “geography of religion” thing is the observation that most people don’t actively ‘choose” which language(s) they’re subjected to first, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language

There’s a vast difference between the two issues, however:

Nobody claims that you’ll be sentenced to an eternity of “hellfire” for having been born into a Japanese-speaking population.

Oh, wait — some people are insane enough to battle over shit like that, too:

Time for an Ayn Rand quote:

A symptom of the tribal mentality’s self-arrested, perceptual level of development may be observed in the tribalists’ position on language.

Language is a conceptual tool—a code of visual-auditory symbols that denote concepts. To a person who understands the function of language, it makes no difference what sounds are chosen to name things, provided these sounds refer to clearly defined aspects of reality. But to a tribalist, language is a mystic heritage, a string of sounds handed down from his ancestors and memorized, not understood. To him, the importance lies in the perceptual concrete, the sound of a word, not its meaning. He would kill and die for the privilege of printing on every postage stamp the word “postage” for the English-speaking and the word “postes” for the French-speaking citizens of his bilingual Canada. Since most of the ethnic languages are not full languages, but merely dialects or local corruptions of a country’s language, the distinctions which the tribalists fight for are not even as big as that.

But, of course, it is not for their language that the tribalists are fighting: they are fighting to protect their level of awareness, their mental passivity, their obedience to the tribe, and their desire to ignore the existence of outsiders.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tribalism.html

Probably the clearest examples of the utter correctness of Rand’s observation are the various “ethnoreligious” communities here in the U.S., and the history of the former Yugoslavia:

The only reason that  the pseudo-language of “Pennsylvania Dutch”  even exists at all, si because it is inextricably tied to several relatively-obscure religious sects (Amish/Mennonites/”Brethren”, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_German_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzenau_Brethren

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravian_Brethren

The “Hutterites” have their own absurd little “cult-speak”, as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite

The important thing to recognize about such “languages” is that they exist to prevent communication with “outsiders” – to insulate those with the bad luck to have been “born into” such communities, and prevent them from ever escaping.

Of course, the same thing can be said for Yiddish — especially among the Hasidim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism

I’ve come to the conclusion that approximately 99% of humanity “learn” their religious beliefts/practices the same way they “learn” the sexism, racism, etc. which so often go right along with those “beliefs” and “practices”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_people_with_albinism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingi

 

 

 

99% of humanity don’t actually ‘believe” the religion perpetrated on them by their “community”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group

This is true even among purportedly “universalizing” religions like Christianity.

Barring some sort of very extraordinary and unusual disruption, you are overwhelmingly likely to simply ape/parrot your “tribe” — and profess “belief” in whatever the local hobgoblins happen to be called.

That’s why I can’t take 99% of such antics seriously.

 

 

SOMEBODY ELSE gets why religious “debate” is a fucking waste:

Geography (one’s place of birth), and the brand of one’s parent’s religion are undeniably the single greatest influence on a theist’s particular flavor of superstition.

This is a fact based on simple observation and evidence. Over 80% of the population of India is Hindu. They didn’t suddenly decide to become Hindu by random chance, or by evaluating every other religion on Earth and making an informed decision. India has been a seat of Hinduism for 2600 years or more. 90% of the worlds 1 billion+ Hindus reside in India and Nepal. Thus, when a child is born in India, there is a large possibility that his parents are Hindu and overwhelming likelihood they will raise him as a Hindu.

Online a Christian was espousing the usual insipid nonsense about Christianity being the “one true religion”. Further, that he has chosen Christianity because it was revealed to him by God. I asked where he was from and if his parents were likewise believers. He was from Alabama, and he assured me his parents were devout Christians, or as he put it “They are Saved.”

 

 
I posited that if he had been born in India, to Indian parents who practice Hinduism, its more than likely that he’d believe Hinduism was the one true religion, and would scoff at and dismiss Christianity and its dogma. Thus, it isn’t revelation that made him Christian, it was an accident of geography and parentage that decided for him what the “one true” religion is.

Using that famous Christian openness to logic and reality he retorts with ”No, I still would have been a Christian.” I tried to get him to explain in logical terms how if he had been born to Hindu parents, in India he would avoid having been indoctrinated into their prevailing belief system. All I received for my effort was “You wouldn’t understand.” Well, that solves that problem.

So in the absence of a worthy theist apologist, I shall venture a guess as to what he would propose would have caused a child born in India to Hindu parents to become a Christian. It works like this: Jesus would have recognized him as a person MEANT to be Christian, and thus would have implanted in his mind a “Christian Gene”, or some such predisposition toward Christianity. Of course, this would mean that this particular child, having been uniquely selected from among nine hundred million Indian Hindus, was the “Chosen Indian of Jesus”.

This then sets him above the one billion+ Hindus Jesus doesn’t deem worthy of hypnotizing, enticing, or otherwise receiving His “revealed” singular Truth. All those other’s would be ignored and condemned to Hell for not abandoning their historic Hindu faith and coming to the Lord independently, without His divine intervention. It would infer he would be the hand selected of God among all others. Obviously this is something the Christian chat character was not prepared to proffer or defend in an open chat room. Better to leave it at “You wouldn’t understand.”

But, we do understand. We understand that to people like him supernaturalism, denial of fact, and abandonment of reason in defense of a belief always trumps real world logic and evidence.

Quite frankly, the FIRST question to ask of any self-identified “believer” or apologist (for whichever religion) is: WHERE WERE YOU BORN AND “RAISED”.
This one simply question would instantly do away with approximately 99% of the “debate” over religion, in one fell swoop.

Even the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR admits what should be blatantly obvious:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0208/How-religion-in-the-US-today-tracks-closely-with-geography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor

As I’ve said before: the fact that “religion” and “geography” have anything at ALL to do with one another should be enough to flatly discredit the professed “beliefs” of the 90+% of the population who insist on aping/parroting whatever superstitious nonsense was perpetrated on them by their parents.

Why?   If any of them genuinely ‘believed” any of it, then they could do in isolation — or even against the prevailing “groupthink” of any given area.

The truly bone-evil thing about this is: even those who claim to be ‘believers” tacitly acknowledge it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch_Country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Corridor

Fuck it.  I could go on.  I could point out the mere coincidence that there just happen to be a significant number of “devout” Hindus on the Indian subcontinent — and significantly fewer Hindus in Mississippi.

I could point to the existence of the “Muslim World”.

I could point to distinctively “Chinese” religions (Religious Taoism, Falun Gong, etc.) — but doing so will most likely result in the so-called “believers” evading the uncomfortable fact that those oh-so-precious “beliefs” and “practices” have vanishingly little to do with a rational appraisan of the truth-claims of their specific ‘faith”, and INFINITELY MORE to do with THE ACCIDENT OF GEOGRAPHY.

Billy-Bob is a Baptist because Billy-Bob was born in the “Bible-Belt“.

Of course, once you admit that the whole fucking thing is essentially GEOGRAPHY GONE MAD, then you must ALSO admit that all the torture and slaughter inflicted on “unbelievers”, “heretics” etc. was over a mere accident of geography.

I find that fucking horrifying, myself.