[...I agree that “we are all born atheists“ the same as we are all born a-scientists, a-philosophers, a-mathematicians etc. I just raised the possibility that in case of religion it might not be completely so, but not being a neuroscientist I cannot defend it. If you wish, you can “google“ yourself to the appropriate references...]
Posted by George, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:54:06 PM

Scientists, philosophers, mathematicians etc. choose their vocations, of their own free will, after their growth and development and early schooling is complete.

We are all born atheists, but religious indoctrination is forced upon the toddler/child before they have the cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine what they are being 'taught'. It's no accident that most children follow the religions of their parents, it is brainwashing, pure and simple.

I believe religion should be introduced at the same time as sex education, when the teens have developed the ability to think independently of their parents. But, that's what the religious are afraid of isn't it? That's why they indoctrinate a child who can barely walk or talk

Human Interest

Thank you for picking up where I left off. After George's attempt to extricate himself from his ludicrous comments I couldn't be bothered delineating the difference between vocation and indoctrination to any further extent. Another attempt to deflect the topic I suspect.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

- Siddartha Gautama, the Buddha

Written 500 years before Jesus, Mohamed and the rest. And demonstrates why religion needs to be taught as a general topic, rather than through cultural indoctrination.

George,

“…it could be used as an argument one way or the other: by an atheist defending his/her position as well as by a "theist" defending his/hers.”

Yes, the argument can be used both way, but not with legitimacy. This is because of the unequalness involved. Genes allow us to know of our eventual demise and genes supply the imagination to invent a safety net. Memes resulting from indoctrination, support the genes in their quest for survival.

We all possess the knowledge of our deaths and reasoned thinking cannot conclude, because we have a wish for it to do so, that it is true that there is a convenient escape clause. We also know that geographic location is the determiner of our beliefs and that the intensity of mememic input a considerable factor in their retention.

David

Boaz, I am in constant awe of your ability to write stuff like this with a straight face.

>>But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds<<

Or are you in fact rolling around on the floor, fully aware of the ridiculousness of you, a dyed-in-the-wool Christian evangelist, pointing the finger at people who "prefer not to change their mind".

Such a mind-boggling lack of self-awareness should be bottled.

>>The Gospel of John was compiled in the first century.. while eye witnesses were living (of which he was one)<<

That is known in the trade as a working hypothesis, Boaz.

It has its adherents, as do other theories and hypotheses.

"Who wrote John’s Gospel? James Charlesworth says, “The apostle Thomas.” Ben Witherington believes it was Lazarus. And Esther de Boer contends the author of John’s Gospel was Mary Magdalene. Many others believe the author was in fact a committee of unknown authors, editors, and redactors—the Johannine community" [Dr Andreas Kostenberger.]

No room for doubt, Boaz?

As for this staggering nugget of logic...

>>even you.. would find it difficult I feel to deny that the Church could not have emerged with the values it held without something rather miraculous occurring.. if ur fair minded that is.<<

That is totally circular.

I write about it, you act upon it, therefore what I write about must be factual.

Even you have to accept the futility of that sequence, Boaz, "if ur fair minded that is."

You will not be persuaded, will you, that there is the slightest skerrick of a possibility that you might be wrong? Or that further evidence unearthed in the future might cast doubt on your position?

That is what makes your statement so hilarious, and worth repeating.

>>But.. what does evidence mean to those who prefer not to change their minds<<

Have a doubt-free day.

Here we go again: “religious indoctrination is forced upon the toddler/child before they have the cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine what they are being 'taught'."

Though I have promised not to interfere any more, I cannot resist the temptation to repeat my earlier confession, namely that I myself am a victim of such indoctrination into, among other things, mathematics, having been "forced" as a toddler/child to count apples and bunnies before I had the “cognitive and developmental skills to critically examine“ what mathematics, science etc. are all about.

Fractelle,
Thanks for reminding us of the beautiful quote from Hermann Hesse's famous novel. It expresses a wisdom that everybody - including Christians as well as atheists - can only benefit from.

David,
Thank you for your views on what religion is all about, which - I can assure you - I would never call a result of indoctrination, illegitimate, or some other denigrating term, but will try to understand. As I mentioned in my previous reply to Fractelle, fortunately not all atheists are as intolerant as some, which, of course is true of Christians (and other mainstream denominations) as well.

That should also be our hope for coexistence in a civilised society: not that the "religious" will prevail over the "irreligious", or vice versa, but that tolerant and polite people will prevail on both sides.

George,

Let me assure you about Atheists. We are not intent on ‘prevailing’, we are suggesting (Some think strongly) that an even playing field is the way to go. As I have explained, this does not exist at the moment.

David