Indoctrination

[loser]

Nearly all the atheists I know personally were brought up in religious families of one sort or another, including myself: and although I would not be so immodest as to call myself a genius, I haven't done too badly in the academic world, which abounds with intelligent people, (and virtually all of them profess to be either atheist or agnostic, by the way).

Mostly ONE sort, not ANOTHER (when referring to Christianity). If "religious families" includes non-Christian families (and the ONE Christian religion), atheism is the EXPECTED outcome...it is the LOGICAL progression. Modesty is NOT an onus of genius, it is usually merely a sign of either false humility or self-depreciation.

He has my sympathies.

That is to be expected, you share his 'state'.

I, also, have a family member who claims to be born again, and we tend to give her a wide berth wherever possible - not because of demon spirits but because she gets on our nerves.

Where is the logic in that?

You are NOT qualified to discount demon spirits as they are DECEIVING spirits of which you are unaware. I, too, was filled with demon spirits before I was converted and was also completely unaware of them. In fact, I considered myself (as did others) to be a 'good' kid and I had much less moral turpitude than average. Until I was 'confronted' by an old friend who had recently been filled with the Holy Spirit, I was not even aware of spirits, good or bad. My illogical long-distance aversion of this friend (run, get away as fast as you can!), whom I should have been glad to see, made me painfully aware of things not seen yet powerfully felt.

There was no logic in the completely irrational fear that I experienced that day when I spotted my friend coming towards me in his car while he was still several blocks away - but it was a palpable sense of dread that sent me fleeing down a side street in a desperate attempt to lose him. It was logic, however, that forced me to acknowledge these unseen forces even though I wouldn't fully understand it until I too was filled with the Holy Spirit many months later.

God is like a radio station. If you are not tuned into His CALL SIGN, you may never hear His message, His words, or His music. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Others are receiving Him loud and clear. You may too someday, if you just turn the dial.

If you are indeed in 'tangible' contact with these figments of the supernatural, as you claim to be, would it be possible to photograph or record these non-existent entities for our edification?

They're not figments nor are they non-existent, they're very real. I can't photograph or record 'air' for you. Do I need to? Why not? Is it just one of the many UNSEEN things that you just accept because someone told you to? Spirit is like wind. You can't see it directly but you can see the effects of it.

What other features of the unseen world are you in intimate contact with?

Air, cosmic rays, ultraviolet rays, infrared rays, sound waves, magnetic lines of force, microscopic olfactory particles, microwaves, radio waves...too many to mention. Since you can't see, hear, smell, taste or feel so many things that are real, how can I really know just how many there are? How about time? Is it real? It sure seems to be more than just a figment.

I firmly believe there is not room in a single grain for both science and religion - they are mutually exclusive ways of interpreting the world, and logic does nor enter into the equation where God is concerned.

Nobody's perfect.

What you believe is a personal POV. With many POV's, comes many different realities; different but the same.

Without God, science wouldn't even exist.

Science is the study of the known. Religion is the study of the unknown. Both are the study of God and His creation.

Light: Is it a wave or is it a particle? Are waves and particles "mutually exclusive"?

Your certainty demands some sort of rational proof, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

It certainly did and was certainly provided...for me, though, not for you...DON'T hold your breath. You'll find your own way.

f your mind correctly tells you that God is not real it is because your intellect recognises the absurdity of loving someone who doesn't exist. That's the logical part. If you attempt to override your intellect in your need to find God, it is a bad thing. I'm not saying the intellect is infallible, but it is still the best tool we have for assessing probabilities.

It's not intellectual to pretend that what YOU believe is the ONLY logical choice. My mind CORRECTLY told me that God is real because my intellect recognized the absurdity of believing in things that don't exist. If you override your intellect because it's important for you to NOT believe in God, it's a sad thing.

He's had well over 2000 years to speak up - but the Divine Silence is pretty deafening! (and yes, when I was young I did try hard to listen, - just in case - but not a single word, then or since, unsurprisingly).

You were tuned in to the wrong frequency. He's been speaking for a lot longer than 2,000 years and MANY people have heard His voice, more than not.

You amaze me. Given the sheer volume of careful scholarly research that has been carried out with regard to the bible over the last couple of hundred years, how can you, a self-confessed scientist, dismiss all that with a wave of the hand, and still regard that book as anything but a highly fallible (even pernicious) bunch of uneducated writings?

Your sources are really bad. The Bible has been assaulted by the most skeptical audience imaginable and, in spite of this, it has shown itself to be the most reliable journal of truth known to man. Time after time, skeptical onslaught after onslaught, it has been vindicated, a testament to its veracity.

Uneducated? Pernicious? Amazing! However has it survived?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: loser Uneducated? Pernicious? Amazing! However has it survived?

So has the Kama Sutra, which is much older, (and a lot more fun).

[RavenFlame]

Because it was such a wondrous evernt. It was like having an ephiphany. I'm not saying the desire to misbehave and be immoral was immediately taken away, but as I learned what Christ had to say about how we should conduct our lives, I began to exercise a greater control over my actions. Virtually everything about Christianity is opposite to what the natural world believes. Examples: He who is chiefest among you, let him be servant of all. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Give and it shall be given to you. It is more blessed to give than to receive. God hid things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. The widow who gave two mites gave more than anybody. If they smite you on one cheek, turn the other.

Now imagine it was by your own power that you changed yourself, not by that of religion.

Quote by: littlebear You are still talking about discernment. It is far different to observe someone's personality than to ask them to show you their personality. No one can show you the essence of their personality, but you can observe them and see the effects of it. Can I show you my faith? No. Can you observe it. Yes. At least the effects of it.

People are always showing their personality, and by extension its "essence," intentional or not.
Religion does not provide near the same quality of empirical evidence.

[littlebear]

Quote by: RavenFlame Now imagine it was by your own power that you changed yourself, not by that of religion.

I can't image it was by my own power. My normal inclination is to be a bad person. I used to love to fight, but I am too old for it now. I liked to drink a lot. I was a pool shark. I was immoral. I took some drugs. I still have desires to do the same, but they lessen with time. It is actually a cooperative thing for Christians to change their lives. Takes a lot of prayer.

People are always showing their personality, and by extension its "essence," intentional or not. Religion does not provide near the same quality of empirical evidence.

I would say that depends on the Christian. Mother Teressa and me. I would think you would see quite a lot in her and not nearly so much in me.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: mirutsa Charles Darwin. He came up with the theory of atheism, supported by natural selection. He, however, was a quack.

Quote by: mirutsa I don't necessarily agree with "bad." As children, many of us are indoctrinated against committing crime.

Actually, in addition to being taught not to commit crimes, children have been taught to commit crimes. So, you could actually argue that {children} have been indoctrinated for and against committing crimes.

Quote by: mirutsa I wouldn't say that's bad logic.

Actually, depends on the crime. You would say that it is {bad} logic if it is a crime that you did not agree with. The determination of whether the logic is {good} or {bad} would depend on the crime and your agreement with it.

Quote by: mirutsa I realize the overall context is religious indoctrination, but in simply contrasting it with teaching, indoctrination has many faces.

….which all involve {Teaching.}

Quote by: Zhavric I'm going to assume that you stated this to be funny and don't actually mean what you stated there. That's different. When we're told not to committ crimes, we don't need a special set of logical rules for the claims surrounding committing crimes.

Being that what constitutes {logical,} {special,} and {criminal} are subjective, why not? Even on this board it is clearly seen that your definition of what is {logical,} {special,} and {criminal} is not the next man’s. And with that being the case, then please explain why a {special} set of {logical} rules is not surrounding those who are instructed not to commit a {crime?}

Quote by: Zhavric We aren't told that evidence doesn't matter or that there's a magical police man in the sky.

Well, evidently, it looks like somebody must have told these guys that {Evidence} doesn‘t matter:


1. “A rock does not get a certificate that it exists. That is not how reality works.”
Logical Agnostic Summation of Scientific Occurrences POST # 6


2. “I don't test every single theory a scientists provide. In fact, I have never tested one theory.”
Christians and Evidence POST # 14

3. “Since when do we use evidence based on written words? or words in general?”
Faith And Convincing Evidence POST # 4

4. “We have also established that written word by a single source is not convincing.”
Faith And Convincing Evidence POST # 34

5. “It is no coincidence that human beings actually think the way stars move impacts the way they act throughout the day even though they read it out of a newspaper that is printed everyday.”
Faith And Convincing Evidence POST # 3

6. “Mr M, religion is not a part of nature” A Gospel Challenge POST#33

7. “Religion is a human invention, not a natural occurrence.” A Gospel Challenge POST#38

8. "I concede this point because eventually (930 freaking years later, Gen5:5) they died. This is like saying " eat that Hotdog and you will die" leaving out the part that you COULD have lived forever, but instead, you will die in 60 years. So it wasn't a lie, it was an incomplete truth.... "
Original Sin Contradiction POST# 34

Quote by: Zhavric Religious indoctrination necessarily involves forcing people to adopt logic that they don't use anywhere else.

And what {logic} might that be?

Quote by: Zhavric Regardless of how many alleged eyewitnesses there are, a Christian will (in general) not believe that Elvis came back from the dead because Elvis coming back from the dead is impossible, but believe that Jesus coming back from the dead is perfectly reasonable.

Now Zhavric, first thing, when did we start basing the {Validity} of a {Claim} on the number of alleged eyewitnesses that are present? Is such Action not seen as one of your fallacies? And are you not one who is against engaging in such an Action? And since it is the case, the question then is: Why should you take issue with “Christians,” who, regardless of how many alleged eyewitnesses are present, choose to believe the possibility of one occurrence over another? Why now do you appear to have a problem with such an Action? Do you yourself not engage in the same Action? Are you not one, who, regardless of how many witnesses there are, believes that one thing is impossible while another is perfectly {reasonable?}

Secondly, which “Christians” have you been talking to? Which “Christian” has informed you that an individual coming back from the dead is {impossible?} The last Time one checked, most “Christians” believed in some type of {bodily} resurrection.

Quote by: Zhavric I remember having a debate with a Christian about the empty tomb Jesus was allegedly put into. The Christian had decided it was impossible for the Roman soldier guarding the tomb to be bribed or tricked, but that it was perfectly reasonable that a magic angel came and took Jesus' corpse. So, this flagrant abuse of the word "impossible" is a clear example of indoctrination.

And what about that conclusion do you have a problem with? From a Position In Time, is it not {possible} for the bribing of the Roman soldier to exist as an {impossibility} and the taking of Jesus’ corpse by an angel to exist as a {possibility?}

[mirutsa]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk Actually, in addition to being taught not to commit crimes, children have been taught to commit crimes. So, you could actually argue that {children} have been indoctrinated for and against committing crimes.

Agreed.

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk Actually, depends on the crime. You would say that it is {bad} logic if it is a crime that you did not agree with. The determination of whether the logic is {good} or {bad} would depend on the crime and your agreement with it.

Meh. Too much is assumed here. If the logic behind it is sound, I might simply say it's a "bad" law. A law can be soundly logical, and still be unethical.

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk ….which all involve {Teaching.}

Sure, okay. I was operating from the positive connotation of teaching as an edifying, enriching event. The word fully considered, I can agree with the above.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Jack Darwin came up with the theory of atheism? That's going to be difficult to substantiate.

Depends on who you are trying to substantiate it to.

Quote by: Jack Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I know that theists often think that the theory of evolution was proposed as a rebuttal to religious belief in creationism.

Well, then maybe the question that should be asked is this: If the theory of evolution was not proposed as a rebuttal to religious belief in creationism, then why does it appear that it has primarily been used for that purpose? What could possibly give the theist the idea that the theory of evolution was proposed as a rebuttal to {religious} belief? It couldn’t possibly be all of those individuals who are using it for that explicit purpose?

Quote by: Jack They fail to appreciate that science follows the evidence.

And apparently some fail to appreciate a couple of things:
1. There is no following without the {EVIDENCE.}

2. And since there is no following without the {EVIDENCE,} then each individual follows the {EVIDENCE.}

3. Following the {EVIDENCE} can lead one to various conclusions.

Quote by: Jack If its conclusions offend religion, it's an unintended and unimportant side-effect.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem when the opposite occurs, or when the conclusions of religion offend your {science?}

Quote by: Jack Debunking religion is not the goal of science, increased knowledge is.

Then why are you and others trying to use {science} to debunk {religion?}

And secondly, why is {science} always trying to debunk other {science?}

Thirdly, can it not be said that the debunking of {religion} and attempting to {increase} in knowledge are both the goals of {science?}

Quote by: Jack If increased knowledge counters belief then perhaps belief should be re-examined.

And if {Increased Knowledge} counters belief, and the idea that {Increased Knowledge} counters belief is in itself the result of belief, then maybe that which is believed to be {Increased Knowledge} countering belief should be re-examined?

Quote by: mirutsa It was a joke. I thought the "he was a quack" bit would make it obvious.

You may not have noticed but here is something that is quite interesting: Your little comment, which was seen by you as jest, was not quite so evident unto others as such.

Now, from this observation, here is a question: Does their failure to see your comment as jest, mean that it did not or does not exist as such? In other words, is the existence of your comment as jest dependent on those who did not see it as such?

Quote by: mirutsa No magic police, true.

Are there really none? Guys who run around in chariots without horses, who shoot metal slugs out of other pieces of shaped metal, are not {Magic?} Try telling that to the individual whose Position in Reality has not allowed him to experience the form of such a thing.

Quote by: mirutsa I was more referring to such adages as "Crime doesn't pay," and other such nonsense that lead Superman to turn bad guys over to "justice" instead of just lighting them up with some heat-ray vision.

And so are you proposing that this Superman should just take “justice” into his own hands? Would he then not be a criminal? And if so, why?

Quote by: mirutsa I'll agree to that.

And to you the same question: What logic might that be? What logic are people forced to adopt that they don't use anywhere else?

Quote by: Jack Sorry I misunderstood. <shameless self-promotion> If you read my latest blog post (Radical Atheist » Christians believe the darndest things) you might understand why I took it seriously. These days I'm having trouble discerning satire from true belief on these matters.

Only Christians? Are there no atheists who believe the “darndest things?” One is sure that we could find some.


By the way, what is the difference between satire and {true} belief?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: GeminiBrian We are born with no beliefs...

Again, that’s not what the research appears to point to:

1. Babies not as innocent as they pretend

2. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

3. Children are born to know right from wrong, new research shows

4. Babies choose right from wrong in study

5. Babies 'can tell friend from foe'

6. Study suggests babies get the beat at birth

Quote by: GeminiBrian People tend to absorb the prevailing religious mindset of their particular community as they grow up, unthinkingly in most cases.

Unthinkingly? Why is it unthinkingly? Do you mean to tell us that it is possible to learn something without {thinking?} Can you please explain how that is accomplished? Are the individuals not aware of those {prevailing} religious mindsets? Are they not able to choose not to absorb or learn those {prevailing} religious mindsets?

Secondly, does the fact that people are supposedly able to absorb the {prevailing} religious mindsets of Things that are around them, mean that they are born without any beliefs? Does the fact that a sponge is able to absorb additional material, mean that it had no material to begin with?

Quote by: GeminiBrian That remains the status quo, unless an effort is made to re-assess such beliefs without prejudice.

And since every belief can be said to be {prejudiced,} how do you expect to accomplish this “reassessment?”

Quote by: GeminiBrian However, all systems of belief are inevitably prone to collapse under the application of rationality, so the thinking person invariably dies with no beliefs, only the assurance that he or she is free from delusion...

This would then mean that all systems of belief are made without the application of rationality, and therefore are not {rational?} And by the way, would this not also include the application of rationality that collapses the other systems of belief?


Secondly, how? How is the {Thinking Person} an individual who dies with no beliefs?

Now, the reason why this is asked, is because, {Thinking} requires that one hold an opinion or judgment. And an opinion or judgment is essentially a {Belief.} In other words, {Thinking} necessitates a {Belief.} One does not {Think} without {Believing.} And as such, what this means is a couple of things:

First, even not {Believing} is a {Belief.} Or {Thinking} that you do not have a {Belief} is in itself a {Belief.}

Secondly, {Thinking} that you are {Thinking} or {Not Thinking} is a {Belief}

Thirdly, {Thinking} that some other Person, Object or Thing is {Thinking} or {Not Thinking} is a {Belief.}

Fourthly, the assurance that you are free from delusion is a {Belief.}

So, how then does a {Thinking} Person die with no Beliefs? Without any Belief, how then does the {Thinking} Person die with the assurance that they are free from delusion?

[Aussie]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk Again, that’s not what the research appears to point to: 1. Babies not as innocent as they pretend 2. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates 3. Children are born to know right from wrong, new research shows 4. Babies choose right from wrong in study 5. Babies 'can tell friend from foe' 6. Study suggests babies get the beat at birth

These links sound like they're dealing with instinct rather than 'beliefs' (except the beat one, not surprising when that's the majority of what they hear in the womb). To have a belief is to hold an opinion, and babies hardly have opinions.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: loser Then the joke is really on you because Darwin was a quack...if it ducks like a quack, it is a quack.

Even if his theory on how evolution worked and all else surrounding the matter were wrong, the fact that he said the idea of evolution exists, proves he is not a quack.

[littlebear]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne Even if his theory on how evolution worked and all else surrounding the matter were wrong, the fact that he said the idea of evolution exists, proves he is not a quack.

No, it proves he was a deluded quack.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: littlebear No, it proves he was a deluded quack.

What like he just got lucky?

You need to explain more.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Zhavric Well, say something intelligent once in a while and we'll keep you company. Seriously, man, I don't even bother reading most of your posts anymore. Why don't you do us all a favor and just copy and paste "Ur dumb cuz u don't believe in gawd!1!!" and save us all a lot of time?

Actually, it would appear that your unwillingness to keep Loser company is not because he fails to say something {intelligent.} After all, everyone and everything says something intelligent. Even he that is said to be a fool can and does say {intelligent} things. So, the problem is not that he is not saying something {intelligent.} Instead, the problem lies in the fact that he is saying things that you do not wish or want to hear. Or you could also say that he is saying those things that you do not wish to acknowledge or recognize as {intelligent.} Therefore, to you, his sayings now become {unintelligent.} Let him agree with all that you spout, and let him say that atheists are {correct} and theists are {incorrect} and then, let us see if you will still state that he is not saying anything {intelligent.}

Quote by: Diogenes Actually, as I posted elsewhere...the concept of evolution dates back to Pythagoras in around 500BC...Diodorus of Sicily in his work about the history of the world, circa 80BC ( most of which was destroyed or lost ), proposed that man came up from the ocean. Darwin expanded on the idea but was not it's originator. So...yes...it could not have been originally a rebuttal.

Is it not possible for an idea to have more than one origin or source? And if so, how then is the expander of the idea not also an originator?

[Jack]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk Depends on who you are trying to substantiate it to.

True, those who believe anything they're told and make no effort to discover the facts for themselves would be easily convinced.

Well, then maybe the question that should be asked is this: If the theory of evolution was not proposed as a rebuttal to religious belief in creationism, then why does it appear that it has primarily been used for that purpose? What could possibly give the theist the idea that the theory of evolution was proposed as a rebuttal to {religious} belief? It couldn’t possibly be all of those individuals who are using it for that explicit purpose?

The theory of evolution is interpreted by believers to be a debunking of their beliefs, just as they perceive anything which challenges their beliefs as a threat.

And apparently some fail to appreciate a couple of things: 1. There is no following without the {EVIDENCE.}

So believers in Big Foot all have evidence in support of their beliefs? Since your first assumption is incorrect, what follows is inconsequential.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem when the opposite occurs, or when the conclusions of religion offend your {science?}

I don't.

Then why are you and others trying to use {science} to debunk {religion?}

Science, logic and reason can all be employed to debunk religion. That doesn't mean that's what they exist to do.

And secondly, why is {science} always trying to debunk other {science?}

That's what science does (and religion doesn't do) to keep itself honest and unsullied with personal agendas.

Thirdly, can it not be said that the debunking of {religion} and attempting to {increase} in knowledge are both the goals of {science?}

Anything can be said if honesty isn't a factor.

Only Christians? Are there no atheists who believe the “darndest things?” One is sure that we could find some.

I conclude you didn't read the link.

By the way, what is the difference between satire and {true} belief?

Satire is intentionally nonsensical.

And if so, how then is the expander of the idea not also an originator?

If I design a better bus can I claim to be the inventor of buses?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Quote by: Tycoon Clearly in your desire to say something clever you misinterpreted what I said. If somebody is Christian, and has been their whole life, then some of the ideas proposed by atheism would be considered, in regards to them, new.

Well then, can we argue, that as a result of your own {misinterpretation} of Reality, you have come to presume, that people who have been “Christians” for their whole lives are oblivious to those proposals that you have labeled {“new.”} Therefore, somehow, without taking those {“new”} proposals into consideration, these individuals have come to their {Christian} beliefs? In other words, are you so out of touch with Reality that you have come to conclude, that when one comes to decide that there is a God or gods, he does not consider the fact that there might not be a God or gods? Are we to believe that that thought never crosses the mind of the individual who arrives at his conclusion of a God or gods?

So again, what {new} ideas are you referring to? The {new} idea that there is no God? Or maybe the idea that your proposals are {new?} What makes you presume that those who have been “Christian‘s” their entire lives, have never entertained any of those ideas?

Quote by: Tycoon Nobody is born into a religion - they are brought into the religion.

Now, judging from this comment, it also appears that you are one who assumes, that an individual who is {brought into,} is not one who is {born into.} In other words, somehow, you are of the mind that, a person who is {brought into} a certain environment is one, who without {bearing,} is {borne into} that environment. So, to see if this assumption is {spot-on,} let’s just examine the definitions of BRING and BEAR:

1. BRING: transitive verb: 1 a : to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded b : to cause to be, act, or move in a special way: as (1) : ATTRACT *her screams brought the neighbors* (2) : PERSUADE, INDUCE (3) : FORCE, COMPEL (4) : to cause to come into a particular state or condition *bring water to a boil* c dialect : ESCORT, ACCOMPANY d : to bear as an attribute or characteristic *brings years of experience to the position* 2 : to cause to exist or occur: as a : to be the occasion of *winter brings snow* b : to result in *the drug brought immediate relief* c : INSTITUTE *bring legal action* d : ADDUCE *bring an argument*
3 : PREFER *bring charges*
4 : to procure in exchange : sell for
intransitive verb , chiefly Midland : YIELD, PRODUCE
–bring£er noun
–bring forth
1 : BEAR *brought forth fruit*
2 : to give birth to : PRODUCE
3 : ADDUCE *bring forth persuasive arguments*

>>>BRING


2. BEAR: transitive verb:
1 a : to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c : BEHAVE, CONDUCT *bearing himself well* d : to have as a feature or characteristic *bears a likeness to her grandmother* e : to give as testimony *bear false witness* f : to have as an identification *bore the name of John* g : to hold in the mind or emotions *bear malice* h : DISSEMINATE i : LEAD, ESCORT j : RENDER, GIVE
2 a : to give birth to b : to produce as yield c (1) : to permit growth of (2) : CONTAIN *oil-bearing shale*

>>>BEAR

Now, while examining those definitions, a couple of questions:

1. Can you show us how one {brings} without {bearing?} Or can you show us all how one {brings} something without {carrying} it? For example, if one were to bring you {trouble,} how would they bring it without {carrying} it?

2. Can you show us all how one {brings} something into a religion without {bearing} it into that religion? Or can you show us all how one {brings} something into a religion without {carrying} it into that religion? So again, how is a guy {brought} into a religion without being {borne} into it?

Quote by: Tycoon When a person who spends their entire life a Christian is born, they are not Christian. When they were one minute old, they did not believe in Jesus and were not Christians.

Now, lest you have forgotten, at this Point In Time, the argument is not centered around whether or not an individual is born Christian or believes in Jesus when they were 1 minute old. Instead, we are debating whether or not it is possible for a person to be born into a religion. Again, remember one of your premises as stated in the OP:

Tycoon Quote:
“Nobody is born into a religion.”

So, one is aware that with the attention span of today it may be {difficult} to concentrate, but don’t allow yourself to get sidetracked. If you like, later we can argue whether or not if someone is born a Christian or not, or whether or not they believe in Jesus when they are 1 minute old, but right now let us continue with this debate.

Quote by: Tycoon I would think that fairly obvious. They were brought into their religion by their parents... or indoctrinated.

Again this is quite simple. Your premise is that “Nobody is born into a religion.” And if that is the case, then all that you have to do is show us how one is able to bring something into an environment without bearing it? How does one get brought into a religion without being borne into that religion? How do you bring something into an area without bearing it?

Quote by: Tycoon Okay, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be berating.. but do you even know what we are talking about here?

Then why you be rating? And by the way, what are you rating? Is this a contest and are you some sort of judge?
Cont...

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

…Cont.

Quote by: Tycoon All of those articles that you linked involved babies telling right from wrong or friend from foe. We are talking about religion here!

So, telling {right} from {wrong} is not part of religion? Is {right} and {wrong} not inherent in religion? Is this your next assertion? Are you now prepared to argue that telling {right} from {wrong} is not part of religion? Is this what atheism is teaching you?

Quote by: Tycoon Indoctrination of children into religion! Babies have basic instinct, hence being able to tell right from wrong simply from good interaction/bad interaction - but they most certainly do not understand anything about the universe, or religion, and thus cannot make an informed choice!

One can tell that you did not really bother to {closely} inspect the articles. We can still continue because one didn’t expect you to.

Now, whether you realize it or not, essentially, what you are arguing in this section is that, {Basic Instinct} is not the result of indoctrination; therefore, an individual’s {Instinct} is without Indoctrination. So, the question then becomes: What is {Instinct} the result of? If not indoctrination, then what? How do you think that that which is seen as {Instinct} comes to be? What do you propose is at the foundation of {Instinct?}

Secondly, how can you on one hand argue that a baby’s choice is based on {Basic Instinct,} then on the other hand argue that babies cannot make {informed} choices? Or that, without the possession or provision of any information, babies are able to instinctively make their choice of {right} or {wrong?} So questions:

1. Are the babies not in possession of any information? Does {Instinct} not provide any information? Is {Instinct} without information? And if so, then what does Instinct provide?

2. Are the babies choices not the results of the Objects they are viewing? Are those objects, which they are choosing from, not providing the baby with any information? Are we to ignore those objects and the fact that the babies are reacting to them?

Quote by: Tycoon Of course some people diverge from the religious path set before them by their parents - but most, almost all, do not.

Again, examine what the {EVIDENCE} says. Are you even looking at what it says? One knows that, as an atheist, even when the {EVIDENCE} of Reality is staring you in the face, your job is to deny or disavow it. But Tycoon, at least don‘t make it so {obvious.} At least make it appear as if you have examined the {EVIDENCE.}

1. Americans are Switching Religions in Droves

2. The Most

3. More in U.S. jump to new faiths, poll finds

4. US religious identity is rapidly changing

Quote by: Tycoon And yes, parents are always the most important authority figure in every child's life. And when they no longer are, that's because the child is now an adult, but will probably follow those beliefs anyways out of habit.

This is a great argument that again shows the atheist’s proclivity for denying Reality.

Now, essentially, this is your argument: Parents are always the most important authority figure in a child’s life until they no longer are or until the child becomes an adult? So, again, a question:

If it is known that there are Points In Time in the child’s life where parents are no longer the most {important} figure, then please, explain to us all how you can state that parents are always the most {important} figure in a child’s life?

Secondly, again, despite your insistence in denying the Reality, the research appears to show that many adults in America are not following those beliefs out of habit:

1. Americans are Switching Religions in Droves

Quote by: Tycoon Clearly you don't understand teenagers. Teenagers looove rebelling against their parents, it's true. But they also love fitting in - and in a society like the U.S. most of their classmates will be Christian, so in order to fit in they will retain their Christian beliefs.

Good try at trying to evade. Again, here is your assertion:

Tycoon Quote POST# 1 :

“2. Adolescence: Teenagers, particularly Christian teenagers, stick to their religion because they want to fit in, either with their family or with their classmates, most of whom will be Christian.”

Again, here is the comment and question, which is directed to that assertion:

"Some of that which you have written about your stages appear to contradict that which is seen in research. For example, in your stage of Adolescence, how do you account for the rebellion, which, at this Point, has shown itself to be prevalent in many societies? How is rebellion a sign of sticking to the parents religion? How is a child sticking to a religion when he or she rebels against the precepts of that religion? Or is their no rebellion amongst “Christian” adolescents? Or, are “Christian” adolescents not part of a society where rebellion is witnessed?

Quote by: Tycoon Statistically it is not many adults at all.

And can you please explain why?

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: Mr. Mxyzptlk Now, judging from this comment, it also appears that you are one who assumes, that an individual who is {brought into,} is not one who is {born into.} In other words, somehow, you are of the mind that, a person who is {brought into} a certain environment is one, who without {bearing,} is {borne into} that environment. So, to see if this assumption is {spot-on,} let’s just examine the definitions of BRING and BEAR: 1. BRING: transitive verb: 1 a : to convey, lead, carry, or cause to come along with one toward the place from which the action is being regarded b : to cause to be, act, or move in a special way: as (1) : ATTRACT *her screams brought the neighbors* (2) : PERSUADE, INDUCE (3) : FORCE, COMPEL (4) : to cause to come into a particular state or condition *bring water to a boil* c dialect : ESCORT, ACCOMPANY d : to bear as an attribute or characteristic *brings years of experience to the position* 2 : to cause to exist or occur: as a : to be the occasion of *winter brings snow* b : to result in *the drug brought immediate relief* c : INSTITUTE *bring legal action* d : ADDUCE *bring an argument* 3 : PREFER *bring charges* 4 : to procure in exchange : sell for intransitive verb , chiefly Midland : YIELD, PRODUCE –bring£er noun –bring forth 1 : BEAR *brought forth fruit* 2 : to give birth to : PRODUCE 3 : ADDUCE *bring forth persuasive arguments* >>>BRING 2. BEAR: transitive verb: 1 a : to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c : BEHAVE, CONDUCT *bearing himself well* d : to have as a feature or characteristic *bears a likeness to her grandmother* e : to give as testimony *bear false witness* f : to have as an identification *bore the name of John* g : to hold in the mind or emotions *bear malice* h : DISSEMINATE i : LEAD, ESCORT j : RENDER, GIVE 2 a : to give birth to b : to produce as yield c (1) : to permit growth of (2) : CONTAIN *oil-bearing shale* >>>BEAR Now, while examining those definitions, a couple of questions: 1. Can you show us how one {brings} without {bearing?} Or can you show us all how one {brings} something without {carrying} it? For example, if one were to bring you {trouble,} how would they bring it without {carrying} it? 2. Can you show us all how one {brings} something into a religion without {bearing} it into that religion? Or can you show us all how one {brings} something into a religion without {carrying} it into that religion? So again, how is a guy {brought} into a religion without being {borne} into it? ...

I am sorry but I can't let this go. This is a reason Why "bear" has two definitions listed as 1 and 2. They are two different definitions. You cannot say they are equal.

I believe this is called equivocation.

[littlebear]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne What like he just got lucky? You need to explain more.

Darwin brilliantly discovered the ability of species to adapt to their surroundings. When he tried to conclude from his discovery that all life evolved from a single life form, he became a quack.

[loser]

Which is exactly what atheists can't seem to get. Of course theists believe in evolution, just not the quantum leap made by those not believing in a Creator. How else could species have proliferated from their individually single kind (canine, feline, etc)? We believe that the common ancestor of all dogs, wolves, etc. were a pair (or more) from that family. The same with cats, monkeys, etc. We do not believe, however, in the mythical tree of evolution (common descent) as it is portrayed in our schools. People believe that ONLY because they have been INDOCTRINATED with that belief from youth.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: littlebear Darwin brilliantly discovered the ability of species to adapt to their surroundings. When he tried to conclude from his discovery that all life evolved from a single life form, he became a quack.

I thought that you were going at everything he said was bullshit.

While I will not get into such specifics about the man, mainly because I am not the most well-versed everything about him. Hie findings could have been a hunch that made sense, if it were true. Don't take this statement as an argument but sometimes great scientific discoveries come from following hunches.