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]

Denying everything without giving any reason AND telling your opponent to go and argue with someone else makes you look bad, not him.

Everything doesn't require a debate..and the sooner you realize that, the better.

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.

Cool.

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.

As long as you understand.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Sure, whatever you say.

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.

If you are right and he is wrong, tell him that, not me.

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.

No thank you.

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?

No.

[historia]

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.

To be honest, I don't think this really captures the discussion well at all.

From my point of view -- maybe I've missed something -- JehovahsWitness and I are simply expressing dismay at some of the early comments in this thread, like that of Diogenes, who argued that it is "abusive" for a parent to teach their own child to believe in "the supernatural or some specific religious nonsense." So if I were to teach my daughter that God exists, for example, that is, in Diogenes mind, "abuse."

I don't think that can reasonably be described as an "argument for the enforcement of stricter educational standards," especially when no one in the thread, as far as I know, has said anything about keeping children from attending school -- which is properly what "educational neglect" entails -- or challenging school curricula, where the discussion of educational standards is appropriate.

It's rather just a straight-forward argument for telling parents what they should and shouldn't say to their own children. Moreover, by labelling religious beliefs as "abusive," this argument carries with it the implication that the state should intervene to prevent parents from sharing those beliefs, an implication made even stronger in TRANSPONDER's comments.

Also, in my short exchange with brunumb, I asked whether this concern extended to, for example, sharing with one's child the belief that all people should have equal moral standing under the law, and he said no, "that is not uniquely religious." So I guess for some atheists here, they are only against the sharing of religious beliefs, making their stance expressly anti-religious.

It has not occurred to me to make an "appeal to greater freedom for parents in general," since the current freedoms parents possess to share their religious, political, etc., beliefs with their children are perfectly appropriate.

[TRANSPONDER]

Denying everything without giving any reason AND telling your opponent to go and argue with someone else makes you look bad, not him.

Everything doesn't require a debate..and the sooner you realize that, the better.

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.

Cool.

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.

As long as you understand.

What's more a question is whether you understand how you've been fooled and misled by Hovind. You may debate or not. It's up to you, but you have nothing it seems to press your case here. It is you who has some realising to do, not us. We have already realised and understood.

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.

Sure, whatever you say.

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.

If you are right and he is wrong, tell him that, not me.

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.

No thank you.

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?

No.

Sheer denial. You aren't making much of a case here.

[Diogenes]

maybe I've missed something --
....

This is what you missed:
It is abusive* (not a legal term of art) to teach children material lies, like:
The Earth is flat, covered by a giant dome of stars that circle it every 24 hours, like the Bible describes.
Or that you don't really die when you die, but go to paradise. Just as it is abusive to teach a child he can fly if he jumps off a cliff, or that God will protect him if he handles a poisonous serpent or that evolution is bunk and the Earth is 6000 years old.

I am not suggesting that parents who teach these lies should have their children taken from them any more than I suggest Kent Hovind should go to prison for teaching his laughable bunk so he can bilk the gullible out of $millions. Hovind went to prison for lying about his income and cheating on his taxes, not for preaching his silly theories.

There are levels of abuse and merely telling a child something false that you think is true, is not, and should not be actionable at law. One of the reasons it is not, and should not be actionable is that it is hard to prove a person did not actually believe the absurdity to be true, even obviously false statements about a geocentric flat Earth or the silly idea of a 6 day creation.
People of all persuasions unknowingly make contrafactual statements routinely.

What I am saying is that it is harmful to teach lies and that it would be preferable to teach that there are levels of certainty and uncertainty and that children should be encouraged to investigate and learn to explore the world of knowledge rather than just learn things because an 'authority' told them so.
But...
Whoever teaches lies to the little ones would be better off to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

*I concede that "abuse" may be a misleading term because of its association with "child abuse" that can be an actual crime. My view is that teaching false 'facts' as absolute truths always has a harmful effect, tho' it may be difficult to ascertain.

[POI]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #94]
I try, frequently unsuccessfully, to avoid engaging with those who think the Earth is flat, that gravity does not exist, that the Earth is less than 4 Billion years old, or that all the species on the planet were created in a few days rejecting the facts of evolution. There is little point in arguing with people who put the points of their indoctrination ahead of reality.

I should have more-so heeded your advice from post #94 above I wasted many exchanged with a fellow whom is quite indoctrinated and closed minded. When he boasted about his hero being Kent Hovind, I almost pooped my pants. In this day and age, I was not aware that anything he said was still relevant or taken seriously -- (even by fundamentalists)? There exists so many debunking videos, demonstrating why he is just flat wrong about so many of his claims. Heck, even many theists know this....

He then tried to even the playing field by telling me I'm indoctrinated too, in 'evolution'.

I have to wonder, does "Venom" not understand what evolutionary theory claims, or is he just in denial of the evidence based claims? I guess it's just a talking point really. In my estimation, it again boils down to:

1. indoctrination - It's very hard to shake.
2. Ironically the topic for which he flat out rejects. The ones who apply (intentional agency) survived, while the many who did not, are long gone. We all apply (intentional agency) from time to time, where there is none. This is a type 1 error and is harmless. He is merely doing this with his 'god'. Meaning, if he's wrong, there is no way to verify and it is virtually harmless.

This is why he must reject any piece of 'science' which posses a threat. Like the aforementioned 4 minute video suggests.

And now, when he is pressed to demonstrate his beliefs too closely, about the ages of the earth, humans, and the flood, he then back peddles....

So yea, I'm glad I did not decide to take him up any a private exchange. And sure, I knew it would go nowhere. The point was for the rest of the audience to see what indoctrinated people do in a debate.

[POI]

Ten days of debating with a believer who ends up saying 'Well, I don't care what you say, I still believe the Bible' is 10 wasted days.

Exactly, assuming you are referring to a private debate. At least in a public debate, you can hope to show the flaws of the other position and/or correct the flaws in your own based on more varied feedback.

I'm not sure why some think a private conversation will be more convincing. We've seen this request in the past (I think from the same user). Some seem to keep forgetting that many of us used to hold their position so a private chat about where we used to be is hardly useful. In fact, even as a former Christian I would disagree with a great deal of what other Christian's and/or groups were going on about. It's not like a private chat is suddenly going to 'bring me to Jesus'. Unless of course that chat is with Jesus himself. Even then there would be some explaining to do

Maybe now we have more information to answer why... I think it's because they do not want their flawed and/or faith-based thinking truly exposed in the wild?

If he really thought his arguments were sound, he would welcome them publicly; to convert more than just the person he is exchanging with... And yes, he should also know that a heated exchange usually does not get the opponent to convert Such exchanges are more-so useful for the ones watching or listening.

But I gave him a VERY EASY lay-up for conversion... One for which he failed miserably. It seems to always happen when you press a Christian's claims.

I asked him to pray for Jesus to contact me. And since Jesus has not, and likely will not --- operation failure.

[POI]

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.

Sure, whatever you say.

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.

If you are right and he is wrong, tell him that, not me.

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.

No thank you.

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?

No.

What we apprehend/infer is a funny thing, as it's not a choice... Hence, it looks like you have chosen to instead protect what you currently conclude...

Case/point: You could even be the most closed-minded person on the planet. Someone may tell you that your wife is cheating on you, and you rightfully do not believe them. You may or may not decide to allow this accuser to provide evidence, depending.... However, if given enough evidence, you too would have no choice but to apprehend/infer the same conclusion as the accuser -- for which you <currently> refuse or simply do not believe.

Seems you want to remain in your current apprehension/inference. Thus, you do not really want to have your current conclusion pressed/challenged too much. Because if you do, you may feel you have been 'bamboozled' by "voodoo". Meaning, you would have to believe it, because you cannot help what you infer/apprehend. This fear is due to indoctrination. which is very hard to shake...

I get it. 'God did it' is both simpler to comprehend, and more comforting to boot....

[We_Are_VENOM]

What's more a question is whether you understand how you've been fooled and misled by Hovind.

What's more of a question is, whether or not you understand that evolution is a hoax.

You may debate or not. It's up to you

You may/may not accept my challenge to an audio debate on these subjects (you've declined the challenge).

Its up to you.

but you have nothing it seems to press your case here.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

That is my case...and my case is pressed by way of every single household, every single farm, and every single zoo that have animals of which reproduced and brought forth after their kind(s)...you know, exactly how the Bible describes, and exactly what you see in any reproductive experiment you conduct..with NO exceptions.

That is my case.

It is you who has some realising to do, not us. We have already realised and understood.

I have also realized and understood; that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't.

Apparently, you all haven't had such an epiphany.

Sheer denial. You aren't making much of a case here.

My case; dogs produce dogs.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Seems you want to remain in your current apprehension/inference. Thus, you do not really want to have your current conclusion pressed/challenged too much.

You are correct.

When I say "I don't know", or "I haven't looked into it yet", then no, I do not want my conclusion pressed...which is why I am able to have full, in depth conversations and debates on stuff that I actually know, instead of stuff that I haven't dived much in to.

Despite my lack of full knowledge on the subject, I am informed enough to at least take a small stance on the issue, and that is where I stand and where I will remain standing until I see evidence that shifts in another direction.

So no, I don't like the constant prying on subjects that I just told you that I haven't had much research on.

But that isn't good enough for you, and if it isn't, then too bad...because my answer isn't changing.

Because if you do, you may feel you have been 'bamboozled' by "voodoo". Meaning, you would have to believe it, because you cannot help what you infer/apprehend. This fear is due to indoctrination. which is very hard to shake...

Sure, as if there isn't a hardcore, unwavering stance on evolution...which is a position that is presented and defended so rigorously that it comes across as a religion, which it actually is.

I get it. 'God did it' is both simpler to comprehend, and more comforting to boot....

I get it. "Nature did it" is simpler to comprehend and accept and more comforting to boot...because after all, nature doesn't care about you being actually accountable for your lustful actions.

But God does, so you'd (generally speaking) rather have a belief where you can live and be complete free of any grand, cosmic accountability for your actions.

Good luck with that one.