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/

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #137]

Um, Diff...that was Kent's WORSE debate opponent...EVER.

SMH.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Worse than that, it is denial. Micro becoming macro, because it is the same process of change over a much longer time, is very simple to grasp, but Creationists just push the very concept away, because it is hard to dispute.

"Time of the gaps"...just add the element of time to the equation, and all of your problems disappear lol.

So they pretend it's something else (interbreeding between species is the usual misrepresentation) or pretend that they can't get what we are talking about, or sometimes say 'there wasn't enough time', which is odd because Ken Ham's model of the situation after the Ark seems to be evolution from basic 'Kinds' to all the species over a mere thousand years. Or as we saw, we get silly comments about how we evolutionists claim to be so smart because we can comprehend a very simple idea, like Micro (given time) can become Macro.

Yeah and in Christianity, give it enough time and Jesus will return.

[Difflugia]

Um, Diff...that was Kent's WORSE debate opponent...EVER.

SMH.

I would love to explore why you think that. Do you think his arguments were worse in some scientific way? Were his arguments invalid? Were they valid, but presented poorly?

Was it perhaps like watching a debate between someone speaking English and someone speaking a foreign language?

In a related question, do you think I'm right about that particular statement Hovind made? Was what he said wrong or am I wrong?

[brunumb]

Worse than that, it is denial. Micro becoming macro, because it is the same process of change over a much longer time, is very simple to grasp, but Creationists just push the very concept away, because it is hard to dispute.

"Time of the gaps"...just add the element of time to the equation, and all of your problems disappear lol.

Not so funny really. Some things happen quickly, some things happen slowly, and some things happen very slowly. Maybe that will penetrate past the religious indoctrination and sink in eventually.

[brunumb]

When someone can accept micro-level changes but not macro-level changes, both of which have the same essential causes at a molecular level, then they do not understand evolution regardless of their innate intelligence.

One is an observable fact, while the other one isn't.

So you never accept anything as fact unless you have observed it, right?

[We_Are_VENOM]

So you never accept anything as fact unless you have observed it, right?

Not necessarily. It isn't just limited to observation, as I maintain that there are no good reasons to believe in evolution, PERIOD...whether observation or otherwise.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not so funny really. Some things happen quickly, some things happen slowly, and some things happen very slowly.

Yeah it happened so slow, that it didn't happen AT ALL.

Maybe that will penetrate past the religious indoctrination and sink in eventually.

Yeah and the fact that you believe adding a hundred million years to the equation gives your theory the lifeline it needs to live...goes to show how much you've been indoctrinated with the voodoo science you've been taught.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I would love to explore why you think that. Do you think his arguments were worse in some scientific way? Were his arguments invalid? Were they valid, but presented poorly?

Was it perhaps like watching a debate between someone speaking English and someone speaking a foreign language?

A few years ago, when I was on a Kent Hovind craze, I was checking out all of his debates (among talks/lectures) and was completely blown away as I saw him destroy opponent after opponent.

The debate you posted, I recall his opponent just being a bad debater and completely unworthy of sharing the same stage with Kent H..and was literally one of the worse debaters I've ever seen.

And after watching the little bit you posted (the Q&A), the dude was just as bad as I remembered he was, years ago.

In a related question, do you think I'm right about that particular statement Hovind made? Was what he said wrong or am I wrong?

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

[historia]

If that's the comment (or even broad idea) that JehovahsWitness was responding to, though, then it can only be asking for more special treatment for religion than is already implied in TRANSPONDER's "a lot of leeway and especially in matters of religion."

I appreciate this point.

I would just point out, as JehovahsWitness helpfully noted above, that TRANSPONDER's comments came in the midst of a discussion where some atheists were earnestly contending that, if a parent teaches their own child a religious belief that these atheists find objectionable, then that somehow constitutes "abuse."

To then argue, as TRANSPONDER did, that parents are really just caretakers acting on behalf of the state, and if they "are considered to cross the line" -- by, oh, I don't know, maybe doing something that others consider to be "abuse"? -- then the state can intervene and strip them of their parental rights.

Now, I seriously doubt that TRANSPONDER, or anyone else here, is advocating that parents who teach their children that the earth is only 6,000 years old should loose custody of their children. But, man, some of the overwrought language and arguments in this thread do give me pause.

[TRANSPONDER]

Worse than that, it is denial. Micro becoming macro, because it is the same process of change over a much longer time, is very simple to grasp, but Creationists just push the very concept away, because it is hard to dispute.

"Time of the gaps"...just add the element of time to the equation, and all of your problems disappear lol.

So they pretend it's something else (interbreeding between species is the usual misrepresentation) or pretend that they can't get what we are talking about, or sometimes say 'there wasn't enough time', which is odd because Ken Ham's model of the situation after the Ark seems to be evolution from basic 'Kinds' to all the species over a mere thousand years. Or as we saw, we get silly comments about how we evolutionists claim to be so smart because we can comprehend a very simple idea, like Micro (given time) can become Macro.

Yeah and in Christianity, give it enough time and Jesus will return.

The difference being that the science and the visual evidence of the fossil sequence argues for evolution (from one species or kind to another) over a long period of time. The 'problem' is not for evolution but for Creationism which is that the evidence is against it. How do they get over the problem? Deny the science and ignore the evidence.

And then you do the problem solving excuse you twit evolution for doing - in you view of it anyway. As I say - the problem is for Creation rather than evolution.

You say that Jesus will do what he appears to have said he would do while some of his followers and the Sanhedrin, too were still alive. Just give it time, and more time, and yet more time. As much time as it needs.

So you never accept anything as fact unless you have observed it, right?

Not necessarily. It isn't just limited to observation, as I maintain that there are no good reasons to believe in evolution, PERIOD...whether observation or otherwise.

There are museumsful of reason to believe in evolution. I have explained them to you. You deny it, even say 'please spare me' rather than look at the evidence. If I wanted to give a living example of the statue of the eternal Theist (eyes shut, fingers in the ears, mouth wide open, you could have posed for it.