Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[TRANSPONDER]

Okay, so let me give you the opportunity now to be clear... do you KNOW that God does not exist? Yes or No?

I know the God of the Bible does not exist with no more certainty than I know unicorns and fairies do not exist.
Although I see no evidence for it and no necessity for it, I am open to the idea of some as yet to be defined ultimate 'something' in the universe, but I cannot imagine that it remotely resembles the anthropomorphic and ridiculous "Jehovah" of the Bible. That absurd monster is unbelievable and obviously an invention of a single nomadic tribe borrowing from earlier Sumerian myths. It would be embarrassing to admit to such puerile gullibility.

Yep. Same old fallacy that skews ALL Theistic thinking, from what I see. They have to give a good reason to believe in any god, let alone the one of their religion and dogma. it is not a question of the atheist having to 'know' that this or that god does not exist. Even though I think the probability of any kind of Cosmic mind existing is small ...maybe 5% at most. The possibility of the god of the Bible existing...00.005% perhaps. Not odds I'd want to be tmy life on, and even less my Afterlife.

[benchwarmer]

Apparently I'm not being clear. ...

Okay, so let me give you the opportunity now to be clear... do you KNOW that God does not exist? Yes or No?

Apparently you have not really been reading my replies to you carefully.

Now, of course I don't believe Santa exists, but I don't know he doesn't. Just like Jehovah, Vishnu, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. I don't believe in any of them either, but I won't claim they don't exist.

So the answer is no of course.

Do you KNOW that Vishnu does not exist? Yes or No?

[benchwarmer]

The possibility of the god of the Bible existing...00.005% perhaps. Not odds I'd want to be tmy life on, and even less my Afterlife.

Exactly this. There may indeed be some god or gods. We don't know. However, the likelihood of the mish mash as completely described in the Christian Bible (never mind that there are different variations on the Bible itself) is vanishingly small. In fact, if that incoherent being is actually real as fully and completely described, I would be more afraid than happy and wouldn't be sure if heaven was better than hell.

It's clear to me the Bible is filled with documents from different times with ideas stolen from earlier times (and each other) and how anyone can claim the entire thing is 'true and perfect' is kind of mind boggling.

The hypothesis that better fits the data is that we have works of men (maybe some women, but that seems doubtful given most of the content) proclaiming their rules and morals as those of a god so we better get in line. It would be a heck of a lot more convincing if the Bible had a proper editor such that all the documents were made coherent and logical. Clearly there has been some editing in individual documents (added endings, copying earlier works and adding/changing theology to suit), but the tome as a whole, though obviously curated, sure could do with a proper edit if one wants it to be convincing after reading the entire thing.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Even Creationists accept that evolution is true. They just deny that over time the change can become so great that a different species name has to be given.

They deny it for good reasons.

The analogy I use is accepting that aircraft can fly but denying that they could fly to another country.

Bad analogy / false equivalency.

There is no element of evolution involving the aircraft in the analogy you provided.

*Charles Barkley voice*

Your analogy is turrible.

Just turrible.

Judging from the impressions I get from the Christians who think they're going to heaven, I think when I die I'd prefer to go to Kharkov.

Okey dokey.

[POI]

Even Creationists accept that evolution is true. They just deny that over time the change can become so great that a different species name has to be given.

They deny it for good reasons.

The analogy I use is accepting that aircraft can fly but denying that they could fly to another country.

Bad analogy / false equivalency.

There is no element of evolution involving the aircraft in the analogy you provided.

*Charles Barkley voice*

Your analogy is turrible.

Just turrible.

Judging from the impressions I get from the Christians who think they're going to heaven, I think when I die I'd prefer to go to Kharkov.

Okey dokey.

Out of curiosity, I feel compelled to ask....

If macroevolution were to be demonstrated true, to your own satisfaction, would you denounce Christianity? (yes or no)

If (no), would your indoctrination and the feelings of random warm fuzzies force your hand in adopting a new view to Christianity?

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

[We_Are_VENOM]

Out of curiosity, I feel compelled to ask....

If macroevolution were to be demonstrated true, to your own satisfaction, would you denounce Christianity? (yes or no)

No.

If (no), would your indoctrination and the feelings of random warm fuzzies force your hand in adopting a new view to Christianity?

Dont understand the question.

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

[benchwarmer]

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

Keep in mind that how creationists define 'macroevolution' and how a scientist might use it are likely not the same. To being with, there is just the Theory of Evolution. Talking about time scales with micro/macro is arbitrary and not part of the base theory. Evolution happens. It's so clear that it happens some religious people have had to backpeddle and admit that some form of it happens, but won't see it through to it's obvious conclusion.

They will natter on about dogs producing dogs as if that somehow conflicts with the theory. It doesn't. At some point, one isolated population of dogs may not be able to interbreed with another population of dogs or they may have developed some novel traits. At that point taxonomists might get busy and creationists would probably double down on hard denial. They are all still dogs, but we might end up with a new sub species.

Creationists basically refuse to accept modern biology which includes genomics. If they don't see a crocodile birth a duck they claim victory. The rest of us shake our heads and let them believe what they like, while pointing out to the wider audience they value belief over fact.

[Difflugia]

BTW, atheists would still likely be atheists if macroevolution was demonstrated false for them

Must avoid the G-word at all costs, apparently.

It's not so much that as the evidence for evolution and against gods don't overlap much. If the gods were real, the evidence for evolution is just as strong with them as without them. If evolution didn't happen, the evidence for the gods isn't any better than it was before.

[TRANSPONDER]

The possibility of the god of the Bible existing...00.005% perhaps. Not odds I'd want to be tmy life on, and even less my Afterlife.

Exactly this. There may indeed be some god or gods. We don't know. However, the likelihood of the mish mash as completely described in the Christian Bible (never mind that there are different variations on the Bible itself) is vanishingly small. In fact, if that incoherent being is actually real as fully and completely described, I would be more afraid than happy and wouldn't be sure if heaven was better than hell.

It's clear to me the Bible is filled with documents from different times with ideas stolen from earlier times (and each other) and how anyone can claim the entire thing is 'true and perfect' is kind of mind boggling.

The hypothesis that better fits the data is that we have works of men (maybe some women, but that seems doubtful given most of the content) proclaiming their rules and morals as those of a god so we better get in line. It would be a heck of a lot more convincing if the Bible had a proper editor such that all the documents were made coherent and logical. Clearly there has been some editing in individual documents (added endings, copying earlier works and adding/changing theology to suit), but the tome as a whole, though obviously curated, sure could do with a proper edit if one wants it to be convincing after reading the entire thing.

Men. No woman could ever write a book so full of plot holes as the Bible. Not even J.K Rowling. I have not bothered too much with the OT, apart from Genesis -literalism, but I got interested in the Alternative interpretations such as Exodus being of Exilic date and Daniel being of Maccabean date.

That there are a lot of different documents involved seems probable, but what has always seemed the elephant in the room that the Christian apologists purport not to see is the utter difference between the Bronze age war god of the Ot and the supposedly benign and loving Santa - figure of the Nt. Though truth to tell, I can only too well see them as the same brutal dictator, just claiming to be loving when he clearly isn't really.

Even Creationists accept that evolution is true. They just deny that over time the change can become so great that a different species name has to be given.

They deny it for good reasons.

I have never seen any. Either it's denial of Old Earth dating or supposing a genetic DNA barrier between species that prevents Macro' evolution. Probably confusing it with species interbreeding, as they often do, and which is nothing to do with evolution. You may have some other 'Good reason' (n.b Faith is not a Good reason)

The analogy I use is accepting that aircraft can fly but denying that they could fly to another country.

Bad analogy / false equivalency.

There is no element of evolution involving the aircraft in the analogy you provided.

*Charles Barkley voice*

Your analogy is turrible.

Just turrible.

Excellent analogy and valid equivalency. The analogy is not of evolution but of Creationist denial, putting some totally unreasonable barrier to the lenth of progress in either the evolutionary process or the flying process.

Judging from the impressions I get from the Christians who think they're going to heaven, I think when I die I'd prefer to go to Kharkov.

Okey dokey.

Or Scarborough.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #71]

ftfy
Yep. Same old fallacy that skews MUCH Theistic thinking, from what I see.