Eh. My guess is that the reason for this caricature is because generally speaking the atheists that are still talking about atheism years later (such as those here in RGT or the posters in that thread) are going to be self-selected as those most likely to have read all those books on evolution, Dawkins, et al. So I don't think this actually says much about atheists in general.

For what it is worth--this caricature is not at all true for me. I left Christianity in high school, but continued studying Christian philosophy in college.

I think it's also possible that people who grew up in a Christian culture/household don't need to read Craig or Lewis; they've been exposed to the literature--or the ideas--their entire lives.

In my case, which is probably shared by many, my religion forbade reading atheist literature, so those who leave tend to "devour" other points of view to make up for lost time. (That's not what I did, but it's true of many others.)

My particular religion also forbade reading literature from other religions. If I wanted to know about Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, etc..., I could read pamphlets from my (One True) religion about those other groups, and see for myself why there were wrong.

Well, yes, obviously this.

I am actually curious (new thread?) what members of this forum (which obviously self selects as OrP says) consumed on the topic during their "conversion period". While it is true that I have read Russell and Dawkings and other canonical works, it was very much on an after the fact basis because they are so frequently referenced, and was done so on the same period I read the bible and WLC and listened to numerous debates and the like. But my original grounding in atheism I like to think was all my own, and not a slippery slope of having a feeling and the going arround reading books that confirmed my thinking. (Possible caveat: I read the selfish gene at a very young age, I can't really recall whether it was formative.)

For what it's worth, I am very aggressive in my aims to read widely in politics and aim to read Mises and krugman, redstate and daily kos or whatever else....okay I joke slightly with my comparisons One of my favorite Internet shows for casual politics chatting is the DMZ on bloggingheads featuring two guys on either side of the aisle who chat with zero animosity. This attitude is tremendously valuable IMO, and both sides have failings do to insular outlooks.

I was a little disappointed that this wasn't a debate about who would win in a fight, Daniel Craig or Lewis Carol.

I always tell them to make their minds up 'when they're old enough to'. I don't just do this with religion but any subject that falls under what I might term as a metaphysical belief system. I'm still not sure how to classify it so don't use that against me at some point in the future if I come up with a better description or way of describing how I differentiate.

How can a 10 year old 'know' that (any) god does or doesn't exist? At what point has this 10 year old been told 'this particular god DOES exist' for them to have to need to come to a decision themselves?

Did you choose the age of 10 for a reason? Is it a reference to Ignatius?

Ok, I consider something of an authority but you don't. Hitchens said that religions 'lie' to children and asks "Is Religion Child Abuse". Do you consider him an authority?

Yes of course and it's the reason that the religious 'education' of children mostly takes the form of pushing them toward one religion, quite blatantly in some cases (Madrasas, Catholic schools) and more subtlety in other cases.

If we fairly educated children on all the belief systems, instead of indoctrinating them into one in particular, and allowed them to freely choose at an age where they are capable of mature reasoning, what do you think would happen to the established religions?

You think children can make decision on issues like this? At what age would you consider the decision of a child, on a subject like religion, to be mature, well informed and reasoned?

Why?

No. Reasonable authorities on this subject would be child psychologists or neurologists specialising in child brain development. Always had a lot of affection for Hitch, but he never got a doctorate in brain-peeping that I heard of.

I'm sure they would suffer greatly and I don't see how that's at all relevant.

I can only repeat that it depends on the child. I was about nine when I first thought that maybe there wasn't a god. I batted around back and forth a bit for a few years as I thought about it, then settled more or less where I am around fourteen.

So what's the story? Was I not actually an atheist at fourteen, but in my childish error mistakenly believed myself to be one? And then, years later, without my noticing, some imprimatur of legitimacy was conferred on my brain-state?

I mean, there's a reasonable middle ground here, but the trouble is I kind of feel like I'm already standing on it. If you want to say that most children younger than X are ill-equipped to form reasonable opinions about big-deal issues like the existence of god etc, then sure, for whatever value of X, that's no doubt true. I'm just saying that 'most' doesn't mean 'all'. It was a very minor point and I'm not sure why you're resisting it so vigorously.

I don't know if there is such a thing as a typical path. You have probably described some subset of atheists (and theists) to a tee. Others may have moved on to the favoured literature only after they have made up their mind. And you do hear about those 'on the brink' who claim these books helped them in the midst of the process itself.

I have no idea what it's like to leave religious beliefs as I have never held any. Even quite young (say v early teens) I found it easy to call myself agnostic, and was pleased to have learnt that word! The term atheist was a bit different as it tended to mean the firm position back then. But I have never held any belief in God, not once did it even cross my mind that there was anything for which religion was needed as the explanation. I think it's a common position for an English child, but rather different compared to American children. Perhaps surprising because at my childhood schools (up to 11yo, anyway) we'd often sing hymns and religious (Christian) songs during assembly, no laws against it at state schools. But I never really knew what they meant. "The animals went in two by two, hurrah, hurrah!" was just a fun song, never did I know the underlying horrors!

I remember crudely debating my only religious friend (Catholic) as a young teen, demanding he tell me "what if you had never heard of God", and he'd reply "Then I'd be ignorant of his existence", and I remember how annoyed that answer made me!

Fast forward, I've never had much interest in religion until the past couple of years, and believe it or not I am frustrated I haven't found a Christian speaker or author that can hold my attention. When Christians themselves recommend garbage like The Case For Christ, I don't see that frustration easing.

I'm not English (I'm just over the border ) but this sounds exactly like me. I remember at school going to religious services at Easter and Xmas etc but I don't really remember a single person taking them seriously. It was just seen as a tedious exercise that no one appeared to have any interest in (to be fair though, that view wasn't just limited to the singing if hymns or religious services). If I think of my friends and people I knew at secondary school I don't know a single one who was a regular church goer and I couldn't tell you if any of them believed in god. Even to this day I have no idea if some of my best friends believe in god or not as it's just not a subject that crops up. I think in this area the UK is very different from the U.S.

What subject are we talking about now? I'm pretty sure you don't need a doctorate in brain peeping to have a valid opinion on the methods by which belief systems perpetuate themselves, nor to recognise that when it's happening to children.

If you overheard a father assuring his son that Physicists have it all wrong and the truth of the matter is that he should subscribe to Astrology, I'm sure you wouldn't reserve your opinion on that because you don't have a doctorate in brain peeping.

It's relevant because it speaks to the motives for religions 'educating' young children into their way of thinking and to why it happens. They know that if they simply tell the children about all the religions equally and allow them to choose when they are old enough that they would suffer greatly.

"Give me the child, I will give you the man" Ignatius Loyola.

You think that a child could conceivably be a hard core atheist (or presumably a hard core Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jainist, or a Mormon as an examples of the religious equivalent). I think that there are two issues here; 1) Whether or not a child can have a 'hard core' opinion on a metaphysical subject like religion (something that may adults struggle to understand), & 2) How that child came by their hard core opinion.

Generally, children are protected from having beliefs urged on them and there's a legal age limit for many things that it's considered that you need to have mature judgement for (sex, drinking, smoking, voting, marriage, driving, legal responsibility, contracts etc etc) and yet religions seem to get a pass on that and are allowed to tell children to believe something, not just to educate them, but to actually say 'this is the truth' on a metaphysical subject for which 'the truth' is particularly difficult standard to meet.

Not only are they allowed to urge their belief system on children who aren't considered old enough to engage with many other more simple activities, but it's also the metaphysical subject on which there is the least agreement and which relies the most on faith, belief without evidence and is therefore the least qualified to use the word 'truth' with impressionable and vulnerable children.

How is that considered acceptable?

We're talking about the subject we've always been talking about, aren't we? Whether or not at least one child exists or has existed or will exist who's capable of holding an informed, rational belief regarding deities. I've tried to ignore the digressions about indoctrination because they're entirely beside the point.

It's not relevant for precisely that reason.

We could probably do with a definition of 'hard core' if we're going to go somewhere useful.

Probably because it's always been that way and most people don't see much harm in it, at least in its milder forms (this is not an endorsement of that opinion, just an honest answer to your question).

Can I possibly persuade you to stop yelling at me about indoctrination etc? It really has no bearing on what we've been discussing.

Perhaps we're arguing past each other then. For me this is not solely about whether or not there exist children who could be considered hardcore anything and their judgement be trusted as mature, well informed and reasoned (I'm sure there are children who fit that description but I'd expect them to be in a small minority and probably considered precocious or even some kind of prodigy), and it's very much about the fact that children generally are impressionable and vulnerable to having opinion urged on them which is why there exist laws to protect them from having it happen to them or from getting into situations that they're not equipped to handle.

Surely part of what informs any strong 'hardcore' opinion is experience and children simply haven't had time to gain that?

We really might be talking at cross purposes then because this is the crux of the issue for me. If it wasn't for the fact that's it's necessary to urge these beliefs on children to sustain the belief system, religions wouldn't do it and I wouldn't be discussing why a child can't be a hardcore atheist or christian.


Sure but I don't see how we could be very far apart on what 'hard core' means.

Something like this: "The most active, committed, or doctrinaire members of a group or movement, Intensely loyal; die-hard: The most dedicated, unfailingly loyal faction of a group or organization"

Reading that, I really don't see how it could be applied to any child in any context without raising eyebrows and questions about how it occurred.



'it's always been that way' is never going to be an acceptable justification and that people don't see the harm in it is a large part of the problem IMO. If I took my baby to 'hard core Communism' class it would raise eyebrows but if I take my baby to christian 'Sunday school', ah isn't that nice.

NO ONE IS YELLING ABOUT ANYTHING.

Unfortunately the issue of indoctrination is never very far away from the subject of religion and how children come to have religious beliefs. I don't see that it's possible to separate it from any discussion about how children form opinions on religions.

The hypocrisy of the pride of the church does well in creating atheists all on it's own. For being such an insidious, brainwashing, indoctrinating corporation (as you describe it MB) it seems to have a hard time keeping life-long customers.

Well then I suppose we're substantially in agreement.

And if it wasn't "an insidious, brainwashing, indoctrinating corporation", imagine how poorly it would do then. I'm not sure why you think it has a hard time though, a significant % of the population of this planet believe in one god or other, whatever the number is it's in the order of billions so they seem to be doing ok.

Ok, if you don't mind me qualifying by saying that 'there's no such thing as an hardcore atheist child (or hardcore christian child)' - except perhaps for an abnormally intelligent and capable minority who may have independently formed hardcore opinions on subjects that would normally be beyond the cognitive capacity of a child and who weren't indoctrinated into their hardcore opinion.

I know in America there was a Rutgers study that was done and only 40% of people who were active church members stay on past college age (mid 20s). And that figured continued decline to about 20% by the time they reach retirement. Im sorry, I'd link the article but it was about 6 or so years ago.

Anyway, if they were as good as you say they were at getting the kids early and keeping them, they wouldn't have such a poor retention. I mean, they can't even beat marriage!

I might quibble over the size of the minority (I was a precocious child but I'm not exceptionally intelligent as an adult - I may have been unusual, but I doubt I was that unusual), but it doesn't really bother me if we disagree about that. I don't think either of us have much beyond intuition to support our case. So happy trails, I guess.

I'm not sure you understand what I am trying to say here. I used the example of playing against an opp who always seems to be at the top of his range (aka -- the nit). Think of it like this: You aren't just locking yourself up in a room with atheist literature and atheist thought, but Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and such like that. These are some of the most brilliant men who ever lived, and if you are going to spend a lot of time with them, you had better be prepared to withstand their brilliant evangelistic influence. Most people can't. Most people have no idea who William Lane Craig is. Most people have no idea what the Kalam Cosmological argument is, and have never read Aquinas or C.S Lewis.

So when I hear that a young Christian was exposed to literal creationism or grew up in a very narrow-minded theological program, well, they really were never properly immunized.

In other words, 'if evolution is true, then God is false.' This is actually a creed for the creationists! So, with that faulty premise in place, defeating God is as easy as proving evolution. This kind of christianity is made of straw.

I could spend the rest of my life with people like WLC, or any other religious 'mind' and it's my feeling that I still wouldn't believe in any gods when I came out of the other side. I once spent a week with the Moonies and even they couldn't convert me. I'm not basing my opinion solely on that though, I try not to rely too much on my own personal experiences, they're not reliable.

I asked 'why' because I can't understand why your belief in the christian god could be easily undermined, isn't the whole point that you have 'faith'? It shouldn't matter what evidence is presented to counter your belief if that belief is sustained by the lack of requirement for evidence in the first place. Anything that proves a religion to be wrong, such as the Heliocentric model, can be written off as a human error and doesn't prove anything about the existence or not of any gods right? How could someone like Dawkins change your mind?

I just can't get behind Kalam, not only is the first premise supported by it apparently being 'intuitively obvious', which it isn't, but it also appears to have been busted by recent developments in Quantum physics. To split hairs over what 'nothing' means, in the context of something coming from nothing, seems like a pretty desperate defence. Before god created the universe, there was nothing and that nothing is different from the nothing that particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear into. How is that proven? It just seems like a cheap 'gotcha'.

The universe can't always have existed, it must have had a beginning right? And, something can't come from nothing so the universe must have a creator. Ok, so what created the creator? Nothing, the creator is god and needed no creator. It's a nice out but for me it seems to rely on a shoulder shrug and a need to have an answer instead of reserving opinion until we have more evidence. I hate to use such a cliche but it really seems to me to be a god of the gaps theory. We don't know what created the universe, then we will postulate a god. It might have made sense when we didn't even know that we orbit the sun and not the other way around, or have any knowledge of Evolution, I don't think it does now.

We both know that Evolution and creationism can be compatible, why do the young earthers resist it so vehemently?

I stopped believing somewhere around the age of ~8. Didn't read any sort of "atheistic" literature until late into my high school years. (and maybe even year 1 of college I don't rly remember)

This is very similar to my story. I read a lot of both sides. What motivated me to read so much was fear of hell. I really wanted to get my faith back... after all, what did I possibly have to gain if I was an atheist? No advantage and the chance of eternal torture if I'm wrong. The problem was that the more I read of sophisticated apologetics, the more obvious it was that theism is nonsense. And the more I read of science, the clearer it was that god provides no explanatory value. Everything about the world is more consistent with atheism than theism.

My bolding. Surely not being afraid of hell, purgatory, or similar consequences, is a huge advantage of Atheism? Whilst religion may provide comfort on the death bed, I also wonder how much fear or even outright terror has been caused on the deathbed by religious beliefs.

I live my life with no fear of divine retribution or punishment. Surely that's an advantage?

Nonsense? Did someone hijack your account? I dread to think what kind of response I would get if I dared to use the word nonsense.

I've tried to argue that theism isn't Useful in that it doesn't actually explain anything, it doesn't seem to have much impact.