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/

[William]

eta - delete post and add;

Never mind

[brunumb]

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?

Good grief! The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method. It has been tested and tested and never refuted. Claiming it is not science is just more denial that achieves nothing. Hot dogs and baseball? Too funny.

[otseng]

Classic case of closed mind

Moderator Comment

It's best not to make personal comments about another.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Good grief! The theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method.

Is it? *snickers*

It has been tested and tested and never refuted.

Yeah...animal reproduction has been tested and tested..and throughout these tests, the fact that animals only produce what they are, and NOT what they aren't; that fact has never been refuted.

Claiming it is not science is just more denial that achieves nothing.

It achieves truth value.

Hot dogs and baseball? Too funny.

Very.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Take it how you want to take it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

When one of the requirements is time

One of the requirements of Christianity is faith. Do you believe in Christianity? No.

So, you reject my religion, just like I reject yours.

, then simply hand-waving away time does nothing to diminish the theory.

Just like you hand-wave away faith in Christ, and it does nothing to diminish the truth value of the resurrection.

It is no more than denial based on a deep need for the theory to be false.

Kind of like your deep need for a billion year old universe to supplement your "it takes a couple hundred million years" theory of evolution.

[TRANSPONDER]

What is quite clear is that you are projecting YOUR need for the Faith you speak of onto science, which you appear to see as a lot of Faith- claims without support just made up to suit atheist needs.

You will never get it until you realise that science was done by Believers (as Theist apologists have always argued) to show how God did His work, but the fact was that the explanations worked fine without a god. Atheism has grown out of science explaining how things work without the need for a god.

Of course there are still the Big Three (Life, the Universe and Consciousness) but what you are doing is Genesis -literalism, which is denying science (selected parts, anyway) because it does not fit with Genesis.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

I simply disagree.

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.

I simply disagree.

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.

I simply disagree.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

Perhaps you should call up Kent and tell him you'd like to debate him on the "science" behind evolution..since you know more than him.

If you don't reach out to him and challenge him to a debate, then you are obviously talking the talk, instead of walking the walk.

And in that case, that would be the problem in a nutshell.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I simply disagree.

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.

I simply disagree.

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.

I simply disagree.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

Perhaps you should call up Kent and tell him you'd like to debate him on the "science" behind evolution..since you know more than him.

If you don't reach out to him and challenge him to a debate, then you are obviously talking the talk, instead of walking the walk.

And in that case, that would be the problem in a nutshell.

Denying everything without giving any reason AND telling your opponent to go and argue with someone else makes you look bad, not him. And the whole business of avoiding realtime debate is that such play right into the hands of the deceptive, because they can simply trot out a string of false claims, each of which requires a different expert or an hour of research to refute. You do not get to set the patrameters of 'either you defeat Hovind or some other fact fiddler for Jesus in a shouting -match or I win'. Either you make a proper case as distinct from one liner trashtalk or flat denial or you lose and we can all see that you lose.

There is an excellent debunk of one of Hovind's false claims. Lightfoot's series of creation debunk out to be mustwatch

So, yes, it takes a lot of explanation to debunk a quick throwaway claim by Hovind, which would looks awesomely true to anyone who didn't know the science and didn't bother to look. venom, I understand why you might find him convincing, but he's a sham and a malinformant.

[Difflugia]

Perhaps you should call up Kent and tell him you'd like to debate him on the "science" behind evolution..since you know more than him.

Assuming he believes everything he said, every one of his debate opponents already knew more than him.The people that it would help aren't in his target audience and people outside of his target audience don't need the help.

PIf you don't reach out to him and challenge him to a debate, then you are obviously talking the talk, instead of walking the walk.

The talk that I've been talking isn't that I'm a more entertaining debater, but that what he says is wrong. I've detailed two specific items in this thread, one of which you said was a bit over your head. It doesn't have to be. If you'd like to "walk the walk" with me, I can show you how to access and use the tools to know for yourself that he's wrong and I'm right without having to take my word for it.

And in that case, that would be the problem in a nutshell.

If you can determine the truth of what he says yourself such that you don't have to take anyone else's word for it, that would solve the problem. You game?