OK let's run with that. A doctrine of the Republican party in it's 2012 manifesto is ""the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed"

Can you show that an official doctrine of "religion" is "don't listen to evolutionists" or "brainwash kids"? Remember you can't point to individuals or subsets here if you want to avoid hypocrisy.

The first four words and the rest of the paragraph are a non-sequitur.
Where is your evidence that it is a strong argument? The last time this came up I suggested you research deconversion stories to see what arguments DO work in undermining religious beliefs... what data did you gather? Or are you going to continue to just have blind faith in your intuitions?

What will are the indigenous population unable to see? I thought you were open to the possibility a god exists, yet you seem to be confidently asserting that aliens would find the idea laughable? Again, you seem very hypocritical.


So you can use individuals as examples, but I can't? Or are you retracting your original criticism?

It's possible I've not made myself clear here. I have, repeatedly, assented to the proposition that childhood 'indoctrination' (don't love that word, but will go with it) is a, if not the, major initial cause of the acceptance of beliefs. I don't remember if anyone has argued with you on this point. Where the disagreement lies in your claims that such a fact is either a compelling argument that religion is false or a major factor in sustaining religious beliefs.

As an example, the cause of my belief that 9x9 = 81 is that my mother taught me it, but the reason that belief is sustained is that I can verify it's truth with e.g. a calculator. Similarly, just because someone is brought up as a Christian doesn't mean their faith entirely rests on that fact. Perhaps their prayers are answered, or Yahweh speaks to them while they drive to work, or they find the Ontological Argument to be sound.



No, the data proves that it's not as effective as it might be and that people reject systems of belief or choose to interpret them individually, that's all, and it applies to any belief system including political. I think that it's you that's not being rational and are completely ignoring the evidence that is all around you. So, be arsed, or don't be arsed, same difference to me.

I don't see that we disagree on this point. The issue is that I see no evidence that pointing this out to anyone is going to convince them that their religion is false, as that would be to commit the genetic fallacy.

Perhaps if we united in this approach it would be significantly more effective Don't muddy the water by arguing the specifics of fairy tales, simply point out that the fairy tales only have an impact because people have heard them. If they hadn't they wouldn't believe them in the first place.

Join me on the dark side

No I can't and there's no need for me to because I've never said anything like that.

I believe religions have a closed paradigm, that's how they can hinder learning. Taken to the hypothetical extreme, i.e the religions have complete control of information, we would see an end to unbiased scientific inquisitiveness because it conflicts with what the religions want their followers to believe. Back in the middle ages that was possible to a great extent and it actually happened. Learning was suppressed. Thes days that's much much harder, mostly thanks to the internet, but that doesn't change what the religions would prefer to be the case.

AFAIK, there isn't a religious instruction manual describing how to brainwash children, that behaviour emerged as people wished their children to grow up with the same belief system that they had and over the centuries became the norm with the religions themselves actively taking part (sunday schools, bible schools, in normal schools, taking children to worship ect etc) until now you think it's the norm and don't question it.

I'm open to any of mankind's gods existing in the same way that Lemonzest is open to possibility that his god doesn't exist. Also, I didn't use the word 'laughable' so don't put words in my mouth, I suggested that an alien would see through the religious behaviour in the same way that if you visited Easter island back in the day and saw them carving Moai's you'd have thought it obviously contrived and seen how everyone was simply engaging in mob mentality behaviour. You certainly wouldn't have converted to their religion simply because that was the norm there.

I was trying to keep this exchange vaguely on topic by bringing nooberftw into it but my question stands, how does an individual come to the belief that Evolution is a myth if not through religion wishing to rule it out as a conflicting belief? (And this despite the catholic church officially accepting Evolution in the 80's, nooberftw is behind the times). Nooberftw is what I'm saying but taken to an extreme.

The Atheist equivalent would be those who state as fact that there are no gods and would refuse to encourage any scientific study for divine cause. They would have equally limited paradigm but I'm not supporting that so giving an example of someone like that wouldn't be countering anything I've said.

It's the only reason people believe and therefor an obvious and significant place from which to change those beliefs. Arguing specifics simply gives credibility where it isn't due. In the same way that ID has managed to associate itself with Evolution as a scientific theory of the same weight and has forced opponents to discuss them in that light it has earned a credibility it doesn't deserve through association.

Maths and religion are not the same, one is a numbering system (a language in fact) the other is a meta belief system for which there is zero evidence to support there actually being gods. That you would use maths as an analogy shows how far apart we are in our perspectives. If you can demonstrate how your mother made you believe in the FSM we'd be on the same page.

I take 150mg of flouride three times a week. I'm fine.

For those Christians that consider Genesis creation to be metaphor or allegory, what are some examples of the metaphor? A literal reading is obvious at least, regardless of whether it seems right or wrong, but what about non-literal exegesis? Perhaps just a lack of imagination on my part, but taking the initial creation stories to start with, they read as a rather dry piece of text. Arguably, the garden could be a metaphor (for something), and the tree/talking snake allegorical, but it seems unlikely that the narrative would switch so quickly between styles, wouldn't it?

Any hints?

Ok this is getting too long and unwieldy, so I'm going to cut it down to one specific point for the moment

The only reason? Do you want to retract this now, or do I actually have to show you why this is clearly wrong?

If the point you're going to make is that adults can come to religion after having not been believers, my answer would be that they were prepped for that change by their childhood experiences.

If you took an adult who'd never even heard of religion, let alone grown up in a world pervaded and massively influenced by one version of it or another, and told them that there were invisible super powerful beings who made everything and were really in control of everything but never deigned to actually show themselves or otherwise prove their existence, they'd most likely laugh at you before calling in the men in white coats. Obviously I can't prove that, before you point that out too, but I don't think it's an unreasonable or unlikely conclusion to make. I think the impact of childhood indoctrination and cultural influence during those formative years is greatly underestimated by those so familiar with it that they can no longer see the wood for the trees.

The fact that the vast majority of adults turn to the religion that is predominant in their own culture doesn't prove what I'm saying but it certainly doesn't disprove it either. I might go so far as to say it could be considered to support what I'm saying.

You seem to have missed the hint.

1. Who was the first religious person?
2. Who indoctrinated that person?

Ah, you're saying that the first person couldn't have been indoctrinated, (although all the teeming billions since could have), but that disproves that the 'only' way to come to religion is to be indoctrinated? Can I just check that before awarding you the prize for being the most pedantic forum poster I've ever encountered.

No, the first person couldn't have been indoctrinated, score one for you.

So, how does that impact on the debate overall? Does it prove that indoctrination is not the most significant factor in the propagation and perpetuation of religions? Can you suggest any other factors at all?

Not that this is news to any one but MB but just for the general record: This is patently and laughably wrong.

I grew up in eastern germany, one of the most atheist countries in todays europe (2nd only to the former checkoslovakia). Completely atheist parents, no religious contact in my entire child- or teenhood. Believers (of which there obv. were some) were seen by the average of society (me included in my kid-beingness) as bumbling idiots that believed in some pretty wild crap like gods'n'****.

First contact with religion I had was when I started studying catholic theology, which I did on a complete whim (I was planning on studying classical guitar back then and just needed one idle semester since you can only enroll in fall over hre for most courses). As you're ineligible for child supoort if you're not in some kind of educational program, I've signed up with catholic theology because whynotlolz.

During that time I slowly came around, was babtized when I was 25.

bro, you do realise what you've just let yourself in for right?

?

I just found the weird side of 2p2. Thought only youtube had that.

took you 441 posts and 5 years, where you been?

Four posts later...

No evolution is real. Its the female orgasm that's the myth.

He hasn't let himself in for anything, I can't be bothered to point out exactly how this post doesn't disprove what I'm saying.

Zing!

So basically your argument is that you're right, and if we show you a counter-example, you will claim it as evidence that what you said was correct? I'm not sure I see the fun in this.

i play poker

Roughly this, I guess.

Well... I'm saying that religions rely entirely on cultural influence and he demonstrates how he was exposed to religion as a child, in a country that attempted to suppress religion (perhaps you could tell us a little about what that was like?). He knew it existed, eventually he turned to it. Not sure how that would be classed as a 'counter example'.

The only counter example you could show me is if you found someone raised entirely in isolation who had a personal religion entirely identical to one of the known religions and genuinely got there all on their own. That would really bake my noodle. 'How could that happen' I might ask myself. Heck, maybe it IS true and the truth IS self evident and it's not just the result of religion being shoved down our throats our whole lives until some of us fall for it.

The weird thing about this is that no one is disagreeing with me that cultural influence is what leads people to being religious (Except Hainesy who thinks he's special and got there all on his ownesome), the disagreement is over how significant it is. You don't deal with the results of ongoing indoctrination, that's just treating the symptom, you deal with the the root cause.

That's not weird is it? Most people agree that religion spreads through what you term "indoctrination". The disagreement is over whether that's the sole reason, whether that's the most significant factor or whether that's the best "avenue of attack".

not as special as you broseph.

and anyway, got "where", exactly? given that you don't really know what i believe in, i could be a jedi for all you know about me.

How else can it spread? If you knew nothing about Christianity, you wouldn't turn around one day and say 'I'm a Christian'. Is there another possible reason?

Of course you're special. You said so yourself and even offered me the opportunity to read your ramblings to see for myself. Unlike the teeming billions who believe in gods because they were influenced by the culture they live in, you believe in one of the major gods and you got there for your own special reasons and you think you're different, you said so dude....

Even Jedi is something you heard somewhere else. Say something original, what are your totally original thoughts on the subject?

So, according to you, a person who discovers the Book of Mormon at a yard sale and becomes Mormon because of this book has been indoctrinated?