mhaze.

How you get it so wrong is, well, errrrrr, interesting.

Take the early days in the Atheist Census produced by Atheist Alliance International.

http://www.atheistcensus.com/

Look at the statistics for Pakistan. A very large proportion of the non-religious respondents were once Muslims.

Look at the USA figures and the non-religious came predominately from Christian roots.

It is repeated likewise in India with the Hindu religion, in Israel with Judaism, Thailand with Buddhism.

As I said, these are early-days figures but they are very indicative that geographical location on the planet produces the particular religious adherent. And how is that achieved; by parents, peers and culture.

The major religion in most countries is well known and they follow the above pattern.

Even though these religions are markedly different in outlook, practice and tradition, those who have chosen atheism from the pool of these religions have only one commonality. They are atheists because they accept there is no evidence for a god or gods.

Not having a religion, for that is how we are born, is the default position. Particular religions or sects within religions are an add-on by parents and culture.

You cannot indoctrinate children with atheism in a democratic society. You can supply all the information available and allow mature people to make the decision for themselves without coercion. And coercion is pretty well off the table as there are no underlying threats and promises that entice people to become atheists as there definitely is with most of the religions.

It would be true that in a predominately non-religious culture, most children when they mature would become non-religious. That is to be expected. But I can just about guarantee that the majority would remain non-religious even with missionaries running amok all over the place as long as they did not have access to children. Those choosing a religion as a mature adult would have the full support of atheists as long as they practiced it in private between consenting-adult and did not try to influence politics in an unrepresentative-manner.

I certainly hope you can see the difference now.

David

David, "Those choosing a religion as a mature adult would have the full support of atheists as long as they practiced it in private between consenting-adult and did not try to influence politics in an unrepresentative-manner.

I certainly hope you can see the difference now."

Difference?! Pot meet kettle. There is no difference between the authoritarians of atheism and the authoritarians of religion. There are botherers on both sides who are forever minding the business of others.

onthebeach,

Semel fatuo, semper morionem

David

David,

You are in need of anger management. Here you go, try to Feel Pretty,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmv3WlKa6U8

onthebeach,

Yes, most interesting, quite humorous, but irrelevant. One can proclaim all kinds of things guided by a lack of knowledge but when shown very clearly that they do have a lack of knowledge concerning those claims and this is done in a way that the average person can understand, repeatedly, and they still persist with the same erroneous claims, what description do you think would be fitting for them?

Your words thanks, a video response won't cut the mustard.

David

Every time I post in this thread, I tell myself it'll be the last since poor David is clearly beyond consideration of alternate views. Then I see his response and, when I've stopped laughing, I find myself wondering what new feats of logical contortions he might yet get up to.

Now we find out that in David's fantasy-land, we can prove that people are indoctrinated by their parents into belief in the supernatural because those people tend to take on the broad religion of their parents. Pakistani kids become muslims because of their parents. Christian kids become believers by being indoctrinated into Christianity.

Of course, kids also tend to take on the language of their parents proving in this fantasy-land that they are indoctrinated into it. Oh the humanity! If only those parents would leave the kids alone, they'd all speak Esperanto and the world would be so much better.

And kids in NSW tend to follow NRL while kids in Victoria tend to follow AFL. Clearly they are being indoctrinated by their parents and if left alone they'd all follow tiddly-winks.

Here's a thought...maybe kids just want to talk and they use the tool most available to them. Maybe kids are just sporty and follow the game most available to them. Maybe (some) kids have a proclivity toward belief and they use the tools most available to them.

/cont