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/

[Diogenes]

No one is going around trying to convince children to be atheists

some atheist parents are trying to convince their children to be atheists

I think that, overall, this is a fair statement, particularly when you use the wise qualifier "some."

Cool. You should try it some time.

How very ungracious of you, not to mention revealing you are unfamiliar with my posts since I frequently use such qualifiers myself. You needn't have looked any farther than the title of the OP, "Most [not all] Christians are...." There are few absolutes . . . outside of religion.
As I wrote:
I have no quarrel with parents providing their children with religious material and sharing their own religious beliefs. But when they share beliefs about the supernatural and totally goofy stuff about demons, angels, virgin births, a flat, young Earth, a geocentric universe, and a spiritual God physically impregnating a human woman, I think they have an obligation to teach their children science and urge them to investigate and that the scientific and educational community holds that such beliefs are utter nonsense.

[We_Are_VENOM]

True enough and if one is making their way via Doubt and Question to non -b elief , I'd say they are going the right way.

Yeah, and if a young student is sitting in a biology classroom and is doubting whether or not the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have yet been observed to do (which is evolve into a different kind of animal)..

And the student begins to question the validity of what is being taught and this skepticism leads to unbelief; I'd say the student is going the right way.

Talking about indoctrination; students are being indoctrinated every single day in classrooms with bogus scientific theories...theories which are being paid for by tax dollars, might I add.

That many atheists were raised as Christians is significant for several reasons: They came to see that it did not stack up, they know their Bible or Dogma at least, and they know how a Christian thinks.

So basically, with the departure of those former "Christians" from the faith, there will be more room in heaven for me.

That's what I got out of it.

That's a pretty fair so What, wouldn't you say?

Sure.

[Diogenes]

Talking about indoctrination; students are being indoctrinated every single day in classrooms with bogus scientific theories...theories which are being paid for by tax dollars, might I add.

What are those "bogus" scientific theories being taught today at major public universities and how do you know they are "bogus?"

Any competent, well respected scientist will agree that a current scientific theory may have to be altered, amplified or even discarded if more data and understanding dictates change. That is the very point of the scientific process.

The only thing "bogus" is your claim.

[brunumb]

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

When one does not know if something is actually true or not, then teaching that it is factually true is indeed lying.

[Diogenes]

I think that if an atheist makes a statement such as the one Diogenes made above, and a believer asks how did one [or does one] prove a religious belief 'wrong', it is not a case of shifting burden but of legitimate enquiring.

Sure, it isn't for atheists to disprove a religion, but how does this absolve them from having to provide evidence for statements they might make about religion?

This is an easy question to answer. Over the years Christians have claimed many absurdities that have been proved false:
That the Earth is flat.
That the Earth is the center of the universe.
That the Earth is 6000 years old.
That God created all the animals in six days and evolution is 'bogus.'
That the 'God' who approved slavery is the only source of morality.

The list goes on and includes many passages of 'scripture' that contradict each other.

I have to admit one thing however. It is much easier to take the side of naturalism than the side of Abrahamic religion. The freethinker has a much easier row to hoe.

[William]

I think that if an atheist makes a statement such as the one Diogenes made above, and a believer asks how did one [or does one] prove a religious belief 'wrong', it is not a case of shifting burden but of legitimate enquiring.

Sure, it isn't for atheists to disprove a religion, but how does this absolve them from having to provide evidence for statements they might make about religion?

This is an easy question to answer. Over the years Christians have claimed many absurdities that have been proved false:
That the Earth is flat.
That the Earth is the center of the universe.
That the Earth is 6000 years old.
That God created all the animals in six days and evolution is 'bogus.'
That the 'God' who approved slavery is the only source of morality.

The list goes on and includes many passages of 'scripture' that contradict each other.

I have to admit one thing however. It is much easier to take the side of naturalism than the side of Abrahamic religion. The freethinker has a much easier row to hoe.

So now you have answered JWs question "How does one prove a religious belief wrong?"

Thank you for providing these examples. I will be interested in how JW responds.

[benchwarmer]

You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie.

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

You lifted that quote slightly out of context.

Special pleading aside, you don't know if Santa exists or not and you don't know if God exists or not (correct me if I am wrong ). So .... how can you say someone teaching about God is purposely conditioning a child to, {quote} "believe in a lie"?

Apparently I'm not being clear. Let me try again. My quote above is directly related to Santa. Thus you have lifted it out of context and assume I'm talking about God. I'm not in this instance.

- Parent tells child that Santa visits on Christmas eve and delivers presents.
- This parent knows that nobody visits and has to place presents under the tree labelled "From Santa".
- This parent does NOT know for a fact there is no Santa, only that if he is real, he is not visiting and leaving presents.
- This parent is lying. This parent is conditioning the child to believe the lie by providing the 'evidence' (the present) and perpetuating the lie.

Now, how does this relate to teaching about God (or anything really)? It only relates in matters where people put forward beliefs as facts.

Examples:

1) You believe the Christian God exists. You tell your children that you believe the Christian God exists. No lying.

2) You believe the Christian God exists. You present your evidence for your beliefs and ask your children to come to their own conclusions. No lying.

3) You believe the Christian God exists. You tell your children that God does indeed exist. Lying. You don't actually know this for a fact unless you've somehow physically detected Him and can provide that evidence.

As soon as you are engaged in lying, especially to promote a particular viewpoint, then I think it's clear you are conditioning the child to believe.

Please read the above carefully. I'm not suggesting all Christian parents engage in willful lying. However, we all know that many are when they don't actually know for a fact that God is like this or that or even there. Faith and fact are two different things. It might be a fact that one believes, but that does not make the belief itself a fact. Putting a belief forward as a fact is lying. Plain and simple.

Now you will probably respond by saying "but we don't know one way or the other, so how is it lying?". It's lying if you don't know one way or the other yet pretend that you actually know. Of course you could be lucky and get it right, but that's just lucky.

Example:

I say Fred is, for a fact, in the kitchen. Now I don't actually know this, I'm just telling his wife that because he could be in the shed drinking whiskey. I'm lying because I don't really know. Yet, it could turn out Fred is really just in the kitchen eating cheese. The lie is me presenting belief/hope as a fact.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?





JW

[Diogenes]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

True enough and if one is making their way via Doubt and Question to non -b elief , I'd say they are going the right way.

Yeah, and if a young student is sitting in a biology classroom and is doubting whether or not the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have yet been observed to do (which is evolve into a different kind of animal)..

And the student begins to question the validity of what is being taught and this skepticism leads to unbelief; I'd say the student is going the right way.

Talking about indoctrination; students are being indoctrinated every single day in classrooms with bogus scientific theories...theories which are being paid for by tax dollars, might I add.

That many atheists were raised as Christians is significant for several reasons: They came to see that it did not stack up, they know their Bible or Dogma at least, and they know how a Christian thinks.

So basically, with the departure of those former "Christians" from the faith, there will be more room in heaven for me.

That's what I got out of it.

That's a pretty fair so What, wouldn't you say?

Sure.

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

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.