Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 111

Thread: religion?

  1. #1 religion? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    45
    I think religion is the ulitmate form of personal freedom.
    It dosnt matter how much proof one way or the other, people will still belive what they belive


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    On the contrary, if you speak of orgenised religion it is all BUT personal freedom.
    I think that u've misteaken atheism for theism...

    Name ONE thing at orgenised religion that you do without any realation the the main stream??


    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanuka
    On the contrary, if you speak of orgenised religion it is all BUT personal freedom.
    I think that u've misteaken atheism for theism...

    Name ONE thing at orgenised religion that you do without any realation the the main stream??
    On the contrary I think you have both mistaken religion and atheism for an internet forum - that is absolute freedom transcending everything including rationality and consistency where people can pretend that their opinions are science even if it contradicts itself. It is like living in a dream world.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: religion? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Sciler
    I think religion is the ulitmate form of personal freedom.
    It dosnt matter how much proof one way or the other, people will still belive what they belive
    Religion does NOT promote freedom. On the contrary, it suppresses freedom.

    The 1st 3 commandments in the Old Testament says that.

    Only Nature grants total freedom. It has no laws governing 'biological' freedom.
    See my article on this 'Religion' page below entitled 'Nature as GOD'.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    On the contrary I think you have both mistaken religion and atheism for an internet forum
    LOL. Your wit gives pleasure at every turn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Cosmo said:

    Religion does NOT promote freedom. On the contrary, it suppresses freedom.
    The 1st 3 commandments in the Old Testament says that.

    Only Nature grants total freedom. It has no laws governing 'biological' freedom.
    See my article on this 'Religion' page below entitled 'Nature as GOD'.
    I'm sorry Cosmo, but can you name any human institution which does not in some way restrict or make demands on your conduct?

    My experience with people who object to the restrictive or compelling code of conduct expressed in the Bible is that they really only object to two things -- a. those things relating to sexual conduct; b. those things which may relate to mind altering materials.

    And this is in spite of civil, non-religious, codes of conduct which regulate those same topics.

    Nature is, in a sense, totally free in that animals can go out and have sex in front of God and everybody. I am unaware of an civilized group which finds this conduct acceptable. In nature, other animals just stop wherever they are and take care of eliminating body fluids and solids. Surely, Cosmo does not think this is acceptable behavior for humans. If so, he will never be a guest at my house!

    I have no idea how the first three commandments (I assume he is referencing the 10 Commandments) have anything with supressing human activity. What they say is that 1. we should recognize God as the only God; 2. We should not attempt to make images of Him to worship instead of Him. 3. We should not disrespect God by vainly invoking His name in our own behalf.

    Since Cosmo is, apparently, an atheist, I cannot imagine how these three things could, in anyway, impose on Cosmo. What can Cosmo possibly be doing that these commands restrict? The only way they could impose is if Cosmo agrees that these are good ideas, but insists on defying them anyway and realizes that doing so subject him (Cosmo) to God's wrath.

    In nature, other animals are free to kill or be killed as they will. Surely, Cosmo does not feel this is a good idea for civilized humans -- especially if he were the intended victim of someone wishing to exercise his natural freedom to kill.

    Maybe Cosmo needs to put a little more thought into this.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: religion? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Sciler
    I think religion is the ulitmate form of personal freedom.
    It dosnt matter how much proof one way or the other, people will still belive what they belive
    Of course, people are indoctrinated into cults from early childhood. It isn't personal freedom by any means, it is intellectual slavery and abuse at the very least.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    There you go again, (Q), showing your ignorance about religion.

    Christian churches (in the U.S.) have, for the last 25 years or so, complained about how upwards of 75 to 90 percent of young people leave the church once they leave home.

    This does not sound like effective indoctrination to me. At the same time, they are also being indoctrinated by a secular school system.

    The next statistic is that overall church attendance has not substantially decreased in that same period of time.

    These two ideas would seem to be contradictory. How can such a high percentage of people leave the church without substantially affecting attendance?

    The suspected answer is that once these young people have been out in the world and found how shallow and meaningless the secular world is, they return to that which has meaning and purpose on an eternal scale.

    Your claim that the religious (at least in Western Culture) are the products of indoctrination is unfounded and ignorant.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: religion? 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Sciler
    I think religion is the ulitmate form of personal freedom.
    It dosnt matter how much proof one way or the other, people will still belive what they belive
    It can be, but it can be a lifelong imprisonment, and it is for many people forced into it against their will.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    The right to religion I would agree is the ultimate freedom to think as you please. However religion itself, I feel sets out to restrict not to free, so I dont know about that.

    A more existential philosophy is more free by definition!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Chaotic said:

    It can be, but it can be a lifelong imprisonment, and it is for many people forced into it against their will.
    and Robbie said:
    However religion itself, I feel sets out to restrict not to free, so I dont know about that.
    Where are you guys getting this silly crap?

    Where in western civilization are people systematically being forced into religion and being coerced to stay there? The idea may be true in Islamic and Hundu societies, but it is hardly a problem here in the West especially as it relates to Christianity which is usually the main object of derision by posters here.

    There may be some fringe sects claiming Christianity which may use coercion to attract and retain members, but they are not the rule. It is unfair, if not illogical, to judge the majority by practices of the few. If you wish to make such outlandish generalized claims, it would behoove you to point out specifically which religions you are referring to.

    And -- what restrictions does Christianity have? I know of no church which has the legal authority to send members to prison or to fine them for violations of Bible concepts. Christians are probably guilty of everything non-Christians are guilty of. They haven't been "restricted" at all.

    If one chooses to belong to a group, one also chooses to follow the rules of that group. If you join a basketball league, you agree to follow the rules of basketball. Are you "restricted" because you don't get points when you freely shoot the ball and miss the hoop?

    Do you belong to any organizations? Do they require dues? Do they have by-laws. To they hold meetings which you are expected to attend? Why do you put up with such restrictions?

    If you wish to belong to that group, you do as that group does, not because you feel you are being restricted or coerced, but because you are willing to do (or refrain from doing) the things required to remain a part of that group.

    Honestly, what human institution can you be involved with that does not include some degree of behavioral expectations. The only place you can be totally free to do whatever you want, whenever you want and however you want is in an isolated vacuum. That is the life you seek?

    Christians do not feel "restricted" or coerced by the behavioral expectations of God. They, to the extent they follow, do so out of willingness to do so and desire to please God.

    If you don't want any restrictions, find some uninhabited island and populate it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Day, it's called "Indoctrination"...
    The majority of parents who are of a certain religion bring up kids to be part of that religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There you go again, (Q), showing your ignorance about religion.
    For you to say that is quite funny considering the numerous times I've corrected you on your own religion. But, we digress...

    Christian churches (in the U.S.) have, for the last 25 years or so, complained about how upwards of 75 to 90 percent of young people leave the church once they leave home.

    This does not sound like effective indoctrination to me.
    It doesn't sound like an effective argument to me. Did they become atheists when they left home? Probably not. Indoctrination is effective.

    At the same time, they are also being indoctrinated by a secular school system.
    Spoken straight from the pulpit. Didn't like school much, Dayton?

    The next statistic is that overall church attendance has not substantially decreased in that same period of time.

    These two ideas would seem to be contradictory. How can such a high percentage of people leave the church without substantially affecting attendance?
    Simple. They were indoctrinated. They were unable to relinquish their religious beliefs as a result.

    The suspected answer is that once these young people have been out in the world and found how shallow and meaningless the secular world is, they return to that which has meaning and purpose on an eternal scale.

    Your claim that the religious (at least in Western Culture) are the products of indoctrination is unfounded and ignorant.
    The obvious answer is that they never gave up their beliefs after all only to continue that which they never really left in the first place.

    Besides, if the vast population are theists, and theists have ruled for centuries, invoking their religious beliefs in almost every aspect of society, where are these young people finding these so called shallow and meaningless secular worlds?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Where are you guys getting this silly crap?

    Where in western civilization are people systematically being forced into religion and being coerced to stay there?
    At home, from the cradle.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen says:

    Day, it's called "Indoctrination"...
    The majority of parents who are of a certain religion bring up kids to be part of that religion.
    My observation is that when people are being taught that with which we agree, it is instruction. When they are being taught that with which we do not agree, it is indoctrination.

    I do not disagree that Christian parents would introduce their children to Christianity. Some such children become Christians, some don't. Same from secular families. Some of those children grow up to remain secular and others find religion. Children brought up on Republican homes tend to turn out to be Republicans while those brought up in Democrat homes tend to remain Democrats. (Tories and Labor to you Brits?) Those brought up in liberal homes tend to end up liberal while those growing up in conservative homes usually remain conservative. Does it occur to you that when parents are professional people, their children usually end up as professionals, too. For centuries, sons were brought up to follow in their fathers' footsteps.

    So why is it that it is only when children emulate their parents in deciding to follow Jesus, that they are the products of indoctrination? One can only wonder in what ways people complaining about indoctrination have emulated their parents.

    (Q) asked:
    where are these young people finding these so called shallow and meaningless secular worlds?
    How about those in close proximatey to you? You seem to personify those qualities.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Don't forget sometimes Q that people can choose religion at an adult age having no indcotrination. However much some may see that decision, deluded.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.

    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Prepare for it Ghostofthefallen. Q is going to fall on you like mighty Thor's hammer. He's a terrible compromiser (no pun intended there Q). I do however agree with you to some extent.

    PS I've seen your avatar before but I can't place my finger on it. Its from something like Tomb Raider right?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    I am ready for it.

    My avatar is from the video game Halo, like yours. I believe it is the symbol for the forerunners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    My avatar is from the video game Halo, like yours.
    Damn, they're onto me.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.

    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    If your a child and you are told your entire life that there is a god and that his son is Jesus. And these things are real, then you begin to believe it yourself. Like Lenin once said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth"

    Yes, religion is bad. It causes death, war, pain, suffering, you name it.
    Israel and Palestine. Two different religious factions. Their countries are at war because of a single city that people think are holy.
    The crusades? The christians fought to keep the city because it's a holy city. When they lost the city, they attacked it to keep it again.
    Religion has caused so much death in this world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    (Q) asked:
    where are these young people finding these so called shallow and meaningless secular worlds?
    How about those in close proximatey to you? You seem to personify those qualities.
    Thank you, coming from you that means a lot. :-D

    But no, if the stats are correct, three of four people in close proximity would be theists. I usually see some sort of church or temple on many streets and corners, taking up valuable real estate with huge parking lots... tax free, of course.

    Or, are you referring to those who were not indoctrinated or no longer believe in childish fantasies of gods, angels and demons that I choose to associate?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.
    Not while they're living under their parents roof, they can't.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.
    It may try to influence you, but it does not force you to accept the irrational and improbable without question, as your parents and church would most certainly do.

    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    That's a joke, right?

    The harm is removing the ability to question rather than forcibly accepting the irrational and improbable.

    Is that not harm enough?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.

    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    If your a child and you are told your entire life that there is a god and that his son is Jesus. And these things are real, then you begin to believe it yourself. Like Lenin once said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth"

    But the problem with this statement is that I still believe that there is a God.

    Yes, religion is bad. It causes death, war, pain, suffering, you name it.
    Israel and Palestine. Two different religious factions. Their countries are at war because of a single city that people think are holy.
    The crusades? The Christians fought to keep the city because it's a holy city. When they lost the city, they attacked it to keep it again.
    Religion has caused so much death in this world.

    I do agree that religion isn't perfect and that there is much to be done to help fix it but it is better than nothing at all. There are always bad apples in any batch of apples. I am going to focus on Christianity because I am a believer of it and so I can discuss it. Religion does starts wars but so does greed, anger, jealously, hatred and many other things that you don't talk about. Non Christians kill as many people as Christianity or more. I am not going to argue fine points and numbers but read the Ten Commandments, all of them deal with ways to honor God and your fellow men. Christianity doesn't encourage killing, it abhors it.

    The Crusades were a horrible thing but is it fair to judge a religion on an incident that happened years and years ago? I saw that you listed the bad side of churches but not the good. For a fair debate you have to have both. The good side of Christianity out weights the bad. The church that I attend is active in food drives for the homeless, collects money for the poor, gives to orphans and orphanages, supports missionaries, does field trips to retirement homes, organizes local sports teams and opens its gym to the local schools and community. Christianity does a lot of good for a lot of people.

    When you look at the main point of Christianity, it isn't to start wars or to kill people, it is to help them and to save them. Religion isn't perfect but then again nothing on this world is.






    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.
    Not while they're living under their parents roof, they can't.

    I disagree, I have lived with my parents for my whole life and it has been solely my choice whether to believe or not to believe. What you are doing is generalizing all parents into one group. I don't know how your parents raised you but I was allowed the ability to choose. I am a Christian and for most of my friends who are Christians it was their choice. I know a couple of preacher's kids and kids who parents forced them to be a Christian and the kids rejected it, and are far from being a Christian. If you are forced to do something you won't do it, this applies to Christianity.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.
    It may try to influence you, but it does not force you to accept the irrational and improbable without question, as your parents and church would most certainly do.

    Once again you generalize church and parents. Do you have evidence that a large portion of kids are forced into religion. Also nearly 80% of all kids stop being Christians once they leave their home. Sounds like bad indoctrination.


    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    That's a joke, right?

    The harm is removing the ability to question rather than forcibly accepting the irrational and improbable.

    Is that not harm enough?
    I am a Christian and yet I still have the ability to question. Christianity if it is done the way the Bible says shouldn't force anything on anyone. What is the point of faith if it is forced?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    What is the point of faith if it is forced?
    Exactly.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    I am a Christian and yet I still have the ability to question. Christianity if it is done the way the Bible says shouldn't force anything on anyone. What is the point of faith if it is forced?
    If you had the ability to question, you wouldn't be a Christian.

    What is the point of faith?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.

    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    If your a child and you are told your entire life that there is a god and that his son is Jesus. And these things are real, then you begin to believe it yourself. Like Lenin once said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth"

    But the problem with this statement is that I still believe that there is a God.

    Yes, religion is bad. It causes death, war, pain, suffering, you name it.
    Israel and Palestine. Two different religious factions. Their countries are at war because of a single city that people think are holy.
    The crusades? The Christians fought to keep the city because it's a holy city. When they lost the city, they attacked it to keep it again.
    Religion has caused so much death in this world.

    I do agree that religion isn't perfect and that there is much to be done to help fix it but it is better than nothing at all. There are always bad apples in any batch of apples. I am going to focus on Christianity because I am a believer of it and so I can discuss it. Religion does starts wars but so does greed, anger, jealously, hatred and many other things that you don't talk about. Non Christians kill as many people as Christianity or more. I am not going to argue fine points and numbers but read the Ten Commandments, all of them deal with ways to honor God and your fellow men. Christianity doesn't encourage killing, it abhors it.

    The Crusades were a horrible thing but is it fair to judge a religion on an incident that happened years and years ago? I saw that you listed the bad side of churches but not the good. For a fair debate you have to have both. The good side of Christianity out weights the bad. The church that I attend is active in food drives for the homeless, collects money for the poor, gives to orphans and orphanages, supports missionaries, does field trips to retirement homes, organizes local sports teams and opens its gym to the local schools and community. Christianity does a lot of good for a lot of people.

    When you look at the main point of Christianity, it isn't to start wars or to kill people, it is to help them and to save them. Religion isn't perfect but then again nothing on this world is.






    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Religion is a choice when talking about Christianity. It is true that most parents teach their kids about their chosen religion but the kids can choose to accept it or disregard it.
    Not while they're living under their parents roof, they can't.

    I disagree, I have lived with my parents for my whole life and it has been solely my choice whether to believe or not to believe. What you are doing is generalizing all parents into one group. I don't know how your parents raised you but I was allowed the ability to choose. I am a Christian and for most of my friends who are Christians it was their choice. I know a couple of preacher's kids and kids who parents forced them to be a Christian and the kids rejected it, and are far from being a Christian. If you are forced to do something you won't do it, this applies to Christianity.

    So if parents indoctrinate their kids into a religion, could peer pressure be considered indoctrination, or school, commercials or anything that tries to affect your perspective? The way I see it almost everything in the world tries to influence you in a way.
    It may try to influence you, but it does not force you to accept the irrational and improbable without question, as your parents and church would most certainly do.

    Once again you generalize church and parents. Do you have evidence that a large portion of kids are forced into religion. Also nearly 80% of all kids stop being Christians once they leave their home. Sounds like bad indoctrination.


    When it gets down to the basics-Is having a religion bad? What harms does it do?
    That's a joke, right?

    The harm is removing the ability to question rather than forcibly accepting the irrational and improbable.

    Is that not harm enough?
    I am a Christian and yet I still have the ability to question. Christianity if it is done the way the Bible says shouldn't force anything on anyone. What is the point of faith if it is forced?
    You fail to realize that you can do all that "good stuff" you mentioned without being a christian... you can do it just because your a good person. (Aside from missionary work, which is not neccessarily good. It's just a different form of indoctrination)
    But you couldn't do the crusades without being a christian, since it was a religious war that dealt with the christian and the muslim hate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    It is really getting tiring seeing people using the Crusades as a gross example of genecide in the history of mankind.

    I do not know if the people here are just that uneducated or if they are purposely misrepresenting history or if they are knowingly lying. My experience here has been that those expressing anti-religious sentiments are generally not well informed on much more than religious misinformation and religious disinformation.

    There are any number of web sites which attempt to enumerate man caused deaths caused by various historicial events. One of the best of these I have found is at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
    Another site is http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Objec/G-0101.htm

    You can find many different estimates, some probably somewhat agenda driven and exaggerated toward one bias or the other. However, a look at the numbers indicates that the Crusades (which lasted some 200 years) were small potatoes to man caused deaths which occurred only in the middle of the 20th century.

    Such a claim is designed to specifically cast aspersions on Chistianity as though it has been the bloodiest movement in history.

    Among the high estimates on the Crusades is that they resulted in the deaths of at least 1.5 million people. This is at a time when world population is estmated to have been around 400 million. This would amount to about 0.375 percent of the world population (.00375).

    Meanwhile, just looking at three 20th century events we find that:
    1. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews and 9 million Christians, a goodly portion of the 55 million deaths caused by WWII which he basically started.
    2. Stalin is credited with being responsible for 40-60 million deaths, a large portion of who were exterminated or died in prison only being Christians.
    3. Mao is said to be responsible for more than 70 million deaths -- 24 million political foes in the 10 years following WWII, 22 million starvations cause by failed policies, and 25 million dissidents during the cultural revolution.

    This adds up to 175 to 195 million people and really covers only from about 1935 to 1975 -- or fourty years. The population of the world in 1950 was estimated at 2.520 billion. The low estimate of deaths in the 175 million range works out to just under seven percent of the world's population, .06944 to be exact.

    One must also point out than neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor Mao had the advancement of any religious ideology as the basis of their murderous movements.

    The Spanish Inquisitions which lasted about 350 years from 1478 to 1834 have a highest estmate of 350,000 deaths caused. A mere pittance compare to the others.

    And before someone brings up the Irish Protestant-Catholic conflict, it should be noted that this battle had nothing to do with their religious differences. The indiginous Irish Catholics were being taken advantage of by British Protestant immigrants who were protected by the British government. This was a politcal conflict in which religion was used only to define the two groups.

    It is deplorable that you anti-religious factions can be so uninformed on these statistics and turn around and claim that only stupid people are religious. (We do not, in turn, label atheists as being stupid -- even when they show their ignorance.) When you say things like this, you are truly showing your own ignorance. You folks need to broaden the scope of your knowledge base before spouting off ignorant drivel such as this.

    Indoctrination in the truth beats the ignorance of non-education, hands down.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    I am a Christian and yet I still have the ability to question. Christianity if it is done the way the Bible says shouldn't force anything on anyone. What is the point of faith if it is forced?
    If you had the ability to question, you wouldn't be a Christian.

    What is the point of faith?
    I am a Christian and yet I question. Why does becoming a Christian make you lose the ability to question?

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You fail to realize that you can do all that "good stuff" you mentioned without being a christian... you can do it just because your a good person. (Aside from missionary work, which is not neccessarily good. It's just a different form of indoctrination)
    But you couldn't do the crusades without being a christian, since it was a religious war that dealt with the christian and the muslim hate.
    Couple things, you and Q keep on talking about indoctrination of Christianity and religions. As I said before Christanity is based on faith and what is the point of faith if it is forced. You can't be forced to have faith in something.

    It is try that you don't have to be a Christian to do good things but if you are a true believer then everything you do will be good. I mentioned these items to show you some of the good things that the church does. Churches help people all the time, they try to be good. You don't have to be Christian to do good but most Christian do good.

    Last I was going to talk about the Crusades but daytonturner explained it much better than me.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I am a Christian and yet I question. Why does becoming a Christian make you lose the ability to question?
    Indoctrination into any cult where one is forced to accept the irrational and improbable without question, you lose the ability to question. It is not just Christianity or Abrahamic cult, both those three are most predominant.


    Couple things, you and Q keep on talking about indoctrination of Christianity and religions. As I said before Christanity is based on faith and what is the point of faith if it is forced. You can't be forced to have faith in something.
    You can be forced to accept the irrational and improbable as fact quite easily. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Tell something to a child that the invisible and undetectable is real day after day their whole lives without question, and they will certainly begin to believe it.

    It is try that you don't have to be a Christian to do good things but if you are a true believer then everything you do will be good. I mentioned these items to show you some of the good things that the church does. Churches help people all the time, they try to be good. You don't have to be Christian to do good but most Christian do good.
    The Abrahamic god is as cruel and immoral a god ever contrived. Here is probably one of the best descriptions:

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    Last I was going to talk about the Crusades but daytonturner explained it much better than me.
    Really? It's as patented weak as it is fallacious. It's an argument from incredulity.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) said:

    You can be forced to accept the irrational and improbable as fact quite easily.
    One need only read (q)'s drivel to observe practical application of this point in his claim that religion is the product of indoctrination.

    Crap! the guy can't even count:
    It is not just Christianity or Abrahamic cult, both those three are most predominant.
    In spite of the overwhelming statics relating to young people leaving the church when they leave home to go out on their own, (Q) continues to make this contradictory claim:

    This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Tell something to a child that the invisible and undetectable is real day after day their whole lives without question, and they will certainly begin to believe it.
    What kind of a person continues to make the same erroneous, unfounded claim in the face of controverting evidence. Even the real (Q) of Startrek fame was not that bad. Oh, the same intolerant type of person who would refuse to accept the truth and statistical compilations of historians as to the sources of and the death counts of various historical world attrocities.

    And the same kind of intollerant buffoon who would quote someone without even listing the source of quote -- unless (Q) is so egotistical that he is now quoting himself as an authority.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    OK, so (Q)'s quote is from The God Delusion of the atheist gospel writer Richard Dawkins, found on page 31, to wit:


    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    OK, here we have normal illogical statement which is typical of today's atheists.

    First of all he calls the Bible a work of fiction and then uses the fiction to "prove" the non-existent God has all those qualities. If the Bible is fiction, then those things must be lies. If, on the other hand, those things are true, maybe it would be wise to be on His good side.

    If you can't see the idiocy of that kind of argument, what IS wrong with you? This is not even argument; it is illogical silliness.

    I find this to be typical of much of the writing in The God Delusion, it is filled with Dawkins' illogical delusions.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    [quote="daytonturner"]

    Crap! the guy can't even count:
    It is not just Christianity or Abrahamic cult, both those three are most predominant.
    For once, Dayton has finally made a valid point. Congratulations, Dayton!

    Even the real (Q) of Startrek fame was not that bad.
    It would appear the only times Dayton does not have the bible surgically attached to his eyeballs is when he's watching TV as he demonstrates his unbounded ignorance on so many levels and topics.

    Oh, the same intolerant type of person who would refuse to accept the truth and statistical compilations of historians as to the sources of and the death counts of various historical world attrocities.
    Your cult and the atrocities for which it is responsible are well tallied in body count as are any other atrocities.

    And the same kind of intollerant buffoon who would quote someone without even listing the source of quote -- unless (Q) is so egotistical that he is now quoting himself as an authority.
    Once again, you make a valid point, that's two in one millennium. Congratulations are in order once again!

    Unfortunately, neither valid point has an inkling of value to the subject matter, but others here too point out spelling and grammar when they have no argument.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    OK, so (Q)'s quote is from The God Delusion of the atheist gospel writer Richard Dawkins, found on page 31, to wit:


    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    OK, here we have normal illogical statement which is typical of today's atheists.

    First of all he calls the Bible a work of fiction and then uses the fiction to "prove" the non-existent God has all those qualities. If the Bible is fiction, then those things must be lies. If, on the other hand, those things are true, maybe it would be wise to be on His good side.

    If you can't see the idiocy of that kind of argument, what IS wrong with you? This is not even argument; it is illogical silliness.

    I find this to be typical of much of the writing in The God Delusion, it is filled with Dawkins' illogical delusions.
    You didn't read the book, hence you are a liar.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Actually, I have read about the first half of the Dawkins book which I find, so far, to be full of errors of fact, logic and reasoning that I am surprised (well, maybe not) it is so uncontestedly quoted.

    Let's look at the quote (Q) used a little further.
    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    Let us use this reasoning as we assume that Ophiolite is on trial for murdering (Q) which many people think would not actually be a crime. But, nevertheless, such an act would be illegal.

    Now let us say that the prosecution calls me as a witness and my testimony is:

    "I do not actually know Ophiolite, never met him, but I know he is from Scotland and you know how they treat the non-Scottish. I have read what I consider to be a fictional account of his interpersonal relations which indicates to me that he is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. I have heard of a couple of other guys who think this, too. Therefore, you can be assured he murdered (Q)."

    Now then, the defense calls up some other witnesses such Ghost and Mitchell.

    They, almost as one, testify to this effect:

    "I know Ophiolite and have a personal relationship with the fellow. I have read the same account that daytonturner cited and find it credible but also find it indicates that Ophiolite is a reasonable, loving, caring and merciful chap who always works toward the betterment of mankind in general and especially for those who know him. Based on my knowledge of and experience with Ophiolite and his reputation in this community, I don't believe it would be in his character to murder Mr. (Q)."

    Based on that testimony alone, only a jury of illogical, insane, unreasonable sluggards who had prejudged Ophiolite could find him guilty.

    (Q), taking a lesson from Dawkins, consistently makes similar unsubstantiated attacks on people rather than offering facts, reasoning or logic to present any argument whatsoever. But, that is what you do when you have no argument, you attack the messenger instead of the message.

    You do not earn the right to attack the messenger until you have first dealt with his message. And, if you have done that effectively, attacking the messenger is then the joyous reward of twisting the knife.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Actually, I have read about the first half of the Dawkins book which I find, so far, to be full of errors of fact, logic and reasoning that I am surprised (well, maybe not) it is so uncontestedly quoted.
    The fact that you claim to have read half the book is most likely a lie, as well. At best, you probably read some Christian opinions of the book.

    Let us use this reasoning as we assume that Ophiolite is on trial for murdering (Q) which many people think would not actually be a crime. But, nevertheless, such an act would be illegal.
    Despite Dayton's wishes, of course, which are harbored in the very quote Dawkins makes and the very indoctrination Dayton has received. Thanks for confirming his view, Dayton.

    They, almost as one, testify to this effect:

    "I know Ophiolite and have a personal relationship with the fellow.
    The witness is lying or is mentally unstable. Case dismissed.

    (Q), taking a lesson from Dawkins, consistently makes similar unsubstantiated attacks on people rather than offering facts, reasoning or logic to present any argument whatsoever. But, that is what you do when you have no argument, you attack the messenger instead of the message.

    You do not earn the right to attack the messenger until you have first dealt with his message. And, if you have done that effectively, attacking the messenger is then the joyous reward of twisting the knife.
    Dayton makes the same mistake most theists make in that their religious indoctrination makes them believe their invisible and undetectable sky daddies are intrinsic to them personally.

    We wonder if Dayton has the same relationship with his garden gnome or the fairy at the bottom of his garden pond.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    I am a Christian and yet I question. Why does becoming a Christian make you lose the ability to question?
    You have to understand Q's redefinition of words. An ability is by his definition something that a Christian does not have, and a question is by his definition something that does not have one of Q's opinions as its subject matter.

    I would come out in your defense but you see I am just as bad as Q is. You see I am no more willing to give credence to Q's assertion that I am a liar and delusional than Q is willing to give credence to my assertion that people (including theist and atheist) do not have to believe that those who disagree with them are delusional. We both have our beliefs that we are unwilling to toss on the scrap heap as irrational, for although I do not insist that everyone must agree with me, I do insist that I know that God exists and so that is hardly any better than the fact that Q insists that he knows that there are no religious people who are scientists (or in any way intellegent for that matter) and that he knows that all religious people are a product childhood indoctrination for, of course, no atheist could ever come to believe that God exists.

    So you see, although I am strongly tempted to suggest that Q should be paid no more attention to, than the pseudo-scientists haunting the physics discussion section, I must acknowledge that we are both equally stubborn and uncompromising -- unwilling to accept the plain evidence that other person has that our own beliefs are irrational.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I am a Christian and yet I question. Why does becoming a Christian make you lose the ability to question?
    Indoctrination into any cult where one is forced to accept the irrational and improbable without question, you lose the ability to question. It is not just Christianity or Abrahamic cult, both those three are most predominant.

    Which is true exept that you can't be forced to become a Christian, it is a choice it is your choice, not someone else.

    And you still haven't told me why becoming a Christian makes you lose the ability to question.


    Couple things, you and Q keep on talking about indoctrination of Christianity and religions. As I said before Christanity is based on faith and what is the point of faith if it is forced. You can't be forced to have faith in something.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    I am a Christian and yet I question. Why does becoming a Christian make you lose the ability to question?
    You have to understand Q's redefinition of words. An ability is by his definition something that a Christian does not have, and a question is by his definition something that does not have one of Q's opinions as its subject matter.

    I guess that that is the problem. By my definition a person can be a Christian and still have the ability to question. Q claims otherwise but doesn't back up his claim.

    I would come out in your defense but you see I am just as bad as Q is. You see I am no more willing to give credence to Q's assertion that I am a liar and delusional than Q is willing to give credence to my assertion that people (including theist and atheist) do not have to believe that those who disagree with them are delusional. We both have our beliefs that we are unwilling to toss on the scrap heap as irrational, for although I do not insist that everyone must agree with me, I do insist that I know that God exists and so that is hardly any better than the fact that Q insists that he knows that there are no religious people who are scientists (or in any way intellegent for that matter) and that he knows that all religious people are a product childhood indoctrination for, of course, no atheist could ever come to believe that God exists.

    I knew that when I replied to this thread that it would be hard if not impossible to change anyones opinions but thats okay I am here for the debate.

    So you see, although I am strongly tempted to suggest that Q should be paid no more attention to, than the pseudo-scientists haunting the physics discussion section, I must acknowledge that we are both equally stubborn and uncompromising -- unwilling to accept the plain evidence that other person has that our own beliefs are irrational.
    I also am strongly tempted to ignore Q because of his accusations and the way that he attacks the people on the forum.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I do insist that I know that God exists

    So you see, although I am strongly tempted to suggest that Q should be paid no more attention to, than the pseudo-scientists haunting the physics discussion section
    So, YOU are the one with the unsubstantiated belief in sky daddies and I am the pseudo-scientist type?

    That's strange, I attack without prejudice the unsubstantiated beliefs in sky daddies as I do the unsubstantiated beliefs in pseudo-science.

    And it seems the pseudo-scientists also insist in what they believe is true, as you do.

    Yet, the invisible and undetectable continue to be so.

    Curious, Mitchell.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I also am strongly tempted to ignore Q because of his accusations and the way that he attacks the people on the forum.
    What's wrong? Are you not up to having the fairy tales you believe exposed for what they are?

    Where did I attack you personally?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    (Q) does not seem to understand that rebutting ideas is different from attacking people. He thinks if he adequately insults people or their ideas, he has effectively negated their argument against which he has offered no substantial rebuttal. The tools of argument consist of facts and rationality and reasoning, none of which seem to be in his arsenal of debate weapons.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    (Q) does not seem to understand that rebutting ideas is different from attacking people. He thinks if he adequately insults people or their ideas, he has effectively negated their argument against which he has offered no substantial rebuttal. The tools of argument consist of facts and rationality and reasoning, none of which seem to be in his arsenal of debate weapons.
    Dayton doesn't seem to get that lying or contriving fantasies has nothing to do with "ideas" or their respected rebuttals, yet that is the extent of his so called "arsenal of debate weapons."

    Those contrived fantasies do not warrant anything but insult and ridicule, Dayton.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I am not lying. My bookmark is on page 195 of the Dawkins delusion. I am surprized that the moderators continue to allow you to make these kinds of ad homonym attacks against others. That is twice now that you have called me a liar.

    Actually, you overestimate your rebuttals which are neither respected nor respectable, nor founded in any legitimate form of fact, reason or logic.

    I mean, your best argument for my view of Dawkins approach is that I am a liar about reading some of his work? How lame can you get? That does not rebut the view. Even if you were correct, which you are not, and I were plagerizing someone else's characterization, it would not rebut that characterization.

    Your argument style is only that others are dispicable people. That is not argument, it is ad homonym avoidance of addressing an issue in which the presenter has no argument with the idea.

    Why should you even be allowed to post on a discussion forum when you do not discuss issues but rather merely dis people?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I also am strongly tempted to ignore Q because of his accusations and the way that he attacks the people on the forum.
    What's wrong? Are you not up to having the fairy tales you believe exposed for what they are?

    Where did I attack you personally?
    Just because you don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't believe in them either. I happen to believe in the Bible and you haven't proven itto be wrong.

    I posted that comment because of the way that you answer other posts. You haven't attacked me personally but you have done it to other people and this hurts your creditability.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not lying. My bookmark is on page 195 of the Dawkins delusion.
    That's exactly what I said before, you are reading a book of Christian opinions, "The Dawkins Delusion."
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    Just because you don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't believe in them either. I happen to believe in the Bible and you haven't proven itto be wrong.
    No, you were most likely indoctrinated into your parents religion as a child. You haven't made any choices whatsoever, those choices were already made for you.

    Much of the bible has been shown to be little more than fairy tales, but unfortunately, you're unable to figure that out due to your abusive childhood of indoctrination.

    I posted that comment because of the way that you answer other posts. You haven't attacked me personally but you have done it to other people and this hurts your creditability.
    And believing in fairy tales provides you with credibility?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    Just because you don't believe in the Bible doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't believe in them either. I happen to believe in the Bible and you haven't proven itto be wrong.
    No, you were most likely indoctrinated into your parents religion as a child. You haven't made any choices whatsoever, those choices were already made for you.

    Much of the bible has been shown to be little more than fairy tales, but unfortunately, you're unable to figure that out due to your abusive childhood of indoctrination.

    Nice post you got here, you managed to insult my intelligence, religion and my parents all in one sentence . You use some powerful words, abusive, fairy tales, indoctrination, in your post. Why do you do this? I think that you do this to attack me and make you sound better. You also assume many things, you don't know my parents, nor do you know my childhood, so why are you claiming that you do. You also don't back up your arguments. Who says that the Bible is a fairy tale other than you?

    First of all, I don't know why you are obsessed with indoctrination, you use that in almost every post. I am human being and I am able to make my own decision on my own. My parents raised me and taught me but the time where they decided what direction I took in my life is over, I choose who and what to believe. It was my choice to become a Christian, not someone else's and it is a choice that I will stand by.

    Second you can't be forced to believe something. Faith is one of the main principles of Christianity and you can't be forced to have faith in something.

    Third I some questions for you. Why do you hate Christianity? Why did you choose to believe that the bible was a fairy tale? Was it your choice or were influenced by others to believe what you believe?


    I posted that comment because of the way that you answer other posts. You haven't attacked me personally but you have done it to other people and this hurts your creditability.
    And believing in fairy tales provides you with credibility?
    Why are they Fairy tales? Can you prove to me that they are?
    Personal attacks don't prove that you are right, they only make you look bad.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not lying. My bookmark is on page 195 of the Dawkins delusion.
    That's exactly what I said before, you are reading a book of Christian opinions, "The Dawkins Delusion."
    OUCH! Dayton.... did Q just catch you in a Freudian slip?


    I admit that when I checked "The God Delusion" out of the library I could not resist checking out Alister McGrath's book out too. However I did not look at more than than a few words of McGrath's book. Neither did I read all of Dawkin's book but only got through the first two chapter. It was enough to get the flavor of Dawkin's book and see that I would agree with most everything he said. A large part of the book was spent on refutations of proofs for the existence of God, which I would refute mystelf. However, what I read was also enough to see where we would have one big disagreement. This was concerning his idea that God must be treated as a scientific hypothesis, for this completely undermines the reasons why ID is a not valid scientific theory. Dawkins shows a stereotypical atheist weakness of being unable to make a distinction between their religious/philosophical ideas and science.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The thing is, is that why should athiests have to disprove something that has never been proven, since the mere fact of it never being proven automatically discredits the account towards being proven in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    The thing is, is that why should athiests have to disprove something that has never been proven, since the mere fact of it never being proven automatically discredits the account towards being proven in the first place.
    erm
    assuming that it has never been proven is a fact
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    erm
    assuming that it has never been proven is a fact
    It hasn't. Now disprove my claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Neither did I read all of Dawkin's book but only got through the first two chapter.
    Then, you too have no reason to comment on the book.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Why are they Fairy tales? Can you prove to me that they are?
    It isn't a matter of me proving theists claims are fairy tales, it is up to the theist to distinguish between a fairy tale and their god claims, which they are unable to do. In other words, you can tell me all about your god and all about leprechauns, but you are unable to demonstrate either beyond your imagination.

    Personal attacks don't prove that you are right, they only make you look bad.
    Deconstructing your cults ideology has nothing to do with personal attacks. If you have decided that your cult IS personal, that's your problem, not mine. Your cults doctrines are NOT your ideologies, they are someone else's ideology that you've been indoctrinated.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Neither did I read all of Dawkin's book but only got through the first two chapter.
    Then, you too have no reason to comment on the book.
    Yeah just because I liked the first two chapters, that doesn't mean that the book doesn't stink after all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Neither did I read all of Dawkin's book but only got through the first two chapter.
    Then, you too have no reason to comment on the book.
    Yeah just because I liked the first two chapters, that doesn't mean that the book doesn't stink after all.
    It doesn't stink, it is well written. The book clearly demonstrates the delusion of gods. Not one of you theists has refuted a single point he made, but instead can only make assertions based on ignorance. Typical.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Neither did I read all of Dawkin's book but only got through the first two chapter.
    Then, you too have no reason to comment on the book.
    Surely you mean he would have no justification. He clearly, as an individual opposed to most of Dawkins' philosophy, would have every reason to comment on his work. (Now Mitchell could, rightly in my opinion, assert that he has every justification, but that's another matter.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Haha, Mitchell, (q) merely recalled others' attention to the fact that I was calling Dawkins book, the Dawkins delusion, which it is.

    The book is a really only emotional anti-religious hyperbole which is cleverly put together with the use of illogical reasoning.

    Remember as kids we use to say, "Roses are red, violets are blue, skunk cabbage stinks, and so do you."

    The idea of that statement is that the first three claims are true and, therefore, that proves the final point. But it doesn't. The person may or may not stink, but if so, it is not because of the first three statements. This is an illogical use of deductive reasoning often employed by Dawkins.

    Dawkins also uses a lot of illogical inductive reasoning by making a statement which may or may not be true, and using that to support some later conclusion.

    An example of this is found on page 163 where he starts a paragraph, "Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution. . ."

    I am not sure who all is "knowing" that. Certainly evolution skeptics would absolutely disagree with the statement and many evolution supporters would disagree that we are products of "Darwinian" evolution. Thus any conclusions based on the statement may or may not be true, but certainly not because his starting point is has any validity.

    We don't really "know" that we products of Darwinian evolution. At least not to the extent that we "know" the sun is 93 million miles from earth. We "know" something when there is just no legitimate or reasonable objection to it. And, of course, we like to feel that any oppostion to what we think is illegitimate and unreasonable.

    Dawkins' book is one of those that would never convince anyone who did not already agree with or already want to agree with his emotion charged anti-religious diatribe.

    But, sometimes I think this is true when we read or hear anything that we agree with no matter what our position. If we agree, we are willing to glide over the logical flaws by either not noticing them or by just feeling they are irrelevant.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Personal attacks don't prove that you are right, they only make you look bad.
    Deconstructing your cults ideology has nothing to do with personal attacks. If you have decided that your cult IS personal, that's your problem, not mine. Your cults doctrines are NOT your ideologies, they are someone else's ideology that you've been indoctrinated.
    You keep on using the word indoctrination as well as other pointed words like cult in your posts, why?

    Once again you assume things about my life, I choose to be a Christian I was not indoctrinated into it, as I said before it was my choice. As I have said before faith can not be forced.

    Why do you hate Christianity?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Why do you hate Christianity?
    Oh boy! I am sorry, but that is kind of a dumb question.

    All religions, like all countries and organizations, give cause for people to hate them. This is because they are composed of human beings who have an endless capacity to twist everything they put their hands on to some evil purpose. Perhaps the saving grace of Christianity is that it is aware of this fact possibly better than most religions, which is not to say that all or even most Christians understand or always remember this (as you have just demonstrated). Christianity has quite often shown itself prone to the same fallacy as all other religions and organizations that because its members see something good in it, they make the mistake of equating it with goodness itself. This by itself is usually sufficient to create a great deal of contempt, resentment and hatred.

    I am Christian and I do see something good in Christianity but I also see much that is contemptible and stupid. Critcism is healthy and should be encouraged. A religion or organization that will not tolerate criticism is a dead one.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    If one assumes that another hates something, or loves it for that matter is because the way you are portraying your opinion on that something. I assume that GOTF is seeing a style that offends him in some way, and thus reflects back the image he sees, maybe not what you wanted mitchell but don't forget, you can only understand each other if you explain what you mean. You know full well he might take offense, just as you can see with me in the past, thus even if it is his problem he sees it this way, you still are leading him down that path and can control the meaning you intended without the need to say 'this is a dumb question', you lead him to it, even if he walked.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    The book is a really only emotional anti-religious hyperbole which is cleverly put together with the use of illogical reasoning.
    That would confirm you did not read the book or you're a complete imbecile.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    You keep on using the word indoctrination as well as other pointed words like cult in your posts, why?
    You were indoctrinated into a cult. Do you require a dictionary?

    Once again you assume things about my life, I choose to be a Christian I was not indoctrinated into it, as I said before it was my choice. As I have said before faith can not be forced.
    And, your parents were NOT Christians?

    Why do you hate Christianity?
    Christianity, like most other cults, use indoctrination to strengthen the masses. You, like most other Christians, were indoctrinated into that cult by your parents, who were also indoctrinated into Christianity by their parents, and so on...

    Indoctrination is abuse. Indoctrination of children is child abuse. Have you indoctrinated your children yet?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Dawkins' book is one of those that would never convince anyone who did not already agree with or already want to agree with his emotion charged anti-religious diatribe.
    Like most religious books, eh?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Certainly evolution skeptics would absolutely disagree with the statement...
    An "evolution skeptic" is one who does not understand evolution.

    We don't really "know" that we products of Darwinian evolution.
    When you say, "We don't know" you're actually stating that YOU don't know.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    You keep on using the word indoctrination as well as other pointed words like cult in your posts, why?
    You were indoctrinated into a cult. Do you require a dictionary?


    I just wondered why you continue to use charged words in your post. I was a four year debater and you are doing what we call "power tagging" or using powerful words that help your side seem better in this case by using words that carry a negative image to attack the opposition. Just something I picked up and now its bugs me when I see it. It doesn't help your argument.


    Once again you assume things about my life, I choose to be a Christian I was not indoctrinated into it, as I said before it was my choice. As I have said before faith can not be forced.
    And, your parents were NOT Christians?

    They were Christian but as I pointed out before I choose to become a Christian.
    What were your parents? Were they atheists or were they religious?




    Why do you hate Christianity?
    Christianity, like most other cults, use indoctrination to strengthen the masses. You, like most other Christians, were indoctrinated into that cult by your parents, who were also indoctrinated into Christianity by their parents, and so on...

    So who indoctrinated the first Christians? IF your logic holds true someone must have. Also how do you explain Christians who come from non-Christian families?

    What you say is true only if people couldn't think for themselves, which isn't true. Assumption will get you nowhere, I choose to become Christian, if was not choosen for me?

    Indoctrination is abuse. Indoctrination of children is child abuse. Have you indoctrinated your children yet?

    Nice use of a loaded question fallacy. Indoctrination is abuse but I wasn't indoctrinated. People have a choice to join Christanity, if you are forced to do something you won't do it. Every time I reply to you, I fell as if I am hitting a wall over and over. I reply with an answer and you repeat the same statement as before.

    My question to you is when or if you have children will you allow them to do what they want or will you indoctrinate them to your thinking?


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Why do you hate Christianity?
    Oh boy! I am sorry, but that is kind of a dumb question.

    All religions, like all countries and organizations, give cause for people to hate them. This is because they are composed of human beings who have an endless capacity to twist everything they put their hands on to some evil purpose. Perhaps the saving grace of Christianity is that it is aware of this fact possibly better than most religions, which is not to say that all or even most Christians understand or always remember this (as you have just demonstrated). Christianity has quite often shown itself prone to the same fallacy as all other religions and organizations that because its members see something good in it, they make the mistake of equating it with goodness itself. This by itself is usually sufficient to create a great deal of contempt, resentment and hatred.

    Unfortunately you are correct. Religion does have it's bad side, people aren't perfect and that makes what ever they do not perfect as well. But when I asked that question it was pointed at Q and why he hates Christianity. Q opposes religion and I wanted to know why he does.

    I am Christian and I do see something good in Christianity but I also see much that is contemptible and stupid. Critcism is healthy and should be encouraged. A religion or organization that will not tolerate criticism is a dead one.
    Critism is only good when an alternative or solution is presented along with the critism.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Ghost, at least your heart is in the right place.

    What (Q) does not admit is that he too was indoctrinated -- into the fellowship of the Richard Dawkins anti-religious insultation congregation from whence cometh this indoctrination nonsense.

    I cannot imagine (Q) having ever been involved in organized debate and using the ad homonym attacks that he uses here. Although I am sure some thought he was a master debater, my bet would be that he almost always finished last in any debate contest.

    And you are right about the first Christians, they could not have been indoctrinated into Christianity by parents. Nor can converts from other religions. Nor can it be true of people such as me and Mitchell who were reared in non-Christian homes. (Q) has been apprised many times that there is much concern in the church today because many of the "indoctrinated" youths do not remain in fellowship once they leave the home of their youth. If the church actually practice an indoctrination program, these youths would not leave fellowship. For (Q) to continue on this asinine indoctrination theme is a prime example of idiocy.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Critism is only good when an alternative or solution is presented along with the critism.
    I disagree. This assumes that criticism is unilateral, kind of like "democracy is bad" - which is indeed quite unhelpful. Criticism can point out the bad practices recommending that they be discontinued and point out what is missing so that good practices can be started. Self-criticism, which is what I was talking about, is certainly not a good or helpful if it is unilateral.

    In fact this issue itelf points to a something upon which we can make this very sort of constructive criticism of Christianity. The Christian idea of total depravity, if taken as a unilateral self-criticism will make Christianity harmful rather than helpful. Thus we need to make the point that sin/evil is something we have like an illness, and that it is not something we are. Even if we are incapable of curing ourselves, nevertheless, underneath this condition we find ourselves in we know that there is something that God created and which He said was very good. God can see this goodness within us even if we cannot.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    What (Q) does not admit is that he too was indoctrinated -- into the fellowship of the Richard Dawkins anti-religious insultation congregation from whence cometh this indoctrination nonsense.
    ...
    For (Q) to continue on this asinine indoctrination theme is a prime example of idiocy.
    Come now lets be fair... Just because you and I disagree with Q's doctrines does not make it idiocy... so you should say rather that Q's irrational/faithful adherence to doctrine is simply an effect of his own indoctrination. Since indoctrination does not encourage much deep thought about its doctrines but only that they be accepted without compromise, we cannot expect much critical thought from him concerning them, but only a desperate defense of his way of life and thought and a self-righteous desire to liberate all who are wrong thinking, as is exhibited by all those who are indoctrinated. His striking similarity to those he ridicules would all be justified if he were in fact correct in his thinking. Is this not what many fundamentalists tell themselves to justify the same behavior?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    erm
    assuming that it has never been proven is a fact
    It hasn't. Now disprove my claim.
    assuming you aren't shy about conforming to prescriptive descriptions in scripture, it shouldn't be a problem
    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I just wondered why you continue to use charged words in your post. I was a four year debater and you are doing what we call "power tagging" or using powerful words that help your side seem better in this case by using words that carry a negative image to attack the opposition. Just something I picked up and now its bugs me when I see it. It doesn't help your argument.
    I am using the correct words. Claiming I am using a "method" is complete BS.

    They (parents) were Christian but as I pointed out before I choose to become a Christian.
    I am correct. You were indoctrinated into Christianity by your parents. You did not choose to become a Christian as you didn't have the mental capacity as a child to make such a choice.

    What you say is true only if people couldn't think for themselves, which isn't true. Assumption will get you nowhere, I choose to become Christian, if was not choosen for me?
    We've already confirmed you've been indoctrinated, no need to try and hide that fact.

    Nice use of a loaded question fallacy. Indoctrination is abuse but I wasn't indoctrinated. People have a choice to join Christanity, if you are forced to do something you won't do it. Every time I reply to you, I fell as if I am hitting a wall over and over. I reply with an answer and you repeat the same statement as before.
    It's quite simple, you won't admit to indoctrination because you don't remember being indoctrinated, you were too young. You grew up being forced to accept the irrational and improbable and have lost the ability to think and reason. Your posts are rife with it.

    My question to you is when or if you have children will you allow them to do what they want or will you indoctrinate them to your thinking?
    They would learn about all religions and question them, analyze them for what they are. They would not be indoctrinated into any one religion, like you were. It isn't my way of thinking, it is simply, thinking, an ability you have clearly lost.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    What (Q) does not admit is that he too was indoctrinated -- into the fellowship of the Richard Dawkins anti-religious insultation congregation from whence cometh this indoctrination nonsense.
    Dayton has yet to look up the word 'indoctrination' in a dictionary.

    I cannot imagine (Q) having ever been involved in organized debate and using the ad homonym attacks that he uses here. Although I am sure some thought he was a master debater, my bet would be that he almost always finished last in any debate contest.
    Dayton hasn't an argument so he must attack me, personally.

    And you are right about the first Christians, they could not have been indoctrinated into Christianity by parents. Nor can converts from other religions. Nor can it be true of people such as me and Mitchell who were reared in non-Christian homes.
    Dayton's argument rests entirely on a very small percentage of the population.

    (Q) has been apprised many times that there is much concern in the church today because many of the "indoctrinated" youths do not remain in fellowship once they leave the home of their youth. If the church actually practice an indoctrination program, these youths would not leave fellowship.
    Dayton made points that were easily refuted.

    For (Q) to continue on this asinine indoctrination theme is a prime example of idiocy.
    For Dayton to have a valid argument would be... a miracle.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Come now lets be fair... Just because you and I disagree with Q's doctrines does not make it idiocy... so you should say rather that Q's irrational/faithful adherence to doctrine is simply an effect of his own indoctrination. Since indoctrination does not encourage much deep thought about its doctrines but only that they be accepted without compromise, we cannot expect much critical thought from him concerning them, but only a desperate defense of his way of life and thought and a self-righteous desire to liberate all who are wrong thinking, as is exhibited by all those who are indoctrinated. His striking similarity to those he ridicules would all be justified if he were in fact correct in his thinking. Is this not what many fundamentalists tell themselves to justify the same behavior?
    Can't come up with a counter-argument for indoctrination either, Mitchell?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    )Q( said:

    Dayton hasn't an argument so he must attack me, personally.
    Hmmm, I'm sorry, I forgot that )Q( had purchased exclusive rights to the ad homonym approach because it is the only one he knows.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    )Q( said:

    Dayton hasn't an argument so he must attack me, personally.
    Hmmm, I'm sorry, I forgot that )Q( had purchased exclusive rights to the ad homonym approach because it is the only one he knows.
    Please point out exactly where I insulted you personally, Dayton? Other than calling you a liar, which I would take back if it weren't the reality.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    I just wondered why you continue to use charged words in your post. I was a four year debater and you are doing what we call "power tagging" or using powerful words that help your side seem better in this case by using words that carry a negative image to attack the opposition. Just something I picked up and now its bugs me when I see it. It doesn't help your argument.
    I am using the correct words. Claiming I am using a "method" is complete BS.

    No Christianity is not defined as a cult. A cult is defined by dictionary.com as a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. when used in your context. There is also the fact that you use the words fairy tale, which is defined as an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: You use this to tell that you don't believe that the Bible is true but not everybody agrees with you. And indoctrination defined as to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. in your posts. All of these words are biased and carry negative images which you use to help your arguments. All of these words are biased against Christianity and because they are biased the real debate is lost. What you are using is a method to make your side of the argument look better.


    They (parents) were Christian but as I pointed out before I choose to become a Christian.
    I am correct. You were indoctrinated into Christianity by your parents. You did not choose to become a Christian as you didn't have the mental capacity as a child to make such a choice.

    Hits a wall again. You are not correct. I don't know how to repeat my prior arguments that it was my choice because you blow over them in the past and would do the same in the future.

    So if I was indoctrinated to become a Christian, who indoctrinated you into becoming a athiest because people don't have the ability to choose by themselves?
    What you say is true only if people couldn't think for themselves, which isn't true. Assumption will get you nowhere, I choose to become Christian, if was not choosen for me?
    We've already confirmed you've been indoctrinated, no need to try and hide that fact.

    Who is this we that you talk of? You are the sole person with that opinion.


    Nice use of a loaded question fallacy. Indoctrination is abuse but I wasn't indoctrinated. People have a choice to join Christanity, if you are forced to do something you won't do it. Every time I reply to you, I fell as if I am hitting a wall over and over. I reply with an answer and you repeat the same statement as before.
    It's quite simple, you won't admit to indoctrination because you don't remember being indoctrinated, you were too young. You grew up being forced to accept the irrational and improbable and have lost the ability to think and reason. Your posts are rife with it.

    Again with the personal attacks. I came to this forum to partipate in mature, logical debates, not to be insulted. You pretty good to be able to insult my intelligences, parents and religion all in one post. Just becaue you disagree with me doesn't make me stupid. I still can think and reason otherwise I wouldn't be posting.

    The indoctrination method doesn't hold any water because, 1 people can think for themselves, 2 about 80% of all Christian kids lose their faith once they leave their home, 3 faith, which is a principle of Christianity can't be forced, you can't be forced to have faith or love something and 4 indoctrination doesn't explain Christians who come from non Christian families and 5 the original Christians, who indoctrinated them?

    So if I was indoctrinated to become a Christian, who indoctrinated you into becoming a atheist because people obviously don't have the ability to choose by themselves?

    Where you parents atheist, if not what religion were they?


    Once again if I am a Christain

    My question to you is when or if you have children will you allow them to do what they want or will you indoctrinate them to your thinking?
    They would learn about all religions and question them, analyze them for what they are. They would not be indoctrinated into any one religion, like you were. It isn't my way of thinking, it is simply, thinking, an ability you have clearly lost.

    Sounds like the right idea but I don't think that you would allow them to learn with no interference. In your post you said that they would analyze them for what they are. That sentence implies that religions are lies and is very biased towards atheism. Sounds a little biased doesn't it?

    And last please hold off the personal attacks, they don't help you, all they do is make you look immature.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    If you are a child you are more aware to what goes on around you and more subsceptible to ideas. If your parents keep talking about Christ and how God is great and they keep taking you to church and what not you'll begin to believe it. Just as if they tell you that the world is flat you'll believe the world is flat until you look into it yourself. Religion is not a choice because the beliefs and mindsets of your specific religion have already been instilled in you from a young age, from a time before you had the ability to choose and before you even knew there were other paths to follow.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I suggest we all admit to having been "indoctrinated" as children, one way or another.

    My son is six now and there's just no way around it; he demands my opinion on things, resolving in his mind the Big Problems with such childlike aplomb we don't even call the process (at that stage of development) "philosophy". Children disarm and basically strip-search parental psyches with the pithiest questions. I'm sure we all extracted from our respective parents likewise, with or without their knowledge or cooperation. Some of us later rejected parts... though even so we're revolving around the rejected belief, so paying it a sort of credence despite. Now, me raising a young mind, the impossibility of "allowing" it freedom is uncomfortably plain. He balks at freedom, demands cues. If I refuse to present as a model, I'm neglecting the child.

    So I give up my atheistic beliefs to this roaring vacuum, knowing full well they're no better grounded, to him, than extreme religious dogma. God help us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I suggest we all admit to having been "indoctrinated" as children, one way or another.

    My son is six now and there's just no way around it; he demands my opinion on things, resolving in his mind the Big Problems with such childlike aplomb we don't even call the process (at that stage of development) "philosophy". Children disarm and basically strip-search parental psyches with the pithiest questions. I'm sure we all extracted from our respective parents likewise, with or without their knowledge or cooperation. Some of us later rejected parts... though even so we're revolving around the rejected belief, so paying it a sort of credence despite. Now, me raising a young mind, the impossibility of "allowing" it freedom is uncomfortably plain. He balks at freedom, demands cues. If I refuse to present as a model, I'm neglecting the child.

    So I give up my atheistic beliefs to this roaring vacuum, knowing full well they're no better grounded, to him, than extreme religious dogma. God help us.
    The answer to this dilemna is the blessing of more than one parent with different views on things. If even one friend or family member has a different system of beliefs, this presents the child with an alternative and thus with more than one path to choose from.

    In addition, children respond to things differently. Your child is not the measure of them all. Ultimately you will not have an answer to a question because no one has all the answers and then the question is what will they do in response to that. When my father answered the question of God with an agnostic sort of answer, I took it as a challenge. Other children may respond to this situation by deciding that the question is unanswerable or unimportant, others may take it as the hole in your logic that proves everything else is untrustworthy, and for some like myself the idea that their parents don't know the answer may just make it that more interesting for them to find their own answers. I think this last option may be more common than many realize because the search for personal identity apart from their parents becomes a very strong factor in the second half of childhood.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    The answer to this dilemna is the blessing of more than one parent with different views on things.
    Good point. It seems though that spouses tend to fill each other's gaps, from the get-go or adaptively. So there are papa topics and mama topics. Which seems a great way to make a well-rounded human being, now that I think about it. Plus we carry dominant and recessive memes. Script/counterscript.

    I've wondered if there aren't some patterns to be found in how character traits and beliefs pass through generations in a population, like genes with their particular rules. I mean patterns gathered and set out as a table. Another topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In addition, children respond to things differently.
    Crafty parents will plot which rebellions a child takes up. Honestly, my wife and I do conspire on that level. Well, mainly it's just phrases like, "let's not push" and "let him decide to" but we do feign dismay at some behaviours we actually like, so the boy can revel in his individuality and power over adults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    If you are a child you are more aware to what goes on around you and more subsceptible to ideas. If your parents keep talking about Christ and how God is great and they keep taking you to church and what not you'll begin to believe it. Just as if they tell you that the world is flat you'll believe the world is flat until you look into it yourself. Religion is not a choice because the beliefs and mindsets of your specific religion have already been instilled in you from a young age, from a time before you had the ability to choose and before you even knew there were other paths to follow.
    True, parents instill a major part of what makes you you when you are young but as a child grows older, the parents become less of an influence and listen to other sources, including their own ideas. As a child matures he gains the ability to think for himself and to decide for himself. Children brought up in religion are not guaranteed to stay religious once they leave the home. Only about 20% or less of teens age 18-22 are active in any religion once they leave home. Religion is a choice, once a teen leaves their home they are free to do what they want, for the most part. Their parents will still have a impact on their lives but it will not be as major as in the kids childhood.
    Study
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    True, parents instill a major part of what makes you you when you are young but as a child grows older, the parents become less of an influence and listen to other sources, including their own ideas. As a child matures he gains the ability to think for himself and to decide for himself. Children brought up in religion are not guaranteed to stay religious once they leave the home. Only about 20% or less of teens age 18-22 are active in any religion once they leave home. Religion is a choice, once a teen leaves their home they are free to do what they want, for the most part. Their parents will still have a impact on their lives but it will not be as major as in the kids childhood.
    Study
    The number 80% and 20% have been thrown around these forums quite a lot lately. I do believe the number of young people changing beliefs is larger than in was in previous years and growing but I also think 80% is just a little high. Here is what the study said from your link:

    "Seventy percent of the people, 23 to 30 years old, are nowhere to be found in church on a regular basis for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22"

    But that doesn't mean they aren't christian. It merely means they aren't active in the church. Regardless, most people, after having their beliefs drilled into them when they were young, don't want to change. They believe in what they believe and the majority of them believe it without question.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    True, parents instill a major part of what makes you you when you are young but as a child grows older, the parents become less of an influence and listen to other sources, including their own ideas. As a child matures he gains the ability to think for himself and to decide for himself. Children brought up in religion are not guaranteed to stay religious once they leave the home. Only about 20% or less of teens age 18-22 are active in any religion once they leave home. Religion is a choice, once a teen leaves their home they are free to do what they want, for the most part. Their parents will still have a impact on their lives but it will not be as major as in the kids childhood.
    Study
    I guess this depends. Are these the homes where religion isn't that big of a deal, or are there examples from extremely religious family?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    But that doesn't mean they aren't christian. It merely means they aren't active in the church.
    What's more, it only means those people no longer attend that particular church which was surveyed for the very reason folks were leaving, that particular church. Maybe they're attending another church? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    True, parents instill a major part of what makes you you when you are young but as a child grows older, the parents become less of an influence and listen to other sources, including their own ideas. As a child matures he gains the ability to think for himself and to decide for himself. Children brought up in religion are not guaranteed to stay religious once they leave the home. Only about 20% or less of teens age 18-22 are active in any religion once they leave home. Religion is a choice, once a teen leaves their home they are free to do what they want, for the most part. Their parents will still have a impact on their lives but it will not be as major as in the kids childhood.
    Study
    The number 80% and 20% have been thrown around these forums quite a lot lately. I do believe the number of young people changing beliefs is larger than in was in previous years and growing but I also think 80% is just a little high. Here is what the study said from your link:

    "Seventy percent of the people, 23 to 30 years old, are nowhere to be found in church on a regular basis for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22"

    But that doesn't mean they aren't christian. It merely means they aren't active in the church. Regardless, most people, after having their beliefs drilled into them when they were young, don't want to change. They believe in what they believe and the majority of them believe it without question.
    Study 1
    Study 2
    Study 3
    Study 4
    Study 5

    Did a little more research. All of these links tell that teens are losing the faith of their parents and not practicing it. It is a steady downward march.
    True just because someone dosn't go to church doesn't mean that they aren't Christian but going to fellowship is an important part of Christianity.
    Once a teen leaves home, study prove that the majority loses their faith on their own choice which would be agaist what they had be taught in church about keeping the faith and attending church. Once the teens get on their own, then it is their decision on what to do and what to believe. Their parents may have influenced their childhood but once teens leave the house the influence wanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    But that doesn't mean they aren't christian. It merely means they aren't active in the church.
    What's more, it only means those people no longer attend that particular church which was surveyed for the very reason folks were leaving, that particular church. Maybe they're attending another church? :wink:
    True but the above studies are general studies about the nation as a whole and not a single church. They are say the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    True, parents instill a major part of what makes you you when you are young but as a child grows older, the parents become less of an influence and listen to other sources, including their own ideas. As a child matures he gains the ability to think for himself and to decide for himself. Children brought up in religion are not guaranteed to stay religious once they leave the home. Only about 20% or less of teens age 18-22 are active in any religion once they leave home. Religion is a choice, once a teen leaves their home they are free to do what they want, for the most part. Their parents will still have a impact on their lives but it will not be as major as in the kids childhood.
    Study
    I guess this depends. Are these the homes where religion isn't that big of a deal, or are there examples from extremely religious family?
    These studies are from all homes. Your religion has to depend on you thoughts.
    I know of two preacher kids who grew up in very religious homes. One of them you wouldn't know was a preachers kids by the way he acts, he rejected his father's religion and went his own way, the other kid is normal for the most part, he doesn't share his father's extreme religion but he is a Christian. I also know of kids who grew up in homes where religion wasn't a big deal and for the most part the kids took after their parents, but there are exceptions to this. The point is that that your parents will have an influence on their children but the kids are the ones to decide for themselves.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Sounds like the right idea but I don't think that you would allow them to learn with no interference. In your post you said that they would analyze them for what they are. That sentence implies that religions are lies and is very biased towards atheism. Sounds a little biased doesn't it?
    No, it doesn't imply that at all, that is your opinion.

    And last please hold off the personal attacks, they don't help you, all they do is make you look immature.
    And believing in sky fairies is supposed to make you look mature? Right.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    The answer to this dilemna is the blessing of more than one parent with different views on things. If even one friend or family member has a different system of beliefs, this presents the child with an alternative and thus with more than one path to choose from.
    Nonsense, the child is already indoctrinated. There are no choices with religion, Mitchell, once indoctrinated.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    The point is that that your parents will have an influence on their children but the kids are the ones to decide for themselves.
    Complete nonsense, the children do not decide for themselves. Parents decide what religion their children will follow from birth.

    Theists will not admit to having been indoctrinated, most likely because it happened before they were even aware of it, or much of the world around them.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Nonsense, the child is already indoctrinated. There are no choices with religion, Mitchell, once indoctrinated.
    So now that you are indoctrinated you feel that you have no more choices? Do you feel that your brain has completely ceased to function then? If so that would explain a great deal.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Study 1
    Study 2
    Study 3
    Study 4
    Study 5

    Did a little more research. All of these links tell that teens are losing the faith of their parents and not practicing it. It is a steady downward march.
    True just because someone dosn't go to church doesn't mean that they aren't Christian but going to fellowship is an important part of Christianity.
    Once a teen leaves home, study prove that the majority loses their faith on their own choice which would be agaist what they had be taught in church about keeping the faith and attending church. Once the teens get on their own, then it is their decision on what to do and what to believe. Their parents may have influenced their childhood but once teens leave the house the influence wanes.
    Study 2

    I don't know why you posted that link to make your point. All it does is speak against the point their trying to make of another article you posted which does support your point.

    Study 5

    This link probably provides the most truth towards the point you're trying to make. However it states that the christian percentage of the US population dropped from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001 at a rate of 1% per year. However this link still speaks about the impending doom of christianity in the coming years. "At the present rates of change, Islam will become the dominant religion in the world before 2050."
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    The point is that that your parents will have an influence on their children but the kids are the ones to decide for themselves.
    Complete nonsense, the children do not decide for themselves. Parents decide what religion their children will follow from birth.

    Theists will not admit to having been indoctrinated, most likely because it happened before they were even aware of it, or much of the world around them.

    What were your parents, were they atheists or theists?


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Sounds like the right idea but I don't think that you would allow them to learn with no interference. In your post you said that they would analyze them for what they are. That sentence implies that religions are lies and is very biased towards atheism. Sounds a little biased doesn't it?
    No, it doesn't imply that at all, that is your opinion.

    But it is a valid opinion

    And last please hold off the personal attacks, they don't help you, all they do is make you look immature.
    And believing in sky fairies is supposed to make you look mature? Right.

    Wow I ask you to hold off the personal attacks and so in response you attack me. Refer to my above posts to use of charged words as wells as all my other responses.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, one of the things to keep in mind here is that the loss of youths is only half the story.

    One would think that with such a high percent of youth's leaving church, that the church would be experiencing massive decline. However, that is not the case.

    Although it is often difficult to make heads or tails from the myriad of statistical compilations, the majority of such surveys indicate that despite some bumps and dips over the last score of years, the count has remained fairly similar for numbers of people professing Christianity and those attending churches.

    According to Gallup polls the following chart represents the percent of Christians in attendance at churches from 1992 to 2003. This is pretty much also the time frame when churches were becoming alarmed at the loss of their youths.

    1992: 40%
    1993: 40%
    1994: 42%
    1995: 43%
    1996: 38%
    1997: 40%
    1998: 40%
    1999: 43%
    2000: 44%
    2001: 41%
    2002: 44%
    2003: 41%

    In an article I read sometime back that I cannot seem to find the same search words for, it was speculated that even though many youth's leave fellowship when they first leave home and strike out on their own, many of the return to fellowship later when they have settled down to career and family life. And the number of those who leave fellowship forever is counterbalanced by those who convert to Christianity having not been in fellowship as youths.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    percent of Christians in attendance at churches from 1992 to 2003
    Impressive stats! I'm looking at that and thinking, "Good God people today actually haul their pomped-up carcasses on Sundays to this archaic ritual." This isn't page hits or viewership minutes either. This is out of the way and incongruous with modern lifestyle.

    Contrast cinema attendance. US weekly attendance was 80 million people in 1930. Peaked in 1946 at 90 million. 2000, it was 27.3 million. And apparently last few years have been far far worse. Of course changing media is the cause. The term "home theater" says it all.

    Yet people still go to sit in churches. It's incredible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    So now that you are indoctrinated you feel that you have no more choices? Do you feel that your brain has completely ceased to function then? If so that would explain a great deal.
    I'm indoctrinated into atheism, Mitchell? I should accept your claims of sky daddys, willow-the-wisps and pointy-eared demons?

    Did you know that animals can talk, Mitchell? My parents read Aesop and Grimms to me when I was young and now I believe it.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, one of the things to keep in mind here is that the loss of youths is only half the story.

    One would think that with such a high percent of youth's leaving church, that the church would be experiencing massive decline. However, that is not the case.
    That is because your hypothesis is bunk.

    Although it is often difficult to make heads or tails from the myriad of statistical compilations, the majority of such surveys indicate that despite some bumps and dips over the last score of years, the count has remained fairly similar for numbers of people professing Christianity and those attending churches.
    Hence, the bunk.

    In an article I read sometime back that I cannot seem to find the same search words for, it was speculated that even though many youth's leave fellowship when they first leave home and strike out on their own, many of the return to fellowship later when they have settled down to career and family life. And the number of those who leave fellowship forever is counterbalanced by those who convert to Christianity having not been in fellowship as youths.
    So, church attendance as opposed to beliefs is the criteria you use to back up your arguments? Indoctrination, once established does not require regular cult worship attendance.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    What were your parents, were they atheists or theists?
    Neither.

    Am I a Ahollowearthist if I don't accept the claims of hollow earth nutters?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    What were your parents, were they atheists or theists?
    Neither.
    So if you parents weren't atheists or theists, what were they?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Perhaps like mine they were part of that experiment that "let the children decide for themselves what is right."

    (Q) already told us that's the parental model he's determined to. Where did he get it? With such fanatical conviction?



    (Q) believe me if you wanna drive a child to howling existential tantrum just say "neither" and "you're a free spirit". Oh yeah and if you wanna set up an asshole just say "whatever you think right, is right".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    So if you parents weren't atheists or theists, what were they?
    It is typical for the indoctrinated theist to not understand concepts beyond their doctrines. When beginning from the position whereupon gods are considered real, the theist is unable to comprehend a world beyond this mindset.

    If a person does not possess one of the many versions of supernatural entities that litter the theist landscape, whatever could they possibly be?

    Brain-eating Zombies, perhaps?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Perhaps like mine they were part of that experiment that "let the children decide for themselves what is right."

    (Q) already told us that's the parental model he's determined to. Where did he get it? With such fanatical conviction?
    I never claimed that model. I simply stated that children should not be indoctrinated into their parents religion, but instead, should be taught about all religions, critically, like any other subject matter.

    (Q) believe me if you wanna drive a child to howling existential tantrum just say "neither" and "you're a free spirit". Oh yeah and if you wanna set up an asshole just say "whatever you think right, is right".
    I couldn't agree with you more.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Perhaps like mine they were part of that experiment that "let the children decide for themselves what is right."

    (Q) already told us that's the parental model he's determined to. Where did he get it? With such fanatical conviction?
    Q's parental model seems to be more like telling his children over and over and over and over and over and over and over that if they do not want to be zombies indoctrinated by their parents then they will believe as he does.

    Got sanity? Got reason? Sanity and reason is whatever Q says it is, so don't think about it or look at it twice, just repeat after him...



    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    I'm indoctrinated into atheism, Mitchell? I should accept your claims of sky daddys, willow-the-wisps and pointy-eared demons?
    No.... (patiently)... indoctrination is telling others what to believe. You know like repetitively telling everyone over that they are stupid or something if they don't "think" as you do. So, if you believe in indoctrinating your children with insane contractory irrational notions then that is your constitutional right, no matter how we may pity them.

    Its NOT what people choose to believe that makes them indoctrinated but how. Therefore what is suggestive is the lack of rationality in the expresson of your beliefs and the desparation that makes you call people liars because what they say doesn't agree with what you believe. There is also these feelings that you have no choice in your beliefs that suggests that you are a victim of that kind.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen

    So if you parents weren't atheists or theists, what were they?
    It is typical for the indoctrinated theist to not understand concepts beyond their doctrines. When beginning from the position whereupon gods are considered real, the theist is unable to comprehend a world beyond this mindset.

    Only when your mindset is that your reasoning and beliefs are right without question and anyone who disagrees is stupid are you truly beyond help.


    If a person does not possess one of the many versions of supernatural entities that litter the theist landscape, whatever could they possibly be?

    Brain-eating Zombies, perhaps?
    You should be a politician with the way that you dodged that question and managing to insult all at the same time.
    The question still remains did your parents believe in a certain religion, were they atheists or agnostics, what where they? Or do you not want tell?
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •