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/

[POI]

I already know you deem them to be false. And I will (again) ask you what I asked you many posts ago...

(Paraphrased) If you had not been indoctrinated early in life, and if you truly do understand what the presented 'evidence' at least represents, would you still think 'evolution' was false? (yes or no)? FYI. Please commit to a yes/no. I think you 'know'

Maybe, maybe not.

There is a REASON I keep asking you this question. You like to throw the word 'disingenuous' around. Well, this is what I see here.

As I agreed, from the beginning of our exchange, we see our surroundings through a differing lens.

The reason for my question cuts to the heart of the matter, which was ultimately polarized by the 4 minute video provided a few exchanged back.

(YOU) - Since you were and are still under the umbrella of being indoctrinated in Christianity, any/all 'evidence/claims/assertions/other', which you see as disputing the Bible for you, MUST be wrong.

(ME) - Since I was indoctrinated in Christianity early, and now no longer live under the cloak of such Christian indoctrination, any/all 'evidence/claims/assertions/other', for which I see, are now all handled using the same set of (tools/logic). If it passes, it passes, if it fails, it fails.

As I see it, for you it seems, would be similar to a staunch conservative Republican whom only watches Fox or Sky News. However, on the contrary, I'm not a staunch liberal whom only watches MSNBC or CNN. I'm willing to address each and every claim with the same set of tools. You, not so much... As I answer questions, moving forward, this will be highlighted again and again.

No. The (3) aforementioned questions under examination. The ages of the earth, of humans, and the flood. How were you able to discern/infer their ages? Thus far, pure assumption?

That question; not only was it already answered, but it has nothing to do with your asking me of how do I know God created the universe.

No it has not. Again, Kent states all three questions reflect 6k or less, and gives 'reason'. All my conclusions range much much much higher, and I have reason. So I again ask...

What (evidence and/or other) led you to the following conclusion(s):

earth = 100K - 1M
humans =100K
flood = ??

I'm pressing you here so we may have a productive conversation. How do you square your own interpretation of Genesis with your own logic? If it does not match, do you just throw your hands up in the air and cry out 'faith'? Why apply faith to this assertion, and not all others (Hinduism, etc etc etc)? I'll tell you why... Because you were not indoctrinated in those religions. It's Christianity.

(YOU)The answer to that question is the elephant in the room.

The answer; because it is no coincidence that most in those fields are naturalists/materialists/atheists.

And most of them are also evolutionists...and since evolutionary processes need hundreds of millions of years to occur (according to the theory), you will obviously need a universe that is older than the life on earth that is taking so long to evolve.

It is simple, actually.

(ME) So from your perspective, 'evolution should be renamed '(evil)ution'?

Sounds like, from your perspective, there exists a global conspiracy. A conspiracy that exists which includes Muslims, Christians, agnostic/gnostic atheists, skeptics, Hindus, other other other to suppress the truth. ---> That evolution is a lie! And thanks to people like Kent H., a YEC, he is the one with both the truth and the knowledge to demonstrate it...

Got it..

(YOU) And evolutionists use voodoo science, not science.

(ME) And pseudoscience isn't? Because if you lookup the word, you might see Kent H's face there

(YOU) A theory that is of scientific nature.

(ME) If you don't know, it's okay to say so. I ask again (2) questions:

1. What is the definition of <scientific theory>?

2. What is the definition of <the scientific method>?

And once you answer these two questions, or don't, please explain why both (scientific theory) and (the scientific method) DO NOT use the same tools for evolutionary theory, verses the scientific theories you likely do accept (i.e.) germ theory, theory of gravity, etc etc etc....???

*******************************************

(ME) Then not only can Jesus contact me, under any circumstances, but your intercessory prayers should be mere formality.

(YOU) Aight. Case closed.

(ME) So why do I not know a postmortem Jesus exists? Am I stupid, am I lying, or is the Bible false?

(YOU) The Bible isn't false. So whatever you fall under after that, is on you.

*****************************

(ME) Blank assertions mean nothing. This is basically why I am no longer a Christian. If you truly want to save me from the hell you believe exists, then please ask your Jesus to contact me. I'm doing this publicly so many will see. I'm asking you to place your money where your mouth is... If Jesus does not contact me, then A) a postmortem Jesus may not exist, or B) Jesus has no intentions on ever contacting me.

If B), then your prayer does not work either. Which then renders the Bible false.

Thanks!

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Yeah and that "time of the gaps" reasoning ("over a long period of time") wont work unless you have a billion + year old earth, now does it?

How convenient.

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.

It aint science, though. That is the point of contention.

The ToE is linked in with science, but it ain't actual science.

Just like hot dogs is linked (no pun intended) to the game of baseball, but it isn't part of the game, is it?

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.

Yeah but the difference is; we (believers) admit that our belief is a religion, which is what evolutionists dont do...and we dont have our religion being taught at schools on the dime of tax payers...which is what evolutionists do.

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.

You deny/reject evidences presented for Christianity, dont you?

Well then.

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.

But seriously, that is not what I do.

[Diogenes]

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.

No, of course not; they shouldn't lose custody or even 'loose' it. I think it important that parents teach their children good values and most of the world's religions have good values to teach, values that will make their lives better and that are good for society as well. The parable of the Good Samaritan, the forgiveness the story of 'The Woman at the Well, the generosity of 'The Widow's Mite' are all instructive. So are Aesop Fables. I see no reason parents shouldn't share their religious beliefs as well, but I suggest children will be better prepared for life if their parents also teach their children to reason, to be independent thinkers, to 'work out their own salvation' if you will.

But insisting their kids believe the Earth is flat or less than 10,000 years old, or that all extant species were created during the same week, that evolution is a lie, handicaps a child. Such beliefs are not only anti science, they represent poor Biblical scholarship as well. Don't we all, as parents and members of society, want our children to be individuals, independent thinkers, able to, in the words of the New Testament, put on 'the full armor' of preparedness and to study, to be workmen that need not be ashamed, able to honestly search for truth?

As religious parents, wouldn't one prefer to have children choose one's own faith having come to it openly, rather than because of an overbearing indoctrination?

[We_Are_VENOM]

There is a REASON I keep asking you this question. You like to throw the word 'disingenuous' around. Well, this is what I see here.

As I agreed, from the beginning of our exchange, we see our surroundings through a differing lens.

The reason for my question cuts to the heart of the matter, which was ultimately polarized by the 4 video provided a few exchanged back.

(YOU) - Since you were and are still under the umbrella of being indoctrinated in Christianity, any/all 'evidence/claims/assertions/other', which you see as disputing the Bible for you, MUST be wrong.

Since you are currently under the umbrella of being indoctrinated with voodoo science, any/all evidence/claims/assertions/other, which you see as disputing science for you, MUST be wrong.

(ME) - Since I was indoctrinated in Christianity early, and now no longer live under the cloak of such Christian indoctrination, any/all 'evidence/claims/assertions/other', for which I see, are now all handled using the same set of (tools/logic). If it passes, it passes, of it fails, it fails.

So, you simply traded one indoctrination for another.

Gotcha

As I see it, for you it seems, would be similar to a staunch conservative Republican whom only watches Fox or Sky News. However, on the contrary, I'm not a staunch liberal whom only watches MSNBC or CNN. I'm willing to address each and every claim with the same set of tools. You, not so much... As I answer questions, moving forward, this will be highlighted again and again.

I agree. Whoever is making sense regardless of what side it is coming from.

No it has not. Again, Kent states all three questions reflect 6k or less, and gives 'reason'. All my conclusions range much much much higher, and I have reason. So I again ask...

What (evidence and/or other) led you to the following conclusion(s):

earth = 100K - 1M
humans =100K
flood = ??

I'm pressing you here so we may have a productive conversation.

Go dig up the files and check my answer..one that i provided multiple times.

How do you square your own interpretation of Genesis with your own logic?

I dont...since we all cant be right, I just assume you guys aren't, and I am.

If it does not match, do you just throw your hands up in the air and cry out 'faith'?

If it does not match, then I will make my adjustment(s) accordingly.

Why apply faith to this assertion, and not all others (Hinduism, etc etc etc)? I'll tell you why... Because you were not indoctrinated in those religions. It's Christianity.

I have no positive evidence supporting those other faiths...but I do for one particular faith.

Which faith?

"It's Christianity."

(ME) So from your perspective, 'evolution should be renamed '(evil)ution'?

Sounds like, from your perspective, there exists a global conspiracy. A conspiracy that exists which includes Muslims, Christians, agnostic/gnostic atheists, skeptics, Hindus, other other other to suppress the truth. ---> That evolution is a lie! And thanks to people like Kent H., a YEC, he is the one with both the truth and the knowledge to demonstrate it...

Got it..

Newsflash; Christianity 101...Satan is a liar/deceiver of the world.

(ME) And pseudoscience isn't? Because if you lookup the word, you might see Kent H's face there

We simply disagree.

(ME) If you don't know, it's okay to say so. I ask again (2) questions:

1. What is the definition of <scientific theory>?

2. What is the definition of <the scientific method>?

And once you answer these two questions, or don't, please explain why both (scientific theory) and (the scientific method) DO NOT use the same tools for evolutionary theory, verses the scientific theories you likely do accept (i.e.) germ theory, theory of gravity, etc etc etc....???

Too be honest, you've already wasted enough of my time.

If you dont have anything new for me, then see ya in traffic.

(ME) Blank assertions mean nothing. This is basically why I am no longer a Christian. If you truly want to save me from the hell you believe exists, then please ask your Jesus to contact me. I'm doing this publicly so many will see. I'm asking you to place your money where your mouth is... If Jesus does not contact me, then A) a postmortem Jesus may not exist, or B) Jesus has no intentions on ever contacting me.

If B), then your prayer does not work either. Which then renders the Bible false.

I said I will pray for you, and I did.

[POI]

(YOU) Since you are currently under the umbrella of being indoctrinated with voodoo science

(ME) I'm not a scientist. So your statement again is irrelevant for me. But you are a Christian. And you are indoctrinated in it. As I've stated, many times now, it's not the science which swayed me in another direction, (away from Christianity), it's my logic and my 'morality'.

I apply the same logic to each and every claim. If it passes, I adhere to it. If it doesn't, I don't. Christianity fails my logic as well as my own 'moral code'.

But, by all means, keep chopping at 'evolution'. Whatever gives you more "warm fuzzies".

(YOU) Go dig up the files and check my answer..one that i provided multiple times.

(ME) Again, Kent H. uses 'evidence' to appeal to 6k and under. I appeal to 'evidence' which appeals to millions/billions of years. You do not agree with me, and that's fine. But you cannot appeal to the same 'evidence' that Kent H. appeals to, unless you admit he is wrong a lot of the time and you are instead right. So what 'evidence/other' do you use to determine these (3) claims? If you care not to divulge this information, yet again, then you are likely pulling random numbers out of your keaster. Because if both Kent and I are wrong, then the number could be 50 billion You must have some reference or standard?.?.?.?

(again, your claims):

earth = 100K - 1M
humans =100K
flood = ??

(YOU) I dont...since we all cant be right, I just assume you guys aren't, and I am.

(ME) Do you just assume everything, and apply pure faith to everything, or just the stuff you do not like?

(YOU) If it does not match, then I will make my adjustment(s) accordingly.

(ME) Since you have not adjusted yet, then you should have no problem telling me why you have concluded such ages of earth, humans, and the flood --> (100K - 1M)?

(YOU) I have no positive evidence supporting those other faiths...but I do for one particular faith.

(ME) Right, because you were not indoctrinated in those other religions. Your lens supports the aforementioned 4 minute video given a few posts back.

(YOU) Newsflash; Christianity 101...Satan is a liar/deceiver of the world.

(ME) It would appear 'Satan' is behind the lie of "evilution"? Got it... Is Satan behind all <scientific theory> and <the scientific methods> for which you accept too?

This looks to be more-so indoctrination 101 related then that of what you claim.

***********************************

(ME) If you don't know, it's okay to say so. I ask again (2) questions:

1. What is the definition of <scientific theory>?

2. What is the definition of <the scientific method>?

And once you answer these two questions, or don't, please explain why both (scientific theory) and (the scientific method) DO NOT use the same tools for evolutionary theory, verses the scientific theories you likely do accept (i.e.) germ theory, theory of gravity, etc etc etc....??? [/quote]

(YOU) Too be honest, you've already wasted enough of my time. If you dont have anything new for me, then see ya in traffic.

(ME) Why can't you tell us what these two topics represent? Because remember, they use the same rigorous methodologies to demonstrate all the scientific theories you do discern/infer/accept.

The above response is also quite telling. I don't think you want your logic about these ages truly challenged, because you are afraid of what it may reveal. I get it...

(YOU) I said I will pray for you, and I did.

(ME) Oh, I believe you prayed for me. I'm not questioning you. I'm questioning Jesus....It is either:

A) He doesn't exist any more, which renders the bible false
B) Your prayers are not being answered, which renders the bible false

[Difflugia]

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."

On the other hand, if we agree that educational neglect or abuse is a thing and should be actionable, then whether the miseducation is religious is immaterial. As I said before, I find it worth note that an argument for the enforcement of stricter educational standards is being countered with the claim that it's antireligious rather than an appeal to greater freedom for parents in general. As I see it, the enforcement of educational standards against the wishes of parents can only be antireligious if we acknowledge either that such standards serve no secular purpose or that proper education is so prejudicial to religion that religious protection is more important than educational integrity.

There's already a parallel with laws against medical neglect and the ways that they're enforced. If a minor dies because a parent refuses them necessary medical care, that's actionable. In many jursdictions, religious groups are offered more leeway through an exemption allowing medical neglect for religious reasons, even when it results in a child's death. As public opinion shifts back and forth, there are often calls to eliminate these exemptions. Since the law is exxplicitly acknowledging greater leeway for religious parents in the first place, then the laws can hardly be called antireligious. Even if the exemptions are removed, the laws themselves are still not antireligious. The most one can say is that religion is no longer given such preferential treatment as it once was.

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.

Whether one agrees that this is an acceptable relationship between the state and family, it's not a religious relationship.

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.

What give me pause is the attempt to characterize state enforcement of educational standards, even if overreaching, as antireligious. That seems to me rather like characterizing traffic laws as anti-teenager or food safety laws as anti-lemonade stand. There may be reasons for allowing certain groups extra privilege at the expense of public protection, but not doing so isn't an attack on those groups.

[Difflugia]

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.

If he does, it isn't on substance. Essentially everything he says involving science is wrong. He's "destroying" his opponents in the same way a timeshare salesperson or phone scammer does.

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.

Which I find kind of funny, because he successfuly counters Kent's misinformation without getting sidetracked. He uses his time to patiently explain the many things that Kent gets wrong. It's the difference between an entertaining person saying false things a boring person saying true things. If one can't tell the difference, the debate is no longer about information, but is just entertaining versus boring.

Kent starts getting agitated and frustrated toward the end because he knows he's losing the audience of university students in the room. I actually used to wonder why he included this one in his video collection because in my opinion, it's one of Kent's worst debates. I guess I now know why.

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.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

[brunumb]

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.

So not directly observing something is not an impediment. Good. On the other hand there are perfectly good reasons for believing that evolution is true, unless your mind has been closed by intense religious indoctrination.

[brunumb]

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.

When one of the requirements is time, then simply hand-waving away time does nothing to diminish the theory. It is no more than denial based on a deep need for the theory to be false.

[brunumb]

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.

Classic case of closed mind and confirmation bias. You will go with Hovind because he echoes what is already bouncing around in your mind and doesn't challenge your deeply inculcated beliefs.